This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20097D noise vs 50D numbers
p.2 #17D noise vs 50D numbers
alundeb wrote:
Ok, you asked for it.
I dissected a sample raw file from imaging-resource.com at ISO100, no NR, with IRIS.
It appears that the non-illuminated pixels are included in the file.
Found some numbers.
The Black Level offset is changed to 2048 (used to be 1024)
The read noise Sigma is around 4,7
The histogram maxes out with a barrier at 13580.
BL subtracted: Saturation at ADU 11532
Dynamic Range: 11,26 stops.
Dynamic Range normalized to 8 MP: 11,85 stops
Note that this doesn't tell anything about photon collection efficiency, as the system gain is unknown.
Neither does it tell anything about SNR.
wow sigma 4.7 is crazy low!!
Then again they did bump BC and actually wow this is still a lot lower than the Nikon D3X and D90.... so canon still can't deliver great ISO100 shadows?? Or nikon did something that tricked DxO??
Only small, lame consolation is it makes me not feel as bad about my 5D2 ISO100. This is better though since it is essentially the same DR as the 5D2 but, by all early reports, with less x-hatching. So it may well deliver, in some ways a better ISO100-200. Of course SNR will still be worse and some other stuff, but interesting if 5D2 had had this technology in the sensor it would probably do 11.5 and 12.2, well that is not wildly more only an extra 1/3 stop DR, but with less banding maybe 1/2-2/3 more usable?
anyway, it looks to be 1/2 stop better DR at low ISO than the 40D/50D and about the same as the 5D2. Early guess is at least 2/3 stop worse SNR than the 5D2 though, but maybe up to 2/3 stop better SNR than the 40D/50D (not based on serious calcs, just some peeping at IR images).
here is the data I got using IRIS for 5D2,50D,40D,20D(something seems off with the 20D data maybe I did somthing wrong with the 12bits or I had a bad copy):
http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/614541885_C8Lqu-X3.jpg
EDIT: no longer sure it would be a full 2/3 stop better SNR than the 50D, I think the sample I saw were not all taken at quite the same distance, etc. and it had sounded a bit extreme, but I still think it will have better SNR than the 50D, maybe even 1/2 stop better. Anyway silly to speculate anymore on SNR at this point.
Edited on Sep 01, 2009 at 09:39 PM · View previous versions
Ok, you asked for it.
I dissected a sample raw file from imaging-resource.com at ISO100, no NR, with IRIS.
It appears that the non-illuminated pixels are included in the file.
Found some numbers.
The Black Level offset is changed to 2048 (used to be 1024)
The read noise Sigma is around 4,7
The histogram maxes out with a barrier at 13580.
BL subtracted: Saturation at ADU 11532
Dynamic Range: 11,26 stops.
Dynamic Range normalized to 8 MP: 11,85 stops
Note that this doesn't tell anything about photon collection efficiency, as the system gain is unknown.
Neither does it tell anything about SNR.
wow sigma 4.7 is crazy low!!
Then again they did bump BC and actually wow this is still a lot lower than the Nikon D3X and D90.... so canon still can't deliver great ISO100 shadows?? Or nikon did something that tricked DxO??
Only small, lame consolation is it makes me not feel as bad about my 5D2 ISO100. This is better though since it is essentially the same DR as the 5D2 but, by all early reports, with less x-hatching. So it may well deliver, in some ways a better ISO100-200. Of course SNR will still be worse and some other stuff, but interesting if 5D2 had had this technology in the sensor it would probably do 11.5 and 12.2, well that is not wildly more only an extra 1/3 stop DR, but with less banding maybe 1/2-2/3 more usable?
anyway, it looks to be 1/2 stop better DR at low ISO than the 40D/50D and about the same as the 5D2. Early guess is at least 2/3 stop worse SNR than the 5D2 though, but maybe up to 2/3 stop better SNR than the 40D/50D (not based on serious calcs, just some peeping at IR images).
here is the data I got using IRIS for 5D2,50D,40D,20D(something seems off with the 20D data maybe I did somthing wrong with the 12bits or I had a bad copy):
http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/614541885_C8Lqu-X3.jpg
EDIT: no longer sure it would be a full 2/3 stop better SNR than the 50D, I think the sample I saw were not all taken at quite the same distance, etc. and it had sounded a bit extreme, but I still think it will have better SNR than the 50D, maybe even 1/2 stop better. Anyway silly to speculate anymore on SNR at this point.
