privatebydesign said:
Stu_bert said:
privatebydesign said:
PureClassA said:
JRista gave us a nice long detailed explanation how DR works, said given what we know now, he doesn't see how it could be improved that much. Then he said "I hope I'm wrong" Not sure how you could be more scientific and fair minded than that.
Stu_bert said:
Jon is basing his reasoning on what he knows of current sensors and forming a conclusion. He does not profess to know, he's just interpreting information based on facts and science. I also personally find it useful and helpful, so thank you Jon.
No, he gave us his uninformed opinion of sensor tech coming from an informal 'education' about such technical matters garnered from the internet, forums, patents and other such self taught sources.
He has made several mistakes in his theories before and has often faltered in his knowledge when confronted by somebody with more experience in one particular area, he has no formal education on cameras or their tech.
His opinion is not fact, it is opinion, he usually muddies the two and too many here seem to take his word as gospel, it isn't.
Ouch. Seriously? You're going to mince my own words? I'm not saying he is correct. He is informed based on what he has read about how you measure or calculate DR,
based on the DR of the 7D II and the information we have on the 5Ds.
He's not stating it as fact - the facts are around the current sensor tech.
He, nor I, not PureClassA are attacking Canon nor you personally. Please stop the personal attack. If he's made mistakes before, gosh I'm sure so have many others on here. Let's keep the focus on what this thread is about, which is whether the 5Ds will be 2 stops better. If you disagree with the formula he used or his interpretation of current sensor data, then share it and I will happily admit that your interpretation is also good and useful.
But let's please avoid comments about whether he is human or not. We all are.
We don't have any factual information on which to base any objective measure of the output of the 5DS/R, none, not a word, or measurement.
Oh yes he is.
jrista said:
I'm not talking about my own personal subjective perceptions of how I "feel" when I see a Canon image or a Nikon image. Again, this is simple, objective, mathematical stuff here. Cold, hard facts...not feelings.
Do you see the disconnect there? At this point in time we know nothing, we are just speculating on what Canon reps have said and to tell the truth what Mike Burnhill of Canon CPS in the UK said,
"but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights", really is unequivocal.
All I know is I don't know and nobody here does either. I also know and have seen the video of the Canon rep saying the shadow detail is better. How they did it, if they have, will be interesting in a purely academic way, but nobody here has a clue if they have or how.
Proclaiming your post is
"Cold, hard facts...not feelings." does not make it so. I would be doing my 3,000+ posts and the forum in general a disservice if I did not point that out, especially when we have follow up posters saying
"He's not stating it as fact"!
Dear god. I really hate these forums, so freaking pedantic. Let me spell it out for you, Private, since you can't seem to figure out where the line between fact and educated guess falls on your own.
The
cold, hard fact I'm referring to is the freakin mathematical formula below:
That's just math. It isn't some kind of personal opinion, some kind of feeling or some kind of subjective evaluation.
THAT is the cold, hard fact...DR is DR, more noise and/or lower FWC mean less DR. Less noise and/or higher FWC means more DR. That is a cold, hard fact. THAT! ^^ That thing up there! ^^ THAT IS A FACT. That is THE fact that I am referring to.
Now, onto the non facts, the educated guesses, and the most likely outcomes...as based on and derived from what the cold hard facts can tell us.
Based on the simple, cold, hard, unfeeling fact that dynamic range is a simple ratio, I am then
extrapolating what I
personally believe is most likely to be the case with the 5Ds (I thought my extrapolations and educated guesses would be obvious as extrapolations and educated guesses, rather than cold, hard facts...but everyone is so freakin sensitive about being told their camera hardware of choice isn't the best of the best of the best of the best of the freakin best around here and cannot hear anything about how it might possibly not be as good as something else, apparently that's too much to ask
).
Based on that formula above, assuming all the rumors we have heard so far are true, and those rumors are:
* The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as the 5D III
* The 5Ds has pixels just slightly larger than the 7D II (4.14 micron vs. 4.1 micron)
* The 5Ds has lower noise (which is certainly likely, given the 7D II has lower noise)
* The 5Ds has a stronger CFA (not disputing that, but it would reduce QE, specifically EQE)
* The 5Ds is still being manufactured on Canon's older 500nm process
There are also
historical facts from which we can derive a solid educated guess about what the likely outcome for the 5Ds will be:
* Canon did not change much with the 7D II (they reduced banding a little bit more, reduced dark current, slight increase in read noise...in other words, "same old same old")
* Canon has innovated intriguing new sensor technologies for many years, but has thus far not employed any of them in an actual consumer product (120mp APS-H with likely CP-ADC, layered BSI sensors, etc.)
* Canon takes a highly conservative approach to the modern marketplace (probably for good reason, given natural disasters, collapsing markets, and falling sales)
* Canon has innovated technologies, shown them off...then other manufacturers have jumped the gun and released consumer products with similar or better innovations before we even hear of any additional news of said innovation from Canon (ultra low light sensor capable of imaging fireflies in the dark real-time. Canon's sensor? Who knows. Sony A7s? Consumer product you can buy.)
Thus, extrapolating from those rumors (the
non-facts) and historical facts, we can arrive at
likely realities once the camera is actually released:
Canon has a history of innovating, and not actually employing those innovations in consumer grade products, so given the rumor that the 5Ds is still manufactured on a 500nm process, it seems significantly less likely to see any radical new innovations with this particular camera (not barring future innovations in future cameras, the 5D IV could still hit the streets with amazing new technology).
And:
The 5Ds will probably have RN in the realm of 13e-, which would indeed be lower noise than the 6D or 5D III, and very slightly higher than the 7D II. The 5Ds, having pixels similar to the 7D II in size, will also probably have an FWC in the realm of 30,000e-, which is also lower than the 6D or 5D III.
And:
With lower RN but also a correspondingly lower FWC, the dynamic range of the 5Ds is unlikely to increase unless some additional improvement has been employed that refutes one of the rumors or official statements thus far made.
Therefor, given the cold, hard fact about dynamic range...that it is simply the ratio between FWC and noise:
Code:
20 * log(30000/13) / 6 = 11.21
Barring some additional innovation in the 5Ds (certainly possible), the cold hard facts tell me that, assuming all the rumors, including the words of Canon officials, end up being true, I believe the 5Ds will have roughly the same dynamic range as any other Canon DSLR. It is possible that DIGIC6 will be employed to reduce noise, however it's being employed for that purpose in the 7D II...and the 7D II has 11.2 stops of DR, so at the moment I have no reason to make any assumptions that DIGIC6 will improve noise in the 5Ds.
Furthermore, because a reduction in read noise paired with a reduction in FWC requires that exposure be shifted down into the shadows to preserve the highlights with that lower FWC, any improvement in shadow pushing ability that lower read noise may have otherwise offered is nullified. Therefor, while the 0.04 micron increase in 5Ds pixel size might allow for a slightly higher FWC than 30ke-, which could allow for a small fraction increase in dynamic range and slight improvement in shadow pushing ability...I see no reason to assume it means the 5Ds will have two additional stops of dynamic range.
That is my
educated guess, based on the cold hard facts of dynamic range. Based on my educated guess, my recommendation based on a realistic outlook for the camera is that one should not get their hopes up for a 5Ds with 13.8 stops of DR. If the camera DOES arrive with that much DR, well, at least those who take my recommendation will be pleasantly surprised, rather than devastatingly disappointed. :
Alright. I've spelled it all out in fine, pedant-pleasing detail, clearly separating and delineating the facts from my educated guesses (oh, sorry, my own very limited and entirely personal (and unrelated to anyone else's feelings or desires or life goals)
opinions). Is everyone happy now? ???
