Do Sensors Make the Camera?

[jrista]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

People will want something that gives them a better image than their mobile phone.
The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.

There you have it, folks. Canon dSLRs don't provide images substantially better than a cell phone. That deserves an award!

I'd say that was a well-deserved award.

 

[Aglet]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Hi,

I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....

Even though I don't know a lot about electronics I'll go ahead and wade in to water over my head. While it may be easy to implement, it may have implications for the rest of the body. Presumably, more precise sampling will draw more power proportional to the increase in precision: more bits of A/D will mean more components, all of which draw power. Then the digital circuitry all the way from A/D to flash card has to be scaled-up to match which also draws more power. All of this also generates heat which must be dealt with. In my sophomoric opinion, this would result in slower framerate and heat issues for the sensor. And that's not even considering the effect on battery life. It's not impossible, but it's an extra set of engineering problems which incur greater cost, which affects retail cost and profit.

Also, why jump straight to 20 bit A/D when you can sell 14, then 16, then 17, then 18, then 19, then 20. 8)

Hmm... Pentax use 22-bits ADC many years ago... on the Pentax K10D, but the raw file is only 12-bits... then Pentax K20D use back the 14-bits ADC... just wonder why they change back to 14-bits??

Have a nice day.

I have a K-10D. It's a nice tool but unlikely to make use of 22 bit ADC, the noise floor is too high to matter.
I'm wondering if there was a misread quote somewhere in there (dpreview article) where the ADC may have been a more moderate number of bits but 22 bits worth of processing precision were used?..
That said, I really like the color I can get out of that camera when it comes to subjects like deeply saturated flowers. That and that I got a mint condition body for peanuts. ;D

 

[Keith_Reeder]

"Do Sensors Make the Camera?"

No.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used.

The croppers are better than they're being given credit for.

This is a random 160 ISO 70D CR2 I picked up off the web somewhere.

And this is how it looks (white balance not addressed) with the shadows slider pushed to 100 and a stop of +ve EC added in Capture One - about 5 stops in total on the shadows. Default NR, no other changes made.

Looks OK, doesn't it? All the detail that was hidden in shadow is there.

Here is a 100% before crop; and here's after.

Nothing much wrong with this. Yes, there's a little bit of "texture" where the shadows were darkest; but the detail is all there and there's no pattern noise.

Pointedly, it's not at all far from what the "magic" Sony sensors are capable of...

 

[jakeymate]

Here is how I see it these days. The camera is a tool. That's all it is. Some people will say, it's 99% the photographer, 1% the camera. I personally don't believe that. The photographer can't do anything without a camera. Similarly, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will free that photographer from potential limitations, giving them the ability to create better photography.

So here is how I look at it. Is the camera you have now limiting you in some way? If so, you might want to figure out which camera out there will free you from those limitations. Are you limited by the AF system? Canon currently has the best on the market, and the 7D II might be coming with an even better one than the 5D III and 1D X have. Are you limited by the sensor? Canon sensors are good, and at high ISO it generally doesn't matter who's sensor your using, but if you need the best low ISO IQ, then Sony sensors are better. Are the lenses you have resolving the kind of detail you expect? Entry-level kit lenses only take you so far. Upgrading to any L-series Canon prime, and most of their longer zoom lenses, will give you some of the best IQ on the planet. For wide angle zoom lenses, you might want to look to Sigma, or if you need that low ISO DR, a Nikon D800/810/600 and their ultra wide angle zooms will serve you best.

Pick the tool that will eliminate the thing that is limiting you, that is preventing you from progressing and improving the quality of your work. If you don't know what's limiting you, then your probably not limited. Stick with what you have, and keep pushing the envelope until you know without question that something with your current kit is holding you back.

That's always been my approach. I started with a 450D, the 18-55 kit, and a 100mm macro. I first "graduated" to a 16-35mm L II for landscapes. Then I "graduated" again to a 100-400mm L and 7D for birds and wildlife. I then made a quantum leap to the EF 600mm f/4 L II to remove the 100-400 L as a limiting factor. I recently moved to a 5D III and a 1.4x and 2x TC III, along with the 600/4, to remove the 7D as a limiting factor. For my landscapes, I've recently found the 5D III to be very wanting in the low ISO IQ department, and my next upgrade will probably be a Nikon D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8 (unless, by some miracle, Canon releases a camera with some incredible improvements in low ISO DR and a nice big boost to total megapixel count within the next few months here...if they do, I'd prefer to stick within the brand; I don't really expect that to happen, and Nikon has what I need right now...so I see no reason to let the brand difference hold me back).