Edited on Sep 01, 2009 at 09:39 PM · View previous versions
Sep 01, 2009 at 05:09 PM
p.2 #27D noise vs 50D numbers
alundeb wrote:
Sorry,
The 7D will have essentially the same Dynamic Range at low ISO as the 5DII, but apparantely without the visually problematic pattern noise.
actually when you realize the 5D2 pattern bands wont normalize away and the 7D noise moreso will that should bring the actual normalized DR to be EXACTLY equal, but since the eye picks up banding you can freely dig deeper on the 7D without having the type of noise that makes the eye hurt come up. Not sure how to quantify the effective difference, partly it depends upon you, wild guess is at least 1/3 and maybe 1/2 to even 2/3 stops better shadow pulling from the 7D at low ISO.
and about 1/2 stop better DR at ISO100 than the 40D/50D (probably a solid stop more than the 20D). It seems to have less banding than 50D and same or better than 40D so, the effective nice DR, might be 2/3 stops over 40D and at least a stop over the 50D and maybe a good 1/3 over the 5D2 yikes.... but again that is DR and NOT SNR.
still much lower DR than the new Nikons, which is disturbing if the Nikon data is for real.
as for SNR, no measurements from RAW yet, but my guess from IR images is perhaps as good as splitting difference between the 50D and the 5D2, seems hard to believe, but perhaps. That would be around +2/3 stops better than 50D and -2/3 worse than 5D2. But this is a guess. More potentially realistic might be +1/2 and -1?? Although it actually looked almost more like 2/3.
Sorry,
The 7D will have essentially the same Dynamic Range at low ISO as the 5DII, but apparantely without the visually problematic pattern noise.
actually when you realize the 5D2 pattern bands wont normalize away and the 7D noise moreso will that should bring the actual normalized DR to be EXACTLY equal, but since the eye picks up banding you can freely dig deeper on the 7D without having the type of noise that makes the eye hurt come up. Not sure how to quantify the effective difference, partly it depends upon you, wild guess is at least 1/3 and maybe 1/2 to even 2/3 stops better shadow pulling from the 7D at low ISO.
and about 1/2 stop better DR at ISO100 than the 40D/50D (probably a solid stop more than the 20D). It seems to have less banding than 50D and same or better than 40D so, the effective nice DR, might be 2/3 stops over 40D and at least a stop over the 50D and maybe a good 1/3 over the 5D2 yikes.... but again that is DR and NOT SNR.
still much lower DR than the new Nikons, which is disturbing if the Nikon data is for real.
as for SNR, no measurements from RAW yet, but my guess from IR images is perhaps as good as splitting difference between the 50D and the 5D2, seems hard to believe, but perhaps. That would be around +2/3 stops better than 50D and -2/3 worse than 5D2. But this is a guess. More potentially realistic might be +1/2 and -1?? Although it actually looked almost more like 2/3.
Sep 01, 2009 at 05:15 PM
p.2 #37D noise vs 50D numbers
As for DR vs. SNR, he sort of touched on it already. Anyway getting more the SNR part, the 5D2 collects light over a much larger surface area, which given equal photon collection efficiency per area, would mean something like 1.6 stops better SNR at any ISO in the tones of any image where read noise is swamped out, already by 18% gray you should proably be getting 1.5 stops advantage and even much lower, my guess is that it blends over slowly and may still be at 1 stop overall look even in the lighter shadows still.
anyway what the equal DR means is that you can pull from the depths of the shadows the same with the 7D as with the 5D2 at ISO100 (only actually effectively much better since the eye hates the look of banding and doesnt mind random blotches so much; the one thing they totally bungled with teh 5D2 was the pattern banding at low ISO which is noticeably worse than the prior generation from canon) and yet getting to somewhat brighter parts of the image the 5D2 the large FF is collecting so much more light that you will get less noise showing up so the darker midtones and up should all look as much as 1.6 stops less noisy. In some images this part of the noise can be more apparent and important overall.
However peaking at IR and reading the specs it sounds like canon may have noticeably boosted photon collection efficiency per surface area so, tentatively, there is a chance the 5D2 might only gain +2/3 stops SNR instead of +1.5 over the 7D, but that remains to be tested. It sounds too dramatic to believe actually.
The 5D2 should be able to grab more saturation per noise too, but it remains to be seen what the details are.
anyway what the equal DR means is that you can pull from the depths of the shadows the same with the 7D as with the 5D2 at ISO100 (only actually effectively much better since the eye hates the look of banding and doesnt mind random blotches so much; the one thing they totally bungled with teh 5D2 was the pattern banding at low ISO which is noticeably worse than the prior generation from canon) and yet getting to somewhat brighter parts of the image the 5D2 the large FF is collecting so much more light that you will get less noise showing up so the darker midtones and up should all look as much as 1.6 stops less noisy. In some images this part of the noise can be more apparent and important overall.
However peaking at IR and reading the specs it sounds like canon may have noticeably boosted photon collection efficiency per surface area so, tentatively, there is a chance the 5D2 might only gain +2/3 stops SNR instead of +1.5 over the 7D, but that remains to be tested. It sounds too dramatic to believe actually.
The 5D2 should be able to grab more saturation per noise too, but it remains to be seen what the details are.
Sep 01, 2009 at 05:29 PM
p.2 #47D noise vs 50D numbers
I'm glad to see reduced pattern noise in the new sensor; that bodes well for future products.
