As I edited in a while back, I needed to check the numbers, as the ones I looked at were different to the original and wanted to check what they were measuring. That was part of the error. the 20 looked odd but convenient, and turns out to be a total noise figure. Consider that retracted.
I would question that even if you really mean 5D (your previous sentence was about the 5D Mark II). And a D7000 doesn't look better than a 5D Mark II at ISO 3200, by almost any definition of better except perhaps visibility of faint pattern noise. It arguably looks better at ISO 100, of course, since it has far lower read noise than a 5D Mark II (or any Canon SLR) at base ISO; though obviously the D7000 still suffers from higher shot noise (i.e. noise above deep shadows) than a 5D Mark II.
No typo. I meant 5D, not 5D2. I'm not blind I'd say it's definitely better at 100, and at 3200 it's qualitatively better (chroma noise is better controlled and there's no banding at all). The quantitative comparison (which makes no distinction as to the randomness or lack thereof of noise, or whether it's colour or luminance noise) confirms the D7000 being better at low ISO while suggesting they're near indistinguishable at high ISO (results are within 0.6dB for noise, 0.1 bits for tonal range and 0.4 bits for colour sensitivity).
Closer to the original topic, the D4 will disappoint people hoping for a stop of improvement at high but sensible ISOs. It might conceivably be a stop better, by some limited definition of better, at ISO 100,000, but how many people care? It may also have much cleaner shadows at base ISO, since the D3S had high read noise at base ISO, and a high base ISO. People will eventually care about this.
From ISO 3200 to ISO 12800, no Bayer-based FX-sensor camera will ever be "one stop" better than the D3S. We no longer have room to improve by one stop in this range....Show more →
Not disagreeing with you there - that's why I think we need much higher resolution sensors when tech allows, so that rgbw becomes an option, notwithstanding a completely new type of sensor.
S Dilworth wrote:
There's no real reason this shouldn't show up in tests (DxOMark shows it, for example).
The reason for this is that Canon used weaker colour filters in the Bayer array to boost the signal, thereby lowering luminance noise. (Nikon did this with the D3S too, compared to the D3; hence the higher chroma noise of the D3S at moderate ISOs.) After demosaicking, the colour needs to be boosted more accordingly, introducing more chroma noise.
Interesting. I have never tried a D3s but have heard only good things about its noise performance at all ISOs. Is this visible, or just measurable?
The wild success of the 5D Mark II shows no-one cares about colour accuracy if they get a bit less high-ISO luminance noise in exchange for it. Of course, the manufacturers should have known that from the earlier success of certain E6 emulsions that flattered rather than revealed.
I think the wild success of the 5DII shows how much most people are willing to pay for FF (matched by wild success of D700), as well as its HD video implementation. I doubt anyone buys a 5DII for its noise characteristics.
carstenw wrote:
Interesting. I have never tried a D3s but have heard only good things about its noise performance at all ISOs. Is this visible, or just measurable?
It's visible in direct comparisons, just as it's visible between the 5D Mark II and the D700 (the latter, and the D3, has some of the sharpest-cut colour filters of the last few years). This is closely related to the skin-tone problems the D3 and D700 have under tungsten light (i.e. they accurately record those undesirable colours!).
carstenw wrote:
I think the wild success of the 5DII shows how much most people are willing to pay for FF (matched by wild success of D700), as well as its HD video implementation. I doubt anyone buys a 5DII for its noise characteristics.
You might be right, though I think people want full-frame primarily for lower noise.
ausemmao wrote:
...that's why I think we need much higher resolution sensors when tech allows, so that rgbw becomes an option, notwithstanding a completely new type of sensor.
Fujifilm seems to be trying something like that, with a twist, in their new mirrorless camera.
Depressed to see that top of the range resolution figures are trending down. Makes my 5D2 look one hell of a bargain.
Yes, I do appreciate that sports/action photographers have other technical needs than mere resolution, but revisiting 18 and 16 mpx seems a tad disappointing.
S Dilworth wrote:
It's visible in direct comparisons, just as it's visible between the 5D Mark II and the D700 (the latter, and the D3, has some of the sharpest-cut colour filters of the last few years). This is closely related to the skin-tone problems the D3 and D700 have under tungsten light (i.e. they accurately record those undesirable colours!).
David Baldwin wrote:
Depressed to see that top of the range resolution figures are trending down. Makes my 5D2 look one hell of a bargain.
Yes, I do appreciate that sports/action photographers have other technical needs than mere resolution, but revisiting 18 and 16 mpx seems a tad disappointing.