Far and away the best 4 paragraphs I've seen on here in a very long time.

Balanced, broadly accurate (IMHO) and I'd challenge anyone to argue with it, who is familiar and experienced with more than just one system.

The only question is, what on earth is it doing on this forum?

Only joking

 

[jrista]

The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used.

The croppers are better than they're being given credit for.

This is a random 160 ISO 70D CR2 I picked up off the web somewhere.

And this is how it looks (white balance not addressed) with the shadows slider pushed to 100 and a stop of +ve EC added in Capture One - about 5 stops in total on the shadows. Default NR, no other changes made.

Looks OK, doesn't it? All the detail that was hidden in shadow is there.

Here is a 100% before crop; and here's after.

Nothing much wrong with this. Yes, there's a little bit of "texture" where the shadows were darkest; but the detail is all there and there's no pattern noise.

Pointedly, it's not at all far from what the "magic" Sony sensors are capable of...

The thing your missing is that detail buried in "shadow" isn't the problem. It's detail buried in READ NOISE that's the problem. "Shadows" extend for hundreds to thousands of levels...read noise usually only intrudes a dozen or so levels into the deepest of shadows. It's those very deep shadows that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The image you edited is more along the lines of this:

Being lifted to this with a +3 stop pull:

The "shadows" are not totally buried in the read noise...so they are nearly fully "recoverable". Which is a very far cry from this:

Being lifted to this with a +5 stop pull:

The detail here is not just "in shadow"...the detail is completely buried well into the noise floor on my 5D III sensor. It's near impossible to recover...it's riddled with red banding, and the noise level in the deeper shadows is two or three times what it is anywhere photon shot noise limited, as it'c compounded with dark current and various forms of noise caused by readout. It's these extra two stops...which, when you get right down to it, don't actually represent a ton of tonal levels...maybe 10-30 at most, if that...it's these deep shadow levels where the read noise exists that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The inevitable question that comes after I try to make this clarification (either when defending Canon, or when defending Exmor...these days it doesn't seem to matter), is: Why would you ever need those extra two stops? or How often do you actually have detail buried that deeply?

Sure, this isn't an every-day case. Some types of photography NEVER encounter a situation like this because they are always shot at higher ISO where DR is limited by physics. That said...even if the situation is a niche situation, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are...Canon sensors currently suffer about a two stop disadvantage or handicap compared to Exmor, and a one to two stop disadvantage compared to many other sensors on the market, such as the Toshiba sensors used in Nikon's D5000 line.

The next statement that is usually made is, the detail buried way down near the read noise floor in a Nikon RAW file can't possibly be clean, low noise, high color fidelity detail. Here are two images I downloaded way back around the time the D800 was released (shortly after the 5D III was released...about the time Fred Miranda wrote his review of both...I was looking for some real evidence to prove, either way, whether Exmor had better low ISO DR):

These two images, which are large (click on them for full size) show the exceptional quality of detail you can recover out of deep, black shadows.

The images were originally downloaded from here (although the link seems to be dead now):

http://www.3mille.com/docs/nikon-d800-raw-nef-samples-wide-tonal-range.zip



The difference between current Canon sensors, and an Exmor, is not "you can lift shadows". We've been lifting shadows for years. The difference between the two is that you can lift ultra deep shadows that would otherwise be buried in red-banded read noise on a Canon, by 5-6 stops on an Exmor...and STILL have decent color fidelity and clean, random noise.

If you need that kind of shadow recovery capability...and I stress IF, I still believe a majority of photographers tend to shoot some kind of action at higher ISO, in which case Canon sensors have a very small edge over Exmor sensors at higher ISO...then don't hold yourself back. Canon may release something that can do what a D800 could do over two years ago at some point...but why wait until that unknown future time, when you could solve your problem now with a Nikon, Sony, or Pentax (or any number of other cameras that use Exmor sensors)?

 

[jrista]

Here is how I see it these days. The camera is a tool. That's all it is. Some people will say, it's 99% the photographer, 1% the camera. I personally don't believe that. The photographer can't do anything without a camera. Similarly, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will free that photographer from potential limitations, giving them the ability to create better photography.

