2015 & 5DIV? Experts: what can be expected of a probable 5DIV in high iso IQ?

[pedro]

Note: I might have started a similar thread on this topic quite some moons ago. I am a no tech guy who is not familiar with the common technical terms and funcionality descriptions. Anyway, according to the last months and announcements, what is feasable in the high ISO IQ above 25k quality wise concerning the last evoluationary steps by Canon?
Sensorarchitecture surely will be a crucial if not essential component along with pixel count, etc. Hope it remains in the low 20s e.g. 24 MP max.
Thank you for any prognostical note from our technically more advanced fora participants!
Regards, Peter.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

 

[pedro]

okay. whatever improvement in high ISO will be fine. As incremental as it might be.

 

[tayassu]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

+1
I don't know what the highest ISO improvement ever was with Canon DSLR's... maybe 2/3-1 stop? Don't expect too much...

 

[Maiaibing]

I'm not holding my breath but sensor tech has developed visibly since the 5DIII (I do not agree with those who think its a fully mature technology, there's lots of room for improvements).

So I do hope that a 5DIV will at least match the new Nikon and hopefully be a little better (as it should be if the price range is anything like for the 5DIII).

This would imply something in the range of 1 stop improvement over the 5DIII. Maybe too much to hope for - but it would be great.

 

[Helios68]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

+1
I don't know what the highest ISO improvement ever was with Canon DSLR's... maybe 2/3-1 stop? Don't expect too much...

+2
ISO performance would just be at max. 1-stop better

 

[andrewflo]

I think I agree with everyone that we can probably expect 1/3 stop improvement. Especially judging by the 7DII.

But some tests show that the 6D has a little less than 1/3 stop improvement over the 5DIII. Albeit the 6D is 4mp less than the 5DIII, I'm curious if the extra advancement in sensor tech helped the 6D in this regard.

 

[telemaq76]

older camera like 1ds2 or 1ds3 are so much better in low iso...5d3 is really bad in iso-100.
I want a new camera with good low-iso, they are already good in high-iso.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Sensor technology that we see in a new camera model tends to be about 2 years old due to the time it takes for tooling, testing, and production. Its probably older than that.

The latest technology is in R&D, and will take another two or more years to become reality.

Since the efficiency of sensors to light is approaching the theoretical limits, improvements will come thru on chip noise reduction, which is difficult to achieve.

I'd look for the next generation multi layer sensors to make a appearance, but its not clear if they are yet ready to produce.

It seems much more likely that we will see 50MP dual pixel sensors and improved live autofocus. A very small incremental noise reduction 1/3-1/2 stop can be hoped for.

Rear illuminated technology should be making a appearance as well, it holds benefits for fast frame rate video.

My lenses are ready for 50MP sensors, but I have my doubts about computers and software, at least ordinary computers.

A lot depends on the success of the 7D MK II, and its sales. Digital cameras are not selling well, and profits are being squeezed. It takes a huge amount of money to design, tool, and produce a new camera model, so a payback is key to any major improvements.

While the initial orders for the 7D MK II are strong, it remains to be seen how strong follow up sales will be. Many buyers are not going to pump $4K or more into a new FF model unless its a major upgrade. A option is to follow Nikon's example, with a rebadge, and relatively easy software and processor upgrades, but not adding anything that takes a big investment. It grabs business from those that want the latest and greatest without the huge costs of a major new model. That may very well become the new business model as Camera Technology matures and sales slow down.

 

[Tugela]

The 5D4 will come with DPAF with the same sensor resolution and dual DIGIC 6 processors. Otherwise the specs will be the same as the old camera, except that it will be able to do mushy 1080p60 instead of mushy 1080p30 video. No touchscreen. No nothing. To get the true potential from the camera you will have to wait for some hacker living in his mom's basement in Russia or some other dubious third world dump to upgrade the software to get half decent results. Very professional Canon!!

It will be spun as a ground breaking video solution in the same innovative streak as the model T, something only the executives at Canon HQ will actually believe.

 

[tron]

Albeit the 6D is 4mp less than the 5DIII

2 mp not 4 (20 vs 22).

