July 28, 2014, 03:44:20 PM

Author Topic: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon  (Read 77417 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #405 on: October 22, 2012, 11:05:44 AM »
I would like to know if some other camera has better IQ than mine all else being equal. Just to be aware. Am trying to learn..

Yes, some other camera has better IQ than yours.  Several others, in fact.  It does depend, of course, on how you define 'better'.  DxOMark doesn't define it, for me.

I have no clue about DxO. Never been to their site and do not know enough technical stuff to understand complex charts etc. I do know what 'better' IQ to me means: Lesser noise, crisper image BOTH at high and 100 ISO, Dynamic range (within reason, depending upon the current technology and the lighting) which helps me avoid clipped whites and dead blacks, sharpest results from sensors of the same size in production.
Am I going to be shot for saying these things?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #405 on: October 22, 2012, 11:05:44 AM »

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #406 on: October 22, 2012, 04:07:53 PM »
Am I going to be shot for saying these things?

Depends, Do you lust after the D800 ?

EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

well_dunno

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #407 on: October 22, 2012, 06:11:20 PM »
Am I going to be shot for saying these things?

Depends, Do you lust after the D800 ?

LOL

PVS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #408 on: October 22, 2012, 07:17:54 PM »
nice side by side (literally) comparison between D600 and 5Dmk3:
Small | Large

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #409 on: October 24, 2012, 11:07:52 AM »
Am I going to be shot for saying these things?

Depends, Do you lust after the D800 ?

Hahahahaha. No I dont lust D800 but if it does have 'better' IQ, then I want Canon to provide me that quality and more in their next 'release'...

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1781
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #410 on: October 27, 2012, 08:10:02 PM »
Am I going to be shot for saying these things?

Depends, Do you lust after the D800 ?

Hahahahaha. No I dont lust D800 but if it does have 'better' IQ, then I want Canon to provide me that quality and more in their next 'release'...
But then Nikon will probably produce something even better and then Canon people will remain dissatisfied.
It is a never ending game. We can count on this...

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #411 on: October 28, 2012, 11:51:02 AM »
But then Nikon will probably produce something even better and then Canon people will remain dissatisfied.
It is a never ending game. We can count on this...

Well, Sony *might* produce a better sensor, but Exmor is already taking advantage of just about everything an 180nm process has to offer. If Canon moves to a 180nm process of their own, and starts using new tech like lightpipes and multi-layer microlenses and low-noise electronics, it could not only bring Canon up to Exmor quality, but it would level the playing field for the foreseeable future. The move to 180nm processes from 500nm is still relatively new, having only really first occurred a few years ago. It'll be some time before everyone moves to the next process shrink.

The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. That won't really revolutionize IQ, but it will create much smaller, integrated packages for small sensors that can be used in phones and the like, making it even more cost effective to manufacture such devices.
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #411 on: October 28, 2012, 11:51:02 AM »

x-vision

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #412 on: October 28, 2012, 02:15:04 PM »
The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. That won't really revolutionize IQ ...

Maybe not revolutionize but will constitute the next major step in performance.

The big thing about the stacked/3D design is that the circuitry layer can be made ... cheaply ... on a state-of-the-art chipmaking process (say 45nm).
This will allow the integration of sophisticated on-sensor signal processing (per-pixel ADCs, dual conversion gain, etc.) - and in turn better overall sensor performance, which might prove impossible to match by a 'standard' sensor.

So, the stacked/3D design has a lot of promise, actually.
And unlike current BSI techologies, it will be much more cost-effective to scale to DSLR sensors.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 02:21:39 PM by x-vision »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #413 on: April 19, 2013, 02:34:53 AM »
The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. That won't really revolutionize IQ ...

Maybe not revolutionize but will constitute the next major step in performance.

The big thing about the stacked/3D design is that the circuitry layer can be made ... cheaply ... on a state-of-the-art chipmaking process (say 45nm).
This will allow the integration of sophisticated on-sensor signal processing (per-pixel ADCs, dual conversion gain, etc.) - and in turn better overall sensor performance, which might prove impossible to match by a 'standard' sensor.

So, the stacked/3D design has a lot of promise, actually.
And unlike current BSI techologies, it will be much more cost-effective to scale to DSLR sensors.

