5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

[NotABunny]

As I stated, comparing real world images, in similar circumstances (shot same day, same conditions, same ISO), you can clearly identify the 5Dmk2 image when placed next to the 7D image.

when shown side by side, the 7D images appear "grainier" and "noisier" at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than a similar photo taken by the 5Dmk2. The IQ in the 5Dmk2 simply looks superior to a given equivalent shot on from a 7D. If the reasons for this apparent image superiority are not due to pixel size/pixel noise and that pixel size has little to contribute the actual noise levels witnessed, then that knowledge is educating me and is most welcome.

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

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

 

[simonxu11]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

 

[libertyranger]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

That is awesome!! What forum?

 

[sublime LightWorks]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

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

I'd love a link to that discussion.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

As I stated, comparing real world images, in similar circumstances (shot same day, same conditions, same ISO), you can clearly identify the 5Dmk2 image when placed next to the 7D image.

when shown side by side, the 7D images appear "grainier" and "noisier" at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than a similar photo taken by the 5Dmk2. The IQ in the 5Dmk2 simply looks superior to a given equivalent shot on from a 7D. If the reasons for this apparent image superiority are not due to pixel size/pixel noise and that pixel size has little to contribute the actual noise levels witnessed, then that knowledge is educating me and is most welcome.

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

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

I'm hearing you....and thank you for the well written reply.

When you say "This is 2.56 times, meaning that it's log2( 2.56 ) = 1.35 stops cleaner. This is the expected difference.", I'm assuming you also meant to add "Given the same technology generation." Otherwise, without it, that would question why a sensor of the same size in another camera shows a different level of noise.

That said, if I understand what you are saying......

"Generally, given a sensor of the same size and technology level/generation, and operated at the same sensitivity level (ISO), the one that has more pixels (smaller pixel size) will demonstrate a visibly lower level of noise in comparison to its larger (fewer) pixel sibling. The pixel size is not a factor in the noise generated, but the greater number of pixels in the same sensor area has the effect of reducing the overall level of noise in the captured image."

That about right?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

D800 ISO test from ISO50-ISO25600
http://info.xitek.com/pzreview/hwtest/201202/14-75122.html

I cannnot find an English version although the website above claims it is from facebook

First pic is ISO3200, second is ISO6400

@6400 is very useable to my eyes

How can you tell when they are downsized to 2MP?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

Haha, well my point about them having been too downsized to be able to tell anything is now entirely moot.
Even if they had been it still would be hard to tell, even if they were full 36MP and from the D800, who knows about lighting, exposure, processing, etc. But any it's all moot haha.

 

[simonxu11]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

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

I'd love a link to that discussion.

If you guys can read Chinese

 

[DBCdp]

Wow! The arguments that go on and on comparing the 7D to the 5D MkII. I owned the 5D, 7D, and 5D MkII at the same time. Used all 3 in weddings. The 5D Classic had cleaner images than the 7D right up to 1600 ISO. The 7D simply does not compare in image quality to the 5's, either of them. Which is why I will be passing my 7D on and getting either another 5D MkII or the new 5D? in the next week, announced or not.

I just looked at hundreds of pictures today, thinking new glass might be my best bet, and the final result of that is that the 7 just simply doesn't take the clarity of pictures I've come to expect from the full frame cameras. Period. And of course, that's my opinion based on the camera bodies I had in my hands, so anyone else's experience may differ from mine. But even at sporting events in broad daylight, the images from the 7 just didn't have that crystal clear you-were-there look to them that has become my standard.

 

[EchoLocation]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

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

I'd love a link to that discussion.

If you guys can read Chinese

My Fiance is Chinese. I need to see this if you have a link. I can get some good translations in later if you have a link.
Sounds epic.

 

[simonxu11]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed!
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

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

I'd love a link to that discussion.

If you guys can read Chinese

My Fiance is Chinese. I need to see this if you have a link. I can get some good translations in later if you have a link.
Sounds epic.

I have deleted the link!

The guy who did this has apologized to all forum members, so if you got the link please don't post to other forums. Thanks

 

[jwong]

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

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

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