 

[slclick]

I do not seriously think any 'Expert' expects a 5D3 replacement in the next year.

 

[cayenne]

older camera like 1ds2 or 1ds3 are so much better in low iso...5d3 is really bad in iso-100.
I want a new camera with good low-iso, they are already good in high-iso.

I may be wrong, but I"d heard that the 5D3's "native" resolution is 160....that you get better images at 160 than 100?

cayenne

 

[docsmith]

High ISO IQ....I am hopeful for 1/3-1/2 stop improvement from improvements to the microlenses/etc. I am very interested to see how much of the improvements to the 7DII are due to this and not the actual sensor. I wonder how much of an improvement we would see by removing the bayer filter altogether.

Then I am hopeful for ~1/2 stop improvement in QE. Right now Canon is ~50% QE. If we can get into the 75-85% range, that would be remarkable.

I wonder how much improvement can be gained at high ISO from things like onchip digical converters. I think that would help low ISO a lot, but I haven't seen any speculation on high ISO.

So, maybe up to a stop improvement? Maybe.

 

[zim]

older camera like 1ds2 or 1ds3 are so much better in low iso...5d3 is really bad in iso-100.
I want a new camera with good low-iso, they are already good in high-iso.

I may be wrong, but I"d heard that the 5D3's "native" resolution is 160....that you get better images at 160 than 100?

cayenne

I seem to recall a thread on here recently which showed a graph spiking at 160/320 ect (in a good way) but I'd love a definitive answer to this as well.

Regards

 

[jrista]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

If Canon does not change their overall architecture, I agree...1/3rd stop at best. The A7s is an indication of what's possible, and it's more than two stops better than the 1D X at ISO 51200. If Canon improves their overall architecture, I really hope we see at least a 2-stop improvement across the board, low and high ISO.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

If Canon does not change their overall architecture, I agree...1/3rd stop at best. The A7s is an indication of what's possible, and it's more than two stops better than the 1D X at ISO 51200. If Canon improves their overall architecture, I really hope we see at least a 2-stop improvement across the board, low and high ISO.

You say 2 whole stops of noise at high ISO?
Are you sure you were not talking about 2 stops of DR? ???

 

[jrista]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

If Canon does not change their overall architecture, I agree...1/3rd stop at best. The A7s is an indication of what's possible, and it's more than two stops better than the 1D X at ISO 51200. If Canon improves their overall architecture, I really hope we see at least a 2-stop improvement across the board, low and high ISO.

You say 2 whole stops of noise at high ISO?
Are you sure you were not talking about 2 stops of DR? ???

DR, lower noise. Same thing. We're primarily talking photon shot noise here. Assuming you have a perfect system...one that does not introduce any read noise, then more dynamic range or lower photon shot noise, there is no difference. It's the same thing, because dynamic range is the ratio between the maximum signal power and noise level. Read noise is just additive with photon shot noise, so it's the same thing in the end...lower noise, higher DR...same thing.


Keep in mind...noise is a random, undesired deviation from the proper, correct sample value. It's a range itself, +/- X, around the correct signal value. At higher signal power, that +/- X becomes less significant, so at higher ISO, increasing your maximum signal power becomes increasingly important. This has nothing to do with shadow pushing anymore...it has to do with overall signal quality. This is why pixel size becomes increasingly important at very high ISO settings, where as it is not really important at all at low ISO settings...at low ISO settings, there is (usually, assuming you expose properly) plenty of light, and it's read noise that becomes the most dominant source of noise. Bigger pixels gather more light, it's basically real-time averaging, like downsampling an image, only at the time the image is created.


At higher ISO settings, read noise drops to effectively imperceptible levels. Once your at ~3e- or lower, read noise is pretty trivial (so if you start out at 3e- at base ISO, like the D810, your doing really freaking good!) Photon shot noise completely dominates, and the weaker the signal, the more dominant noise will be. That is where the A7s pulls ahead of everything else right now for overall signal performance across all ISO settings. It has great low ISO DR (not the best, but excellent, at 12.9 stops), but it has the signal strength at high ISO to produce better images. It's got a maximum saturation (signal strength) of 323e- at ISO 51200, paired with a phenomenal read noise level of 0.7e-. In contrast, the 1D X has a max. sat. of 163e- at ISO 51200, paired with a still great, but still more DR-diminishing than the A7s, read noise level of 1.7e-. The A7s has twice the signal power and less than half the read noise. Ignoring the read noise entirely...you still have twice the signal strength, which in and of itself is a full stop improvement.