My idea of "real world performance" may be different than lisy78's but I don't routinely try to pull shadow details out of underexposed images, and so I don't think the 7D will have better "real world" performance for me. In most of the images I shoot, I expect I would see differences similar to those in the images posted by RG: the 5D2 will have lower noise.
That said, when the pattern noise does crop up it's a bear to deal with, so it's good to see Canon address this.
My idea of "real world performance" may be different than lisy78's but I don't routinely try to pull shadow details out of underexposed images, and so I don't think the 7D will have better "real world" performance for me. In most of the images I shoot, I expect I would see differences similar to those in the images posted by RG: the 5D2 will have lower noise.
That said, when the pattern noise does crop up it's a bear to deal with, so it's good to see Canon address this.
Sep 01, 2009 at 05:36 PM
p.2 #57D noise vs 50D numbers
UCSB wrote:
I'm not seeing anything to lead me believe that the camera is going to come close to my 5DII.
Seriously, who in their right mind would expect it to?
I'm not seeing anything to lead me believe that the camera is going to come close to my 5DII.
Seriously, who in their right mind would expect it to?
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:16 PM
p.2 #67D noise vs 50D numbers
I think the 7D may be good....for 18MP's on a 1.6x.
Everyone needs to remember...Canon said this same crap about the 50D and its new sensor and how its ISO 3200 shots would be close to a 40D ISO1600 shot....and look what happened.....per Chuck Westfall
We should wait till some real tests come from real images. All this sigma number crap and black point numbers and all this other stuff means absolutely nothing to the actual real image.
The shots I see from Rob galbraith doesnt look all that impressive.
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a 15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.
If one is noisier than the other, then its sensor is noisier...period. I seriously doubt anyone will buy this camera willing to cut its resolution down for the hopes in cleaner files. All of the other stuff Canon did is great...awesome job....
But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system. Canon should seriously allow some trade in vouchers for the 5D2 users to get a 5D2n with the new AF and sensor and metering system.
This was great by Canon, but did their 5D2 buyers wrong on this one.
This would have been a complete homerun had Canon went with say a 12MP sensor with this new sensor tech, then we'd be talkin real ISO performance.
I dont know why they feel that everytime they update a sensor, they need to increase the pixels.
Stop Canon! No one is pushing you to do this. Every one of Nikons cameras are 12MP. Except for the real low end cameras that are 10MP or the one big boy D3x at 24. Nikon stays with that 12MP sensor for a reason....real improvements. Canon offsets the gains of new tech. by cramming more pixels in.
AF system
Metering system
Flash commander
Customization
Image Sensor
Everyone needs to remember...Canon said this same crap about the 50D and its new sensor and how its ISO 3200 shots would be close to a 40D ISO1600 shot....and look what happened.....per Chuck Westfall
We should wait till some real tests come from real images. All this sigma number crap and black point numbers and all this other stuff means absolutely nothing to the actual real image.
The shots I see from Rob galbraith doesnt look all that impressive.
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a 15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.
If one is noisier than the other, then its sensor is noisier...period. I seriously doubt anyone will buy this camera willing to cut its resolution down for the hopes in cleaner files. All of the other stuff Canon did is great...awesome job....
But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system. Canon should seriously allow some trade in vouchers for the 5D2 users to get a 5D2n with the new AF and sensor and metering system.
This was great by Canon, but did their 5D2 buyers wrong on this one.
This would have been a complete homerun had Canon went with say a 12MP sensor with this new sensor tech, then we'd be talkin real ISO performance.
I dont know why they feel that everytime they update a sensor, they need to increase the pixels.
Stop Canon! No one is pushing you to do this. Every one of Nikons cameras are 12MP. Except for the real low end cameras that are 10MP or the one big boy D3x at 24. Nikon stays with that 12MP sensor for a reason....real improvements. Canon offsets the gains of new tech. by cramming more pixels in.
AF system
Metering system
Flash commander
Customization
Image Sensor
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:14 PM
p.2 #87D noise vs 50D numbers
I think Canon is pushing the sensor development to the edge.
PhotogDave wrote:
I think the 7D may be good....for 18MP's on a 1.6x.
Everyone needs to remember...Canon said this same crap about the 50D and its new sensor and how its ISO 3200 shots would be close to a 40D ISO1600 shot....and look what happened.....per Chuck Westfall
We should wait till some real tests come from real images. All this sigma number crap and black point numbers and all this other stuff means absolutely nothing to the actual real image.
The shots I see from Rob galbraith doesnt look all that impressive.
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the...Show more →
PhotogDave wrote:
I think the 7D may be good....for 18MP's on a 1.6x.
Everyone needs to remember...Canon said this same crap about the 50D and its new sensor and how its ISO 3200 shots would be close to a 40D ISO1600 shot....and look what happened.....per Chuck Westfall
We should wait till some real tests come from real images. All this sigma number crap and black point numbers and all this other stuff means absolutely nothing to the actual real image.
