I can also show you papers that tell you that CCD has, by design, less noise than CMOS. And thats not to denouce Canons paper as if I know better. I certainly don't But lets be a little cautious of white papers. As illustrated from the Canon WP on full-frame.
Anyone who has become accustomed to the dark and somewhat small vewfinder images of APS-C cameras will never forget his or her first look through an EOS 5D’s finder. Some people are so startled that they almost drop the camera. Now, thats just plain embarrasing to put garbage like that in there. I digress.
But...why is it that most manufacturers use CCD and not CMOS (at the moment) considering that costs are apparently less to produce (which theorically should be the case, but has been shown not to be)? It's because Canon does processing better than anyone else.
Its funny that I hear Nikon does it poorly, 'they don't do it as well as Canon' is a more accurate way of putting it. If you look now at the D80 and the 400D, there is VERY little in it and they are now both 10MPs each. In fact , some will say even footing, and some will say the Canon has it by a hair. Whatever, we are absolutely pixel peeing with that one.
Improvements in noise aren't coming just from the chips and processors, its also in the amps , A/D's, microlenses, etc as somewhat stated by Tentacle. I'm not saying one imager is better than the other, they are complimentary technologies. Thats why some companies are trying to use the best of both technologies to make an even better chip.
Photographers, whoever, shouldn't really care what the sensor is. Does it work? Is the noise level what you expect? Is the colour what you expect? Everyone wants to know how the watch is made, just read the bloody time!
No, one rumor thread. Besides this isn't about roumors, this is a place to socialise. But I do love the thought that having a lot more rumor threads will stop the arguing.
Nikt, I think you're missing my point. Someone mentioned that DIGIC III would bring better high ISO performance over DIGIC II. That it does not. It may offer noise reduction, but that will be the kind of detail sacrificing smoothing.
The rest, I'll concede that, might have been a bit too colored by opinion. Sony sensors aren't poor, but Nikon does have to resort to NR in order to keep the noise down. Just look at the Alpha 100 performance to get some idea of how no NR performs.
Oh, and the reference to the white paper was meant as a pointer to information on noise prevention, how Canon uses a 4T system, compared to the 3T system of before. I do realize that part of the white paper talk is PR, but I wasn't refering to those parts.
By the way, your question about CCD vs CMOS is also answered in that same paper. Leave the PR filter set to ON, and it will still give you a good idea why CMOS is a better choice for large area sensors which can not be actively cooled.
I can also show you papers that tell you that CCD has, by design, less noise than CMOS. And thats not to denouce Canons paper as if I know better. I certainly don't But lets be a little cautious of white papers. As illustrated from the Canon WP on full-frame.
Now, thats just plain embarrasing to put garbage like that in there. I digress.
But...why is it that most manufacturers use CCD and not CMOS (at the moment) considering that costs are apparently less to produce (which theorically should be the case, but has been shown not to be)? It's because Canon does processing better than anyone else.
Its funny that I hear Nikon does it poorly, 'they don't do it as well as Canon' is a more accurate way of putting it. If you look now at the D80 and the 400D, there is VERY little in it and they are now both 10MPs each. In fact , some will say even footing, and some will say the Canon has it by a hair. Whatever, we are absolutely pixel peeing with that one.
Improvements in noise aren't coming just from the chips and processors, its also in the amps , A/D's, microlenses, etc as somewhat stated by Tentacle. I'm not saying one imager is better than the other, they are complimentary technologies. Thats why some companies are trying to use the best of both technologies to make an even better chip.
Photographers, whoever, shouldn't really care what the sensor is. Does it work? Is the noise level what you expect? Is the colour what you expect? Everyone wants to know how the watch is made, just read the bloody time!
Edited by nikt on Feb 06, 2007 at 10:27 PM GMT...Show more →
We should get out more if we have now reached the stage of pixel peeing.
Regards,
DaveMart
I think we're pretty much in agreeance with the Digic II/III except maybe that I think the processor and what you do with/calculate the noise is an improvement with each processor. You're example actually was the same one I was going to use. The Sony chip in their own camera shows more noise compared to the Pentax and Nikon D80. As I mentioned, that doesn't come down to just how good the processor is , but the whole design of the cameras electronics.
The D40 is another example. Same 6MP chip but is now regarded as the best image from 6MP camera thats been released.
But those white papers are good reads for the techno in me. Dalsa, Canon, Sony, Kodak, Nikon, Sigma. They'll all tell us how good their technology is over the others.
kanfive wrote:
What? The 40D is only 10.3MP?? In another few months Nikon is going to release D200's successor. This means basically that the 40D class is being lowered to be pitted against the Nikon D80. You'll have 400D and 40D versus the D80. I don't think the price difference between 400D and 40D is justifiable then if both are 10MP. It's true that MP isn't everything, but I think the 40D should definitely be in the 12MP area.
There's still a large gap between 40D and 1D Mark III, when not counting 5D.
No, because the 40D will have a 1.6x full color chip.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't know what about you but I certainly think that the 5D, 50/1.2 and 70-200/4 IS qualify as exciting.
Well, perhaps I'm jaded.
I should clarify my previous statement to say that I meant exciting from a body perspective. I'm glad they released new lenses, even if the 50 f/1.2 seems a just a tad over priced right now ($400-$500 high). They also released a new 85L too which is great.
As for bodies, I own, and have had several 5ds. I like the camera, but I find some things about it lacking from my perspective (no need to go into it). It was released 18 months ago, and for some reason it never "really excited" me too much. I can't say why for sure. It has some of the best features available in a non 1 series camera though, and IMO it eclipses offerings from everyone else. The 5d is the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best camera available (1Ds2, 1D2n, 5d) depending on what you need, so I know it's a great camera. My needs are just a little different for my next camera, which I believe will be the 1Ds2 replacement.
The 400d and 30d were just OK IMO but certainly nothing to jump up and down about. The 1d2n was just more icing on an already great cake, the excellent 1d2.
I can also show you papers that tell you that CCD has, by design, less noise than CMOS. And thats not to denouce Canons paper as if I know better. I certainly don't But lets be a little cautious of white papers. As illustrated from the Canon WP on full-frame.
Now, thats just plain embarrasing to put garbage like that in there. I digress.
But...why is it that most manufacturers use CCD and not CMOS (at the moment) considering that costs are apparently less to produce (which theorically should be the case, but has been shown not to be)? It's because Canon does processing better than anyone else.
Its funny that I hear Nikon does it poorly, 'they don't do it as well as Canon' is a more accurate way of putting it. If you look now at the D80 and the 400D, there is VERY little in it and they are now both 10MPs each. In fact , some will say even footing, and some will say the Canon has it by a hair. Whatever, we are absolutely pixel peeing with that one.
Improvements in noise aren't coming just from the chips and processors, its also in the amps , A/D's, microlenses, etc as somewhat stated by Tentacle. I'm not saying one imager is better than the other, they are complimentary technologies. Thats why some companies are trying to use the best of both technologies to make an even better chip.
Photographers, whoever, shouldn't really care what the sensor is. Does it work? Is the noise level what you expect? Is the colour what you expect? Everyone wants to know how the watch is made, just read the bloody time!
Edited by nikt on Feb 06, 2007 at 10:27 PM GMT...Show more →
With bayer, CCD will soon kick CMOSes butt. CMOS is about size and functionality. WIth CMOS, the ability to construct 3 color sensors is a place CCD can't follow for a long time.