Sorry, but I highly doubt stacked IC design will allow per-pixel ADC. Per-pixel ADC, just like any other per-pixel circuitry, would need to be PART OF THE PIXEL. That would have to be done on the sensor die, right on the photodiode. That would consume diode space, reducing FWC, which would have an impact on IQ. That is assuming an ADC could even FIT...they are much more complex than something like per-pixel CDS or a basic amplifier, which is a very simple thing in comparison.

I am not really sure what you would gain with per-pixel ADC over what Sony already achieved with per-column ADC anyway...Exmor's readout is about as clean as it is going to get without a more direct way of reducing dark current noise, which at this point is best done with very significant active cooling (i.e. peltier and a highly effective heat removal system, say copper heatsink and copper heat pipes, for freezing or sub-zero temperatures). Exmor already eliminated the downstream components that introduce noise, those being high frequency circuitry, such as a clock generator or PLL.
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 696
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #414 on: April 19, 2013, 06:34:03 AM »
nice side by side (literally) comparison between D600 and 5Dmk3: http://youtu.be/Ot7aMeUmojY


Eyes roll....wow a guy with a video camera, web access and a pair of DSLR's....claiming to make an informed review.

Ok...here we go...he compares a 5DIII size against a D600....where the 5DIII has the optional grip...hullo?
Then makes a further eyes roll statement....the Nikon has dual SD card slots...which Canon doesn't have...when ever has an SD card been a cool thing compared to Compact Flash???
The Nikon has a pop up flash.....OH COME ON.....5 mins of my life wasted on this muppet.....

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #415 on: April 19, 2013, 12:23:04 PM »
The next major innovation from Sony is to combine the image processing logic with the sensor die using a "3D" layered die attachment process. That won't really revolutionize IQ ...

Maybe not revolutionize but will constitute the next major step in performance.

The big thing about the stacked/3D design is that the circuitry layer can be made ... cheaply ... on a state-of-the-art chipmaking process (say 45nm).
This will allow the integration of sophisticated on-sensor signal processing (per-pixel ADCs, dual conversion gain, etc.) - and in turn better overall sensor performance, which might prove impossible to match by a 'standard' sensor.

So, the stacked/3D design has a lot of promise, actually.
And unlike current BSI techologies, it will be much more cost-effective to scale to DSLR sensors.

Sorry, but I highly doubt stacked IC design will allow per-pixel ADC. Per-pixel ADC, just like any other per-pixel circuitry, would need to be PART OF THE PIXEL. That would have to be done on the sensor die, right on the photodiode. That would consume diode space, reducing FWC, which would have an impact on IQ. That is assuming an ADC could even FIT...they are much more complex than something like per-pixel CDS or a basic amplifier, which is a very simple thing in comparison.

I am not really sure what you would gain with per-pixel ADC over what Sony already achieved with per-column ADC anyway...Exmor's readout is about as clean as it is going to get without a more direct way of reducing dark current noise, which at this point is best done with very significant active cooling (i.e. peltier and a highly effective heat removal system, say copper heatsink and copper heat pipes, for freezing or sub-zero temperatures). Exmor already eliminated the downstream components that introduce noise, those being high frequency circuitry, such as a clock generator or PLL.

nope, you have 2 layers so the fil factor will not be hurt, there are papers describing how it can be done

I've read the papers. The layers are not linked directly to the pixels. The sensor layer still has the readout circuitry, which then pipes that information to an image processor via a bus...it is just that the bus is directly integrated into the package, rather than being off the die and requiring transfer across significantly greater distances to some other off-die processor. I've seen no patents or papers that describe directly linking pixels to the packaged processing layer.

active cooling gives in long exposures a noticeable  better result and it is exposures  with several sec up to  minutes .
Nothing we common user have a big benefit from  except astro photographer
all sensors has a cooling with heatsink today

In a sensor that introduces no downstream noise, such as Exmor, the primary source of noise is dark current. A heat sink is a PASSIVE cooling device. I am talking about an ACTIVE cooling device...such as a small peltier. Even though Exmor introduces practically zero downstream noise (the ADC introduces practically none as all the high frequency components are located away from the CP-ADC circuitry), it still has about 3e- read noise. That noise contribution comes from dark current in the sensor itself, and is the remnant that CDS is not correcting for. The only way to eliminate that is to cool the sensor. CMOS efficiency seems to reach its peak at about -80°C, at which point noise from dark current is ~200x LOWER than at room temperature. Cool the sensor, and the 13.23 stops of DR the D800 has would likely approach the theoretical maximum...say 13.999 stops of DR. That is another 2/3rds of a stop, which is still significant enough to be useful. It may be most useful for astrophotographers, but I figure I could use 20 stops of DR at least for my landscape photography...I'd still happily take the extra 2/3rds of a stop that a supercooled sensor would give me. That would also make a higher bit depth that much more viable...a 16-bit ADC on a sensor with active cooling...I see no reason why you couldn't get 15.9 stops of DR.