The shots I see from Rob galbraith doesnt look all that impressive.
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the...Show more →
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:16 PM
p.2 #97D noise vs 50D numbers
keithreeder wrote:
Seriously, who in their right mind would expect it to?
Exactly! Its not a FF. Geez. It is a lot closer to a 5DmkII than it is a 50D though. From the photos I have seen on image resource, it is very close to a 5DmkII and a D700 up to 6400.
UCSB wrote
I'm not seeing anything to lead me believe that the camera is going to come close to my 5DII.Exactly! Its not a FF. Geez. It is a lot closer to a 5DmkII than it is a 50D though. From the photos I have seen on image resource, it is very close to a 5DmkII and a D700 up to 6400.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:35 PM
p.2 #107D noise vs 50D numbers
PhotogDave wrote:
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a 15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.
If one is noisier than the other, then its sensor is noisier...period.
The reason that you need to match resolution when comparing output for noise is that you may actually want to print your images and when you print the images you might even want to print at a specific size say 8 X 10 or 18 X 12 or whatever. If you care about printed images, then you don't care about what it looks like at 100% on the screen, you care about what the print looks like. And the problem is that if one camera has higher resolution often it will look noiser at 100% on a monitor, but may look less noisy in the prints that are produced. So when you look at a 100% on the monitor you are misleading yourself about what your prints would look like. That is why you need to do comparisons that match resolution, because making prints matches resolution. With that said the problem of not matching resolution is bigger the wider the discrepancy in resolution, so comparing 50D and 7D files won't be as bad as some comparisons, because they are fairly close in resolution. Still compared to what you see on a monitor at 100%, prints from a 7D will have less noise than prints from a 50D even if they have the same amount of noise on the monitor.
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a 15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.
If one is noisier than the other, then its sensor is noisier...period.
The reason that you need to match resolution when comparing output for noise is that you may actually want to print your images and when you print the images you might even want to print at a specific size say 8 X 10 or 18 X 12 or whatever. If you care about printed images, then you don't care about what it looks like at 100% on the screen, you care about what the print looks like. And the problem is that if one camera has higher resolution often it will look noiser at 100% on a monitor, but may look less noisy in the prints that are produced. So when you look at a 100% on the monitor you are misleading yourself about what your prints would look like. That is why you need to do comparisons that match resolution, because making prints matches resolution. With that said the problem of not matching resolution is bigger the wider the discrepancy in resolution, so comparing 50D and 7D files won't be as bad as some comparisons, because they are fairly close in resolution. Still compared to what you see on a monitor at 100%, prints from a 7D will have less noise than prints from a 50D even if they have the same amount of noise on the monitor.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:46 PM
p.2 #117D noise vs 50D numbers
>PhotogDave wrote:
>I think the 7D may be good....for 18MP's on a 1.6x.
>Everyone needs to remember...Canon said this same crap about the 50D and its new >sensor and how its ISO 3200 shots would be close to a 40D ISO1600 shot....and look >what happened.....per Chuck Westfall
True, although the DR has been shown at the RAW level to be better this time, already.
>We should wait till some real tests come from real images. All this sigma number >crap and black point numbers and all this other stuff means absolutely nothing to the >actual real image.
umm that sigma crap has everything to do with the actual image, what do you think the images just magically appear without obeying the sensor characteristics
come on.
That said it is true that DR only tells one part of the story. Some real SNR measurements would be big.
>The shots I see from Rob galbraith doesnt look all that impressive.
>And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other >cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a >15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.
Which is what happens when you DO normalize. If you print from both to the same size print, that is what happens, they are normalized to the same output size.
Your method actually wouldn't have any to do with the actual prints the camera makes.
>But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to >wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera >and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system.
yeah that certainly is a bit unfortunate, i had a feeling something like this when the 5D2 came out too much of the body stuff just seemed outdated.
>This would have been a complete homerun had Canon went with say a 12MP sensor >with this new sensor tech, then we'd be talkin real ISO performance.
It might do a little worse at ISO100 for DR if they did that and you'd give lots of the reach it does give you over the 5D2. It might do a little better at high iso, although i'm not sure by terrible much, I mean 1/3 stop? Not really sure but I'm suspicious not enough to make it worth losing the reach.
>I dont know why they feel that everytime they update a sensor, they need to increase >the pixels.
With the 5 series I hope they stop if it means not going above 4fps again.
>Stop Canon! No one is pushing you to do this. Every one of Nikons cameras are
>12MP.
true, but you need like a 400-500mm lens to get any sort of reach for sports of wildlife and those are bulky as hell and crazy $$$$.
>I think the 7D may be good....for 18MP's on a 1.6x.
>Everyone needs to remember...Canon said this same crap about the 50D and its new >sensor and how its ISO 3200 shots would be close to a 40D ISO1600 shot....and look >what happened.....per Chuck Westfall
True, although the DR has been shown at the RAW level to be better this time, already.
