skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #1 · visualized read noise for TONS of different cameras | |
Wow, someone put together quite the comprehensive visual comparison, sooo many different bodies compared:
http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm
One thing to keep in mind is that he didn't account for differences in gain delivered by stated ISO number (for instance the 5D2 and 50D, in particular, give less gain for a given ISO than many of the others, so in reality, would look worse than shown here).
Another thing to keep in mind is that he didn't account for MP differences, these are all 100% crop comparisons, so the lower MP cameras here should actually look a bit worse in comparison than they do compared to high MP ones like 5D2/5D3/D800/Medium Format, in particular.
Also unless he used a true RAW examination program the results might be muddled since who knows what ACR does for each camera behind the scenes, it may do different baked in NR for each and set base levels differently, etc.
So it's not really quite fair test, but quite interesting all the same.
One clear thing is that Canon DSLR are simply poor at low ISO shadow noise, worse than basically any type of camera there is other than some (but not all!) point and shoots. The 5D3 did nothing at all to improve this. Even the D4 which has no fancy Exmor patent tech did way better.
ISO6400+ the 5D3 shadow quality should be better than D800 though, but then again most shots probably are taken ISO3200 and under, but for scenes with tons of near black areas at super high ISO the 5D3 definitely should be better than the D800.
It does fit expectations, such as that (going by 100% view with nothing normalized for MP count of ISO gain) the 40D/1D3 era of Canon was much more pushable than the 5D2/50D era.
That exmor sensor push great at low ISO.
The D4 looks better than expected, especially at low ISO. This also shows that Canon COULD do MUCH better for low ISO shadows even without Exmor patents since the D4 doesn't use any Exmor patented tech. It is just a regular sensor design. Could it be as a couple of semi-insiders hinted at that Canon saved the best tech for the 1DX.  I mean even if you normalized for 22MP vs 16MP that D4 would still have heck of better low ISO shadows than the 5D3. And once again it says nobody is asking for magic or fairly land, just look at how all those Nikons, even ones without Exmor, do at low ISO. This is reality.
The 5D3 finally pulls ahead of D800 shadow quality at ISO6400 (it looks like it at ISO3200 but I think after MP and ISO gian normalization it probably won't happen until ISO6400, although it is hard to be 100% sure, maybe ISO4000 or 5000?).
The 5D3 is a bit of an outdated let down at low ISO, at 100% view it's not even quite to the 60D level even and the NON-Exmor D4 just blow it to pieces, so forget crying about not having patent access....
You can see the unique form of vertical banding the 7D has (it varies a fair amount copy to copy though some will have a lot of it and some much less).
You can see they did fix up the shadow noise quality ISO1600 and up compared to the 5D2 quite a bit (even more than apparent since the 5D3 appears to give more gain for a given ISO label at higher ISOs).
The below ISO800 shadow quality from Canon DSLRs appears to be second rate though. Nikon, even ones not even using fancy Exmor patents, are just simply better. Even Canon P&S are better shadow noise at ISO100.
But on the positive side, the deepest high iso shadows should look better than with the 5D2, by well over a stop,if this holdsup.
Edited on Apr 15, 2012 at 04:28 PM · View previous versions
|
Maybe Canon jsut cheaped out