I don't foresee a peltier being used in a consumer device any time soon...the power requirements are more in line with using a fuel cell than a battery. But, actively moving heat away from the sensor rather than just with a passive heatsink would still introduce efficiency gains, and reduce dark current noise that CDS cannot compensate for.
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #416 on: April 19, 2013, 08:32:13 PM »
no, it is not Sony, it is from  a 140 side pdf  where the different future  sensors are discussed by  people in  the sensor development  lead by Eric Fossum and Alber Theuwissen , Im not with my main computer, try to find the link later.

dark current are not the major problem in the canon sensor and compared to others and  if you use  normal exposure times  and not  a serie of several seconds and minutes, then all sensors  needs to cool down, the main problem is late stage electronic noise in Canon therefore the inferior DR in Canon and at base iso
you have  therefore misunderstood the situation with Canon sensors and base iso and   the weakness.

You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about high ISO. High ISO is greatly benefited by a high full well capacity and high quantum efficiency. Full well capacity is affected by two key things: total photodiode area and dark current leakage. The former can only be achieved with either a process shrink (this allowing all the circuitry for logic and readout to consume less diode space) or larger pixels. The latter is affected by temperature. Dark current leakage increases exponentially with temperature. Just lowering a sensor from 70°c to 50°c can cause a fairly significant improvement in quantum efficiency.

The efficiency of a photodiode to convert incident photons into free electrons (charge) can be critical to improving high ISO SNR. High ISO images are noisy not because the ISO setting itself introduces noise, but simply because a signal with a lower SNR is being amplified, and the noise already present in the signal is being amplified. We throw away the vast majority of light that passes through the lens, and only keep a small percentage...less than 20% in all consumer and professional grade cameras today. Of the light that passes through the lens and actually reaches the sensor, only about 30-40% makes it through the CFA, and with the average Q.E. of a CIS being around 40-50%, we throw away at least half of that! Even small increases in quantum efficiency can improve the signal level at HIGHER ISO settings. Ironically, a very high Q.E. might be counter-intuitive for low ISO settings as it could allow the sensor to saturate too fast, so one might need variable cooling in a sensor designed for optimal high and low ISO performance. The point is, however, that cooling the sensor to improve its efficiency (i.e. reduce dark current leakage caused by thermal factors) is all about improving the maximum potential signal at higher ISO settings.

My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13590
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #417 on: April 19, 2013, 08:47:12 PM »
You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about high ISO.

I think we've pretty well established that there are some people (e.g., Mikael/ankorwatt) and organizations (e.g., DxO) who believe that DR at ISO 100 is the only thing that's relevant.  In my case, it might even be relevant....for the 17% of my shots that are at ISO 100.  ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #417 on: April 19, 2013, 08:47:12 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #418 on: April 19, 2013, 10:13:07 PM »
You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about high ISO.

I think we've pretty well established that there are some people (e.g., Mikael/ankorwatt) and organizations (e.g., DxO) who believe that DR at ISO 100 is the only thing that's relevant.  In my case, it might even be relevant....for the 17% of my shots that are at ISO 100.  ::)

I doubt it. You can digitally push 5DIII ISO 100 RAW files a half dozen stops and still get clean images with just a very modest amount of NR. I'm sure the 1DX fares even better.

You don't strike me as the type to accidentally underexpose your shots by a half dozen stops, or who wants to turn completely blocked below-Zone-I shadows into highlights....

Cheers,

b&

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3741
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #419 on: April 20, 2013, 12:43:29 AM »
You are misunderstanding my argument. I know exactly why Canon has poor low ISO DR. I am not talking about low ISO, I'm talking about high ISO.

I think we've pretty well established that there are some people (e.g., Mikael/ankorwatt) and organizations (e.g., DxO) who believe that DR at ISO 100 is the only thing that's relevant.  In my case, it might even be relevant....for the 17% of my shots that are at ISO 100.  ::)

*Sigh* I don't really know why I continue to argue the point. I know its pointless...
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« Reply #419 on: April 20, 2013, 12:43:29 AM »