>We should wait till some real tests come from real images. All this sigma number >crap and black point numbers and all this other stuff means absolutely nothing to the >actual real image.
umm that sigma crap has everything to do with the actual image, what do you think the images just magically appear without obeying the sensor characteristics
come on.That said it is true that DR only tells one part of the story. Some real SNR measurements would be big.
>The shots I see from Rob galbraith doesnt look all that impressive.
>And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other >cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a >15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.
Which is what happens when you DO normalize. If you print from both to the same size print, that is what happens, they are normalized to the same output size.
Your method actually wouldn't have any to do with the actual prints the camera makes.
>But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to >wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera >and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system.
yeah that certainly is a bit unfortunate, i had a feeling something like this when the 5D2 came out too much of the body stuff just seemed outdated.
>This would have been a complete homerun had Canon went with say a 12MP sensor >with this new sensor tech, then we'd be talkin real ISO performance.
It might do a little worse at ISO100 for DR if they did that and you'd give lots of the reach it does give you over the 5D2. It might do a little better at high iso, although i'm not sure by terrible much, I mean 1/3 stop
? Not really sure but I'm suspicious not enough to make it worth losing the reach.>I dont know why they feel that everytime they update a sensor, they need to increase >the pixels.
With the 5 series I hope they stop if it means not going above 4fps again.
>Stop Canon! No one is pushing you to do this. Every one of Nikons cameras are
>12MP.
true, but you need like a 400-500mm lens to get any sort of reach for sports of wildlife and those are bulky as hell and crazy $$$$.
Sep 01, 2009 at 09:49 PM
p.2 #127D noise vs 50D numbers
Hammmerhead wrote:
[
Exactly! Its not a FF. Geez. It is a lot closer to a 5DmkII than it is a 50D though. From the photos I have seen on image resource, it is very close to a 5DmkII and a D700 up to 6400.
+1 that is what I am seeing also! Waiting for the real reviews soon!
Tim
[
Exactly! Its not a FF. Geez. It is a lot closer to a 5DmkII than it is a 50D though. From the photos I have seen on image resource, it is very close to a 5DmkII and a D700 up to 6400.
+1 that is what I am seeing also! Waiting for the real reviews soon!
Tim
Sep 01, 2009 at 10:54 PM
p.2 #137D noise vs 50D numbers
Steve Spencer wrote:
If one is noisier than the other, then its sensor is noisier...period.The reason that you need to match resolution when comparing output for noise is that you may actually want to print your images and when you print the images you might even want to print at a specific size say 8 X 10 or 18 X 12 or whatever. If you care about printed images, then you don't care about what it looks like at 100% on the screen, you care about what the print looks like. And the problem is that if one camera has higher resolution often it will look noiser at 100% on a monitor, but...Show more →
If I print larger to take advantage of the extra pixels (lets assume dpi is the same) and I stand at the appropriate distance for each sized print, will they look the same, and will the larger print look just as noisy as the smaller print at the same distance?
PhotogDave wrote
And then all this talk about downsizing the samples to match the resolution to other cameras for comparison.....why. The 7D produces a 18mp file and the 50D produces a 15mp file. Compare the files that the camera actually makes.If one is noisier than the other, then its sensor is noisier...period.
If I print larger to take advantage of the extra pixels (lets assume dpi is the same) and I stand at the appropriate distance for each sized print, will they look the same, and will the larger print look just as noisy as the smaller print at the same distance?
Sep 01, 2009 at 11:42 PM
p.2 #147D noise vs 50D numbers
PhotogDave wrote:
...
All of the other stuff Canon did is great...awesome job....
But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system. Canon should seriously allow some trade in vouchers for the 5D2 users to get a 5D2n with the new AF and sensor and metering system.
This was great by Canon, but did their 5D2 buyers wrong on this one.
I can't even believe I'm about to stick up for the 5DII here, but here goes. There's no proof that any of the new features of the 7D were ready for prime time when the 5DII came out last year. The 5DII was designed with what Canon had ready to go at the time. One of the main complaints about the 5DII was that the AF sensor array was unchanged from the 5D classic, but some claim it's better for their use than the all-cross-type AF sensors of the 50D (5DII has 6 helper points that help with AI Servo tracking). I disagree, but I can see how Canon might think so and how buyers might be ok with it. Not for me, but for others sure.
If you bought a 5DII at $2700 and thought it worth the money at the time, then you really have no grounds for complaints about what new tech is unveiled in a cheaper camera a year later. I can sympathize with any 5DII owners who might feel shortchanged (good luck getting very many to come out and say it though), but you choose your camera and you take your lumps. The trade-in voucher idea, although far-fetched, would be an incredible gesture of goodwill from Canon, but I wouldn't expect any company to do so.
...
All of the other stuff Canon did is great...awesome job....