I'm just the opposite, I love the fact they are revisiting 16-18MP. So perhaps the solution for Canon would be to release two 5D's:
5DX - 28MP+, more of the same 5DII with slow frame rate, etc.
5DS - 18MP, much faster frame rate, squeaky clean low ISO, better DR/high ISO/etc.
PetKal wrote:
As a matter of principle, anything that one finds on the internet should be viewed with a grain of salt. The medium is easily corruptible and there is no accountability for bad information published.
A new $6,000 Nikon camera would fortify the Canon's 1DX pricing at $6,000 +. That is the same ballpark (over)pricing. That's how cartels operate. There are no camera options which would offer significantly different features, nor a significantly different price.
Sony perhaps has the potential of busting the NikCan cartel some day. But they need a few more high grade lenses before they can do that.
You espousing principle, Pedro? That's funny. Grain of salt? Sea salt, no?
Another underwhelming offer. I guess the big technological leap we've been waiting for is made of unobtanium by both sides here.
They wont make it simply cause they always want to cripple somehow "lesser" models than 1D. Just to that extent that its usable, but cant compete with 1D. Sure Nikon does similar, just I havent noticed much "crippled" performace of D700 vs D3. Maybe they like their customers more..
carstenw wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree here. My buddy shoots with the 5DII and I shoot with the D3, and there is a world of difference to me, much more than 1 stop, and I am not even getting into the noise which exists at base ISO in the 5DII shadows.
Last wedding I myself viewed and developed 1400 RAW files (800 D700, 600 5D MK II).
Yes, I agree, we have to disagree in that point.
In an other post you mentioned:
I doubt anyone buys a 5DII for its noise characteristics.
I did. And many Weddingshooters like me did and still do. I very often need ISO 3200 when shooting. And it comes very often up to ISO 6400, too. When the given light nails me to use a 30th second wide opened what is holdable with some IS lenses. But the IS does not freeze peoples movement.
When I bought my 5D MK II three years ago, there was no competing body available. 3Ds was not existing. 5D MK II had best noise charakteristics in ISO 3200/6400 and resolution (D3/D700s 12MP was not enough for shooting fashion posters for a customer).
They wont make it simply cause they always want to cripple somehow "lesser" models than 1D. Just to that extent that its usable, but cant compete with 1D. Sure Nikon does similar, just I havent noticed much "crippled" performace of D700 vs D3. Maybe they like their customers more..
Nikon does not cripple the mid range bodies like Canon does... The original D3 and D700 focused the same and took the same pictures, there was no quality or shooting ability difference between the 2, The D700 lacked a 2nd card and built in grip and it had no 5x4 crop mode. But the D700 could control the CLS onboard via the pop up where the D3 couldn't and the D700 also got sensor cleaning circuitry. The D300 and 300s, had all the same features, AF and such but with a crop sensor...
Canon doesn't want anyone but those with the ability to afford 1d features to have 1d features, it's that simple...
thw2 wrote:
But we must wait for the D800 to be announced... rumors however indicate it's going to be a 36 MP sensor, quite different from what's in the D4...
Correct, I'm just basing this off of what's available today - D700 and D3. No intentional crippling on the darkside:
Both the 5D and the 5d2 are home runs. The 5d mkI when first came out was an outstanding FF camera despite many camera companies including Nikon saying compact FF is a niche product. And we know how successful this camera became.
Then 3 years later, Nikon after swallowing its own shoes and came out with a D700 using the aged 5dc as a benchmark however without hdslr. Canon showed the world what FF with hdslr can do with the 5d mkII thus cleaned house with the many indie film makers and hdslr enthusiasts while Nikon is nowhere to be seen. A growing market segment. There are groups of people that buy the 5d2 solely for HD movie making only!!! Are you kidding me?
Home runs. Yup. Twice over. If you didn't think so, you're probably way out to the left field.
Home runs for some, but not for all. Anything demanding good AF was the source of 5D II frustration. Unfortunately Canon had decided to keep good AF away from full frame under $7K for many years.
I'd say it's definitely better at 100, and at 3200 it's qualitatively better (chroma noise is better controlled and there's no banding at all). The quantitative comparison (which makes no distinction as to the randomness or lack thereof of noise, or whether it's colour or luminance noise) confirms the D7000 being better at low ISO while suggesting they're near indistinguishable at high ISO (results are within 0.6dB for noise, 0.1 bits for tonal range and 0.4 bits for colour sensitivity).
Canon showed the world what FF with hdslr can do with the 5d mkII thus cleaned house with the many indie film makers and hdslr enthusiasts while Nikon is nowhere to be seen. A growing market segment. There are groups of people that buy the 5d2 solely for HD movie making only!!! Are you kidding me?