So here is how I look at it. Is the camera you have now limiting you in some way? If so, you might want to figure out which camera out there will free you from those limitations. Are you limited by the AF system? Canon currently has the best on the market, and the 7D II might be coming with an even better one than the 5D III and 1D X have. Are you limited by the sensor? Canon sensors are good, and at high ISO it generally doesn't matter who's sensor your using, but if you need the best low ISO IQ, then Sony sensors are better. Are the lenses you have resolving the kind of detail you expect? Entry-level kit lenses only take you so far. Upgrading to any L-series Canon prime, and most of their longer zoom lenses, will give you some of the best IQ on the planet. For wide angle zoom lenses, you might want to look to Sigma, or if you need that low ISO DR, a Nikon D800/810/600 and their ultra wide angle zooms will serve you best.

Pick the tool that will eliminate the thing that is limiting you, that is preventing you from progressing and improving the quality of your work. If you don't know what's limiting you, then your probably not limited. Stick with what you have, and keep pushing the envelope until you know without question that something with your current kit is holding you back.

That's always been my approach. I started with a 450D, the 18-55 kit, and a 100mm macro. I first "graduated" to a 16-35mm L II for landscapes. Then I "graduated" again to a 100-400mm L and 7D for birds and wildlife. I then made a quantum leap to the EF 600mm f/4 L II to remove the 100-400 L as a limiting factor. I recently moved to a 5D III and a 1.4x and 2x TC III, along with the 600/4, to remove the 7D as a limiting factor. For my landscapes, I've recently found the 5D III to be very wanting in the low ISO IQ department, and my next upgrade will probably be a Nikon D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8 (unless, by some miracle, Canon releases a camera with some incredible improvements in low ISO DR and a nice big boost to total megapixel count within the next few months here...if they do, I'd prefer to stick within the brand; I don't really expect that to happen, and Nikon has what I need right now...so I see no reason to let the brand difference hold me back).

Far and away the best 4 paragraphs I've seen on here in a very long time.

Balanced, broadly accurate (IMHO) and I'd challenge anyone to argue with it, who is familiar and experienced with more than just one system.

Thanks. Glad I could help.

The only question is, what on earth is it doing on this forum?

Only joking

Stick around here long enough...and you'll realize how apt that question is. I'm beginning to wonder why I write these things on these forums myself...

 

[FEBS]

Saying that the sensor makes the camera is as silly as claiming that the engine makes the car....

Point in case.... my brother has a 1969 Dodge charger with a 650HP engine. I drive a Mazda3 with a 150HP engine..... his car has 4 times the engine mine does, yet if we took the two of them to the local track (a nice road track with lots of twists and curves) I could run away from him with ease...

You have to look at the entire package in the context of what you want to do... you can not fixate on a single component.

Fully agree on this. A camera is not only a sensor, but also everything around. The AF system, the lenses, the reliability, ... Just like a cat you mentioned. It's not the HP that decides to win a race, but the overall performance of the car.

 

[pedro]

The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used.

The croppers are better than they're being given credit for.

This is a random 160 ISO 70D CR2 I picked up off the web somewhere.

And this is how it looks (white balance not addressed) with the shadows slider pushed to 100 and a stop of +ve EC added in Capture One - about 5 stops in total on the shadows. Default NR, no other changes made.

Looks OK, doesn't it? All the detail that was hidden in shadow is there.

Here is a 100% before crop; and here's after.

Nothing much wrong with this. Yes, there's a little bit of "texture" where the shadows were darkest; but the detail is all there and there's no pattern noise.

Pointedly, it's not at all far from what the "magic" Sony sensors are capable of...

The thing your missing is that detail buried in "shadow" isn't the problem. It's detail buried in READ NOISE that's the problem. "Shadows" extend for hundreds to thousands of levels...read noise usually only intrudes a dozen or so levels into the deepest of shadows. It's those very deep shadows that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The image you edited is more along the lines of this:

Being lifted to this with a +3 stop pull:

The "shadows" are not totally buried in the read noise...so they are nearly fully "recoverable". Which is a very far cry from this:

Being lifted to this with a +5 stop pull:

The detail here is not just "in shadow"...the detail is completely buried well into the noise floor on my 5D III sensor. It's near impossible to recover...it's riddled with red banding, and the noise level in the deeper shadows is two or three times what it is anywhere photon shot noise limited, as it'c compounded with dark current and various forms of noise caused by readout. It's these extra two stops...which, when you get right down to it, don't actually represent a ton of tonal levels...maybe 10-30 at most, if that...it's these deep shadow levels where the read noise exists that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The inevitable question that comes after I try to make this clarification (either when defending Canon, or when defending Exmor...these days it doesn't seem to matter), is: Why would you ever need those extra two stops? or How often do you actually have detail buried that deeply?