But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system. Canon should seriously allow some trade in vouchers for the 5D2 users to get a 5D2n with the new AF and sensor and metering system.
This was great by Canon, but did their 5D2 buyers wrong on this one.
I can't even believe I'm about to stick up for the 5DII here, but here goes. There's no proof that any of the new features of the 7D were ready for prime time when the 5DII came out last year. The 5DII was designed with what Canon had ready to go at the time. One of the main complaints about the 5DII was that the AF sensor array was unchanged from the 5D classic, but some claim it's better for their use than the all-cross-type AF sensors of the 50D (5DII has 6 helper points that help with AI Servo tracking). I disagree, but I can see how Canon might think so and how buyers might be ok with it. Not for me, but for others sure.
If you bought a 5DII at $2700 and thought it worth the money at the time, then you really have no grounds for complaints about what new tech is unveiled in a cheaper camera a year later. I can sympathize with any 5DII owners who might feel shortchanged (good luck getting very many to come out and say it though), but you choose your camera and you take your lumps. The trade-in voucher idea, although far-fetched, would be an incredible gesture of goodwill from Canon, but I wouldn't expect any company to do so.
Sep 02, 2009 at 12:11 AM
p.2 #157D noise vs 50D numbers
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
All of the other stuff Canon did is great...awesome job....
But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system. Canon should seriously allow some trade in vouchers for the 5D2 users to get a 5D2n with the new AF and sensor and metering system.
This was great by Canon, but did their 5D2 buyers wrong on this one.I can't even believe I'm about to stick up for the 5DII here, but here goes. There's no proof that any of the new features of the 7D were ready for prime time when the 5DII came out last year. The 5DII was designed with what Canon had ready to go at the time. One of the main complaints about the 5DII was that the AF sensor array was unchanged from the 5D classic, but some claim it's better for their use than the all-cross-type AF sensors of the 50D (5DII has 6 helper points that help with AI...Show more →
Yohan, I can't believe you said that!
PhotogDave: A 7D with a full frame sensor would have been more expensive than the 5D2, but I'm sure we'll get there someday.
PhotogDave wrote
...All of the other stuff Canon did is great...awesome job....
But this should have been in the 5D2 and its bullS$%t that the 5D2 guys/gals had to wait as long as they did for the 5D2 and then less than a year later, a lower camera and $1k less comes out with twice the AF and alot better metering system. Canon should seriously allow some trade in vouchers for the 5D2 users to get a 5D2n with the new AF and sensor and metering system.
This was great by Canon, but did their 5D2 buyers wrong on this one.
Yohan, I can't believe you said that!
PhotogDave: A 7D with a full frame sensor would have been more expensive than the 5D2, but I'm sure we'll get there someday.
Sep 02, 2009 at 12:26 AM
p.2 #167D noise vs 50D numbers
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
I can sympathize with any 5DII owners who might feel shortchanged (good luck getting very many to come out and say it though)
Well, actually I do feel a bit shortchanged. That has also something to do with 5D2 prices dropping by 170 euros right after I bought mine
But I can't believe that Canon didn't have all the new 7D technology (AF, metering, etc) available at the time of developing the 5D2.
I do believe that it was mostly marketing what drove them to shortchange the 5D2 on a few key areas (AF). I mean, there was no need to make it a better camera, because the only direct competitors were the Sony a900 (which isn't top notch when it comes to AF too) and D700 (which has a pro-like AF, but misses the pixels of the other two). Now they will give 5D2 users very compelling reasons to buy the 5D3 when it is released (when they upgrade AF and stuff - which they will no doubt do, since by that time the Nikon D700x will surely be released).
I think it has been proven by now that Canon builds its release strategies upon what other manufacturers are doing (especially Nikon and Sony). So, they are playing a catch up game right now... and had no choice other than to release the 7D to counter the D300s, because the 50D failed hugely. Hereby letting go of the strict seperation between the pro and prosumer market. An old and arrogant strategy that only favors Canon's bank account, but not the demands/wishes of the people who actually use and buy their stuff.
So, in a way I feel shortchanged that Canon didn't give the 5D2 all the new tech (especially in the light of the 7D's release), but on the other hand I am glad that they finally (under pressure) gave up their old dividing ways... and -maybe- got rid off the infamous pattern noise too (but that is a different story)
I can sympathize with any 5DII owners who might feel shortchanged (good luck getting very many to come out and say it though)
Well, actually I do feel a bit shortchanged. That has also something to do with 5D2 prices dropping by 170 euros right after I bought mine
But I can't believe that Canon didn't have all the new 7D technology (AF, metering, etc) available at the time of developing the 5D2.
I do believe that it was mostly marketing what drove them to shortchange the 5D2 on a few key areas (AF). I mean, there was no need to make it a better camera, because the only direct competitors were the Sony a900 (which isn't top notch when it comes to AF too) and D700 (which has a pro-like AF, but misses the pixels of the other two). Now they will give 5D2 users very compelling reasons to buy the 5D3 when it is released (when they upgrade AF and stuff - which they will no doubt do, since by that time the Nikon D700x will surely be released).
