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.3 #17D noise vs 50D numbers
Also, we could look at the 7D this way....if it were a 60D, would anyone here be expecting the sensor to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 50D after what happened with all the new tech the 50D was supposed to have. No. We'd expect the same old issue that we got going from the 40 to 50D, but much better features, new metering, better AF than ever before, but no one would be expecting IQ to change for the better. This really should have been the 50D upgrade.....actually worth it.
So why are we expecting any real difference just because its named 7D.....cause its really a 60D.....IMO. I mean, look at it. It screams 60D. It screams 60D that should have been the real upgrade of the 50D from the 40D.
IMO, there will be no 60D. I think Canon will use:
1D & 1Ds Series - To compete with the Nikon D3 & D3x
5-Series - Compete with the D700(although an odd match up, but still....)
7-Series - Compete with the D300 on a more even level....price and features
Rebel Line - Compete with D90 and so on
If I am right, then its an excellent move on Canons part of marketing by changing the name, cause then you change the whole image of what has become mediocre upgrades to the XXD line up.
Except now, the 7D is worth the money and worthy of being considered a prosumer camera when compared to the D300.
So now, lets see a 5D2 update with the new AF/Metering etc. I really hope the 1D4 doesnt have more than 12-14MP's...in fear that packing them in will really hender the potential of extreme clean High ISO. I use my 1D3 at 1600 and above as much as most people use there cameras at 400 and below. This thing really needs to be stuning at high ISO/DR and to do so, should stay around 12mp on same size sensor or bigger.
So why are we expecting any real difference just because its named 7D.....cause its really a 60D.....IMO. I mean, look at it. It screams 60D. It screams 60D that should have been the real upgrade of the 50D from the 40D.
IMO, there will be no 60D. I think Canon will use:
1D & 1Ds Series - To compete with the Nikon D3 & D3x
5-Series - Compete with the D700(although an odd match up, but still....)
7-Series - Compete with the D300 on a more even level....price and features
Rebel Line - Compete with D90 and so on
If I am right, then its an excellent move on Canons part of marketing by changing the name, cause then you change the whole image of what has become mediocre upgrades to the XXD line up.
Except now, the 7D is worth the money and worthy of being considered a prosumer camera when compared to the D300.
So now, lets see a 5D2 update with the new AF/Metering etc. I really hope the 1D4 doesnt have more than 12-14MP's...in fear that packing them in will really hender the potential of extreme clean High ISO. I use my 1D3 at 1600 and above as much as most people use there cameras at 400 and below. This thing really needs to be stuning at high ISO/DR and to do so, should stay around 12mp on same size sensor or bigger.
Sep 02, 2009 at 09:22 AM
p.3 #27D noise vs 50D numbers
PhotogDave wrote:
Also, we could look at the 7D this way....if it were a 60D, would anyone here be expecting the sensor to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 50D after what happened with all the new tech the 50D was supposed to have. No. We'd expect the same old issue that we got going from the 40 to 50D, but much better features, new metering, better AF than ever before, but no one would be expecting IQ to change for the better. This really should have been the 50D upgrade.....actually worth it.
So why are we expecting any real difference just...Show more →
Hardly a 60D--has way to much of the electronics and such from a 1D series to call it a XXD-series camera. Outside of the 1.6x crop sensor, the body has a lot going for it that was never introduced into the XXD model line. It IS a paradigm shift.
If anything, it looks to me that they are releasing the 7D as a way to test certain components that may make their way into a should-be-as-reliable-as-all-get-out 1D camera.
Note: people hemming and hawing about metering and af of 5DII versus the 7D, please