Sure, this isn't an every-day case. Some types of photography NEVER encounter a situation like this because they are always shot at higher ISO where DR is limited by physics. That said...even if the situation is a niche situation, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are...Canon sensors currently suffer about a two stop disadvantage or handicap compared to Exmor, and a one to two stop disadvantage compared to many other sensors on the market, such as the Toshiba sensors used in Nikon's D5000 line.

The next statement that is usually made is, the detail buried way down near the read noise floor in a Nikon RAW file can't possibly be clean, low noise, high color fidelity detail. Here are two images I downloaded way back around the time the D800 was released (shortly after the 5D III was released...about the time Fred Miranda wrote his review of both...I was looking for some real evidence to prove, either way, whether Exmor had better low ISO DR):

These two images, which are large (click on them for full size) show the exceptional quality of detail you can recover out of deep, black shadows.

The images were originally downloaded from here (although the link seems to be dead now):

http://www.3mille.com/docs/nikon-d800-raw-nef-samples-wide-tonal-range.zip



The difference between current Canon sensors, and an Exmor, is not "you can lift shadows". We've been lifting shadows for years. The difference between the two is that you can lift ultra deep shadows that would otherwise be buried in red-banded read noise on a Canon, by 5-6 stops on an Exmor...and STILL have decent color fidelity and clean, random noise.

If you need that kind of shadow recovery capability...and I stress IF, I still believe a majority of photographers tend to shoot some kind of action at higher ISO, in which case Canon sensors have a very small edge over Exmor sensors at higher ISO...then don't hold yourself back. Canon may release something that can do what a D800 could do over two years ago at some point...but why wait until that unknown future time, when you could solve your problem now with a Nikon, Sony, or Pentax (or any number of other cameras that use Exmor sensors)?

This is absolutely impressive...

 

[bowtiez]

Thanks Jrista for the work you put in your post! I didn`t think that the differences were that big. Given that huge dynamic range of the exmors it seems that one could constantly expose for the highlights and often get usable shots.

Cheers!

 

[scyrene]

I was going to say, it depends what aspects of the sensor matter to you, too. Sensors vary in numerous attributes. Jrista has touched on this (and as an aside, I thought sunflowers faced the sun - these ones are not conforming! ), but I'll just add my perspective. I shoot largely at what most would consider to be high ISO (800-3200) because of the focal length/aperture I use (1000mm f/10), combined with subpar lighting (overcast, or shade). Low ISO DR is largely irrelevant to me. High ISO quality is paramount. And megapixel count, because at 1000mm I still find cropping necessary a lot of the time (the focal length is a compromise - the longest I can use while retaining autofocus, plus adding an extra teleconverter diminishes image quality).

So even if the sensor was the most important thing (and I don't think it is), not everyone judges sensors by the same criteria anyway. Your genre and style of photography dictate your needs.

 

[PicaPica]

there is no question that the shadow pulling capabilities of the sony sensors are fantastic.

i don´t know what others shoot but i often have the need to pull the shadows.
not 5-6 stops.

but i often find myself in the situation that i want to pull it a bit more but i can´t because the canon sensors then shows ugly noise.

i don´t really need 36MP but a canon 24-28MP FF sensor with similiar capabilities to pull the shadows would be my dream.

im still at school and i can´t afford to switch to nikon.
not that i would!
because it´s not only the sensor that makes the camera.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

My wife says its too easy to resolve. Buy nothing!

Listen to your wife. Save your money. Shoot with what you already have and concentrate on improving your technique.

With today's DSLRs, it is a rare photographer who is limited more by their equipment than by their own technique.

 

[Orangutan]

The difference between current Canon sensors, and an Exmor, is not "you can lift shadows". We've been lifting shadows for years. The difference between the two is that you can lift ultra deep shadows that would otherwise be buried in red-banded read noise on a Canon, by 5-6 stops on an Exmor...and STILL have decent color fidelity and clean, random noise.

If you need that kind of shadow recovery capability...and I stress IF, I still believe a majority of photographers tend to shoot some kind of action at higher ISO, in which case Canon sensors have a very small edge over Exmor sensors at higher ISO...then don't hold yourself back. Canon may release something that can do what a D800 could do over two years ago at some point...but why wait until that unknown future time, when you could solve your problem now with a Nikon, Sony, or Pentax (or any number of other cameras that use Exmor sensors)?

As Neuro previously requested from the Swedish Chorus-of-One, I'd love to see more real-world examples. The first example, sunflowers, looks marginal by that standard -- it just looks intentionally underexposed. The hotel room might be a good example, but I wish there were a comparator image from a 5D3 or 1DX. Those pulled room shadows do look really good, but how do they compare?