I think it has been proven by now that Canon builds its release strategies upon what other manufacturers are doing (especially Nikon and Sony). So, they are playing a catch up game right now... and had no choice other than to release the 7D to counter the D300s, because the 50D failed hugely. Hereby letting go of the strict seperation between the pro and prosumer market. An old and arrogant strategy that only favors Canon's bank account, but not the demands/wishes of the people who actually use and buy their stuff.
So, in a way I feel shortchanged that Canon didn't give the 5D2 all the new tech (especially in the light of the 7D's release), but on the other hand I am glad that they finally (under pressure) gave up their old dividing ways... and -maybe- got rid off the infamous pattern noise too (but that is a different story)
Sep 02, 2009 at 01:05 AM
p.2 #177D noise vs 50D numbers
I think we have to remember that many of these decisions - supposedly crippled AF in the 5D Mk II, big crop sensor in the 7D - would likely have made a great deal of sense (say) three of four years ago when their designs and specs were mapped out and baselined out by Canon - and before Canon had any knowledge of the rabbits Nikon was about to pull out of its hat...
Sep 02, 2009 at 04:59 AM
p.2 #187D noise vs 50D numbers
Steve Spencer>
The reason that you need to match resolution when comparing output for noise is that you may actually want to print your images and when you print the images you might even want to print at a specific size say 8 X 10 or 18 X 12 or whatever. If you care about printed images, then you don't care about what it looks like at 100% on the screen, you care about what the print looks like. And the problem is that if one camera has higher resolution often it will look noiser at 100% on a monitor, but may look...Show more →
This is absolutely wrong. Making 8x10 prints from a 7D file vs a 5D file will not match resolution. The 7D file for an 8x10 crop would be 4320x3456(14.9MP) and the 5D2(17.5MP) there for, the 5D2 8x10 print will show less noise than the 7D because it has more pixels per inch in the same size print than the 7D does.
All you do is chop off a small portion of the pixel deminsions. Making the print matches the print size, but the higher resolution file has more pixels per inch in that print than the smaller, cause you must crop the smaller file to fit the aspect ratio also.
Its pointless to downsize the 5d file to match the 7D file for printing purposes, no one does this. If they want an 8x10, they crop it accordingly and are left with the remaining pixels.
They dont down size the 5D from 5616x3744(5D2) to 5184x3456(7D), then crop for 8x10 from there, its stupid. You just crop out 16% of the original file and done.
All I was saying is, it doesnt matter about how it looks at 100%, the 5d2 makes a 21mp image, the 7d makes a 18MP image, so compare what the sensor makes. You dont down res the bigger image to see if it compares with the smaller one.....BECAUSE IT DOESNT PRODUCE THAT SIZE IMAGE. So it doesnt matter, its pointless. Of course the downsized 7D file will be cleaner than the full size....so, thats a manipulated file. Thats not what the sensor makes. The 18MP file from the 7D should be compared to the 15MP file of the 50D and viewed at normal viewing size, not 100% and which ever is cleaner, then so be it. Canon doesnt produce images to be viewed at 100%. They make images to look a certain way when viewed as images, whatever it takes.
It produces what it produces. Its that simple. To me, looking at the 5D2 files side by side to the 7D files, they look very close except for the 5D banding. At 100% its a different story, but again, the image wasnt intended to look good at 100%, its supposed to look good at normal viewing size.
The real test would be set up a 70-200 on a tripod(cause the lens wouldnt need to be moved, just dismount the camera body from lens to swap.)then mount the 5D2 and set lens somewhere in the middle. Use f8 and whatevevr ISO, snap picture, then dismount, mount 7D and adjust zoom to match the FOV of the 5D, same settings, snap and view those side by side. Not 100%. This would be easier to see the difference, cause the RG pics are different images at different angles etc, so you cant really see the image side by side.
If you dont do it this way, and you just down size the image to match FOV or whatever, you change the playing field for one sensor by altering its pixels, let it produce the image its designed to make and see what wins.
In regards to my comment about the sensor specs, measurements....its all crap.
Those specs can be whatever, it doesnt matter until you see the real images. I dont care about what the SNR is, what the black offset is, what the sigma is, what the R and G and B channels look like....it doesnt matter.
When the rubber meets the road, what does my final image look like out of the camera. Canon can post all this they want. They did it with the 50D and everyone got all excited, they did this with the 1D3 AF supposed to be the best ever made and smoke anything in the market. I read all this when those came out here and on Canons site, and what happened. SPLAT!
WHen the rubber hit the road, all that crap that everyone thought they new about the cameras looking at specs, meant nothing once it hit the road. This is what I mean, we cant be sure until those of you or I get our hands on one just like the 50D and just like my 1D3 to see the real deal.
