6DII Sensor: Estimated high ISO IQ advantage over 5DIV?

[LonelyBoy]

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on all things quantum.

Even if the 5D-IV and 6D-II are based on the same generation of silicon technology and both would be using on-sensor-ADC:
i) the color filter arrays (CFA) could be different, and
ii) the AA-filter strength could be different

A less stringent CFA will allow more light gathering at the cost of color accuracy
A weaker AA filter means faints are not spread across as many pixels so more likely to generate a detectable signal on a specific pixel rather than spreading thinly across many adjacent pixels.

True. A thicker CFA just factors into the QE of the sensor (or at least, many lump it into that term). The 1Ds3 had relatively poor high ISO performance but a very strong CFA.

Which way did the 1D3 go? I've always loved the output from that sensor; it somehow looks very clear and smooth compared to others before and since.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

We will not know about the sensor until some accurate tests are done.

Be very wary about claimed specifications by manufacturers. Canon specifies High ISO settings based on jpeg files. A bit faster processor can process more noise reduction, and make it appear that the high ISO performance is better, when its just more NR.

The RAW performance is closer to the actual sensor performance, but it is also influences by on sensor noise reduction circuitry. There is no such thing as straight off the photosites, there is always noise reduction involved.

 

[unfocused]

1) We know how the 1DXII sensor performs at high ISO
2) We know how the 5DIV sensor performs at high ISO

These represent the top range and the bottom range for Canon's current generation of full frame sensors.

There is virtually no perceptible difference between the performance of these two sensors.

So, why would anyone expect that the 6DII sensor will fall anywhere except between these two sensors?

There just isn't much space between those sensors, so anything other than maybe a quarter of a stop difference seems pretty unlikely.

 

[bdunbar79]

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on all things quantum.

Even if the 5D-IV and 6D-II are based on the same generation of silicon technology and both would be using on-sensor-ADC:
i) the color filter arrays (CFA) could be different, and
ii) the AA-filter strength could be different

A less stringent CFA will allow more light gathering at the cost of color accuracy
A weaker AA filter means faints are not spread across as many pixels so more likely to generate a detectable signal on a specific pixel rather than spreading thinly across many adjacent pixels.

True. A thicker CFA just factors into the QE of the sensor (or at least, many lump it into that term). The 1Ds3 had relatively poor high ISO performance but a very strong CFA.

Which way did the 1D3 go? I've always loved the output from that sensor; it somehow looks very clear and smooth compared to others before and since.

Interestingly, Canon's APS-H sensors were very good. The 1D4 nearly matches the 5D3 at all ISO's and actually is a little better at the high ISO end. I'm guessing there was less read noise.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

But I will take your word that dual pixel is performing well in the dark. I'm still concerned with what's happening below ISO 6400...

I don't see it at any ISO, Yueng - across the range, I see better results from my Dual Pixel bodies than anything I've owned previously.

Not saying it's because of Dual Pixel, my point is that I'm not seeing any of the negative impact from the technology that Mt. Spokane speaks about.

My comment was not intended to mean that DPAF is a negative, but that improvements to high ISO were not happening as they usually do with a new sensor, so do not expect a big boost in high ISO sensitivity, it did not happen on the 1DX II or the 5D MK IV, they are pretty much the same as far as High ISO's go. However, the on-chip A-D converter gives increased DR at lower ISO settings, and overall, DPAF is a very good thing and highly desirable.

AS far as low light autofocus using DPAF, I believe that it has a very good reputation.

I am leaning toward ordering a 6D MK II primarily because of DPAF.

 

[Ozarker]

Huge. Massive. No one will ever buy a 5DIV because the 6DII image quality will be so vastly superior.

8)

Or not...

But don't forget. Canon has to protect the 6D II from being cannibalized by the sensor crippled 5D IV.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Interestingly, Canon's APS-H sensors were very good. The 1D4 nearly matches the 5D3 at all ISO's and actually is a little better at the high ISO end. I'm guessing there was less read noise.

I wish they could still be had, maybe in the 7D line, but apparently it's too much trouble to make three sizes. Still though, there's a look to the 1D3 images that I find even more pleasing than similarly-resized 1D4/ 1DX/ 1DX2 images that I can't put my finger on.

 

[Don Haines]

Estimated advantage? 2percent better? We are getting pretty far along the curve to diminishing returns and the days of big jumps between sensors is over...... short of a disruptive technology......

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Estimated advantage? 2percent better?

Or 200% better, or 20% worse, or any other arbitrary guesstimate. Pixel count has precisely no bearing on high ISO performance (except in the sense that empirically, more pixels = better high ISO performance).

This has demonstrably been true for years, and years, and years.

 

[StudentOfLight]

We also don't know if and subsequently how Dual-pixel RAW might be implemented. If the new sensor is able to allow dual-pixel dual-ISO operation then you could have better highlight retention at high ISO which could be useful in some shooting conditions.

 

[Talys]

I suspect that for practical purposes, it won't be very noticeable one way or the other. My guess (which could be wrong, of course) is that the main distinguishing factors between 5D4 and 6D2 will be the non-IQ features that are very important to some, like better weathersealing versus articulating screen, memory card slots, controls, etc.

On the other hand, I imagine we'll probably see core imaging enhancements that are meaningful, at least to some, in 5D4's successor. More pixels would be good, of course, support for some future super expensive but faster SD cards, 4K video, et cetera.

I think (hope?) that I'll be very happy with 6D2 IQ, and that in conjunction with 80D, this will meet most of my shooting requirements for this technology cycle (a few years).