 

[Ruined]

jrista,
Have you considered a 6D? For the type of photography posted it would be an upgrade from the 5D3... Though maybe Canon will announce a new alternative at Photokina this year.

 

[jrista]

jrista,
Have you considered a 6D? For the type of photography posted it would be an upgrade from the 5D3... Though maybe Canon will announce a new alternative at Photokina this year.

I have, but the majority of my photography is birds and wildlife. That's all high ISO, high frame rate, heavy AF based work, and the 5D III is a much, much better camera for that than the 6D. The frame rate of the 5D III is actually a bit slow...I could really use the 8fps of the 7D combined with all the 5D III features and larger frame.

The 5D III can be used for landscapes. It's just a lot more work to clean up each image in post than I had expected it to be. Based on the raving reviews and everyone who said the 5D III noise was much better, I expected the 5D III low ISO noise to be a lot better than it is. Even a +3 stop shadow recovery is actually asking a bit much of the 5D III...you still get vertical banding when you do that, and the 5D III banding does not seem to clean up as well as the 7D did. I put off landscapes for a while, as I did not like dealing with the shadows on the 7D at ISO 100 (and, because the frame size in the 7D is just not large enough for the kinds of landscapes I like to do.) Now that I have the 5D III, it's still not capable of doing quite what I want to do...so I'm considering buying a D810 and a 14-24mm f/2.8.

I could wait for Canon to do something with the 5D IV...but, I don't really think they will. I think the 5D IV will arrive with the same old kind of read noise, they will still be losing two stops of dynamic range...and I don't think it's worth waiting any longer.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.

I have no experience with soNikon (my Nikon doesn't have a Sony sensor). I do however have experience with Canon and Sony. My Sony (A7R) doesn't provide substantially better images than my Canon cameras. It simply doesn't. There are some cases where I may wish to edit shadows and I can do so with less difficulty using the A7R, but the difference isn't as substantial as you make it out to be. Perhaps some of that is due to the lossy RAW format of the Sony, but I doubt it. Perhaps that has to do with what I'm shooting or how I shoot it.

How do your Sony and SoNikon images compare to your Canon images?

Push comes to shove, if someone calls me up and asks "hey do you want to go shooting" or "hey can you come shoot something for me," the camera I'll grab is the 5D3, not the A7R. YMMV.

 

[fragilesi]

From a personal perspective, having invested in Canon glass. If the sensor made the camera right now I would be using a 6D to try and track and shoot fast moving birds rather than my 70d.

Would I be getting better quality images?

As others have said, when considering the broad range of photographic needs and styles it's simply wrong to suggest that the sensor trumps all else in what makes a camera.

Sure, the worst ever sensor would kill a camera but for me so would the worst ever reliability, AF system or indeed ergonomics.

 

[Jonasyphoto]

Let's face it, Canon has been doing terribly on making non-sport camera bodies these years.(Chipworks) Canon bodies look better and work better than before, but the image quality is one or two generations behind its competitors. The shadow banding and state of the suck dynamic range produced by the old CMOS fabrication technology is now part of Canon's signature. Moreover, thanks to Sony it is losing its edge on the lower end pro video market too(HDSLR market).

Why is a cooperation like Canon not making a new sensor fabrication?

A new CMOS production line worth at least twenty million dollars. Without enough motivation, a old school cooperation is very unlikely to spend this kind of money on things like that. Therefore, the company decided to work the engineers' buds off to push the limit for the old 500nm sensor because it is cheaper.


Canon also spent loads of money on sending free stuff to famous photographers and news agencies. This increased the amount of exposure canon gets especially when these working pros are using the Canon signature white lens. This kind of marketing measure has proven to effectively boost the sell of Canon cameras for years.

Therefore, what we need if we shooters all wish to get better CR2 files, is a dramatic decline on Canon's camera sell. Just like what 2008 crisis do to US automobile industry, this might kickstart Canon's Lab to mass produce process.



To answer the question of "why 5Dmk3 is still outselling D8xx" it is because of the 5Dmk2. 5Dmk2 was revolution by the time it was created, many users bought Canon system just for this camera.


http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

My site:jonasyuan.com

 

[Jonasyphoto]

My answer to the topic? NO, the sensor does not make a camera system. However, if the camera can only produce files with significantly worse IQ than its competitor, even thought the lens and everything else are fabulous it still not a good system.