Also keep in mind, noise levels are additive. The 0.7e-/1.7e- RN levels are primarily additive with photon shot noise, and with the signal itself...so again, those read noise levels affect the whole signal, not just the shadows.


So, it doesn't matter what you call it, really. Lower noise, higher DR...same difference. It all means a better image in the end.

 

[mycanonphotos]

I wouldn't mind it having the same ISO but better Dynamic range. Weather or not its in the processing formula or ISO is the big question...Sensor, Processor, ISO...? no banding at high ISO's in dark areas...

 

[pedro]

The technology of image sensors is ripe, and we should expect small improvements. Something like 1/3 stop better seems quite realistic.

If Canon does not change their overall architecture, I agree...1/3rd stop at best. The A7s is an indication of what's possible, and it's more than two stops better than the 1D X at ISO 51200. If Canon improves their overall architecture, I really hope we see at least a 2-stop improvement across the board, low and high ISO.

You say 2 whole stops of noise at high ISO?
Are you sure you were not talking about 2 stops of DR? ???

DR, lower noise. Same thing. We're primarily talking photon shot noise here. Assuming you have a perfect system...one that does not introduce any read noise, then more dynamic range or lower photon shot noise, there is no difference. It's the same thing, because dynamic range is the ratio between the maximum signal power and noise level. Read noise is just additive with photon shot noise, so it's the same thing in the end...lower noise, higher DR...same thing.


Keep in mind...noise is a random, undesired deviation from the proper, correct sample value. It's a range itself, +/- X, around the correct signal value. At higher signal power, that +/- X becomes less significant, so at higher ISO, increasing your maximum signal power becomes increasingly important. This has nothing to do with shadow pushing anymore...it has to do with overall signal quality. This is why pixel size becomes increasingly important at very high ISO settings, where as it is not really important at all at low ISO settings...at low ISO settings, there is (usually, assuming you expose properly) plenty of light, and it's read noise that becomes the most dominant source of noise. Bigger pixels gather more light, it's basically real-time averaging, like downsampling an image, only at the time the image is created.


At higher ISO settings, read noise drops to effectively imperceptible levels. Once your at ~3e- or lower, read noise is pretty trivial (so if you start out at 3e- at base ISO, like the D810, your doing really freaking good!) Photon shot noise completely dominates, and the weaker the signal, the more dominant noise will be. That is where the A7s pulls ahead of everything else right now for overall signal performance across all ISO settings. It has great low ISO DR (not the best, but excellent, at 12.9 stops), but it has the signal strength at high ISO to produce better images. It's got a maximum saturation (signal strength) of 323e- at ISO 51200, paired with a phenomenal read noise level of 0.7e-. In contrast, the 1D X has a max. sat. of 163e- at ISO 51200, paired with a still great, but still more DR-diminishing than the A7s, read noise level of 1.7e-. The A7s has twice the signal power and less than half the read noise. Ignoring the read noise entirely...you still have twice the signal strength, which in and of itself is a full stop improvement.


Also keep in mind, noise levels are additive. The 0.7e-/1.7e- RN levels are primarily additive with photon shot noise, and with the signal itself...so again, those read noise levels affect the whole signal, not just the shadows.


So, it doesn't matter what you call it, really. Lower noise, higher DR...same difference. It all means a better image in the end.

Thank you jrista for this detailled explanation! Will we ever come as close to such a great high ISO IQ as Sony demonstrates it, at the same or a similar price tag by Canon? I kinda doubt that, I guess they will ask another premium for that same thing... Sometimes I am pondering about purchasing a Sony A7s for the lowlight pics and keep with the 5D3 for the rest...