Yes, those specs mean something in producing an image, of course, but the specs never tell the real story, ask those who bought into the 50D that got burned.
It looks promising, but we cant think by looking at a couple images online we know the outcome in the real world. IMO, it already looks to be alot better than the 50D outcome, just dont get ahead of yourselves.....cause none of us really know yet.
The reason that you need to match resolution when comparing output for noise is that you may actually want to print your images and when you print the images you might even want to print at a specific size say 8 X 10 or 18 X 12 or whatever. If you care about printed images, then you don't care about what it looks like at 100% on the screen, you care about what the print looks like. And the problem is that if one camera has higher resolution often it will look noiser at 100% on a monitor, but may look...Show more →
This is absolutely wrong. Making 8x10 prints from a 7D file vs a 5D file will not match resolution. The 7D file for an 8x10 crop would be 4320x3456(14.9MP) and the 5D2(17.5MP) there for, the 5D2 8x10 print will show less noise than the 7D because it has more pixels per inch in the same size print than the 7D does.
All you do is chop off a small portion of the pixel deminsions. Making the print matches the print size, but the higher resolution file has more pixels per inch in that print than the smaller, cause you must crop the smaller file to fit the aspect ratio also.
Its pointless to downsize the 5d file to match the 7D file for printing purposes, no one does this. If they want an 8x10, they crop it accordingly and are left with the remaining pixels.
They dont down size the 5D from 5616x3744(5D2) to 5184x3456(7D), then crop for 8x10 from there, its stupid. You just crop out 16% of the original file and done.
All I was saying is, it doesnt matter about how it looks at 100%, the 5d2 makes a 21mp image, the 7d makes a 18MP image, so compare what the sensor makes. You dont down res the bigger image to see if it compares with the smaller one.....BECAUSE IT DOESNT PRODUCE THAT SIZE IMAGE. So it doesnt matter, its pointless. Of course the downsized 7D file will be cleaner than the full size....so, thats a manipulated file. Thats not what the sensor makes. The 18MP file from the 7D should be compared to the 15MP file of the 50D and viewed at normal viewing size, not 100% and which ever is cleaner, then so be it. Canon doesnt produce images to be viewed at 100%. They make images to look a certain way when viewed as images, whatever it takes.
It produces what it produces. Its that simple. To me, looking at the 5D2 files side by side to the 7D files, they look very close except for the 5D banding. At 100% its a different story, but again, the image wasnt intended to look good at 100%, its supposed to look good at normal viewing size.
The real test would be set up a 70-200 on a tripod(cause the lens wouldnt need to be moved, just dismount the camera body from lens to swap.)then mount the 5D2 and set lens somewhere in the middle. Use f8 and whatevevr ISO, snap picture, then dismount, mount 7D and adjust zoom to match the FOV of the 5D, same settings, snap and view those side by side. Not 100%. This would be easier to see the difference, cause the RG pics are different images at different angles etc, so you cant really see the image side by side.
If you dont do it this way, and you just down size the image to match FOV or whatever, you change the playing field for one sensor by altering its pixels, let it produce the image its designed to make and see what wins.
In regards to my comment about the sensor specs, measurements....its all crap.
Those specs can be whatever, it doesnt matter until you see the real images. I dont care about what the SNR is, what the black offset is, what the sigma is, what the R and G and B channels look like....it doesnt matter.
When the rubber meets the road, what does my final image look like out of the camera. Canon can post all this they want. They did it with the 50D and everyone got all excited, they did this with the 1D3 AF supposed to be the best ever made and smoke anything in the market. I read all this when those came out here and on Canons site, and what happened. SPLAT!
WHen the rubber hit the road, all that crap that everyone thought they new about the cameras looking at specs, meant nothing once it hit the road. This is what I mean, we cant be sure until those of you or I get our hands on one just like the 50D and just like my 1D3 to see the real deal.
Yes, those specs mean something in producing an image, of course, but the specs never tell the real story, ask those who bought into the 50D that got burned.
It looks promising, but we cant think by looking at a couple images online we know the outcome in the real world. IMO, it already looks to be alot better than the 50D outcome, just dont get ahead of yourselves.....cause none of us really know yet.
Sep 02, 2009 at 08:11 AM
p.2 #197D noise vs 50D numbers
keithreeder wrote:
Seriously, who in their right mind would expect it to?
The pattern banding noise is reason enough for me to say that the 7D is much better.
UCSB wrote
I'm not seeing anything to lead me believe that the camera is going to come close to my 5DII.The pattern banding noise is reason enough for me to say that the 7D is much better.
Sep 02, 2009 at 08:14 AM
p.2 #207D noise vs 50D numbers
garyvot wrote, "but I don't routinely try to pull shadow details out of underexposed images"
How would one do this anyway? I've thought about doing it before, but I wouldn't know where to begin.
How would one do this anyway? I've thought about doing it before, but I wouldn't know where to begin.
Sep 02, 2009 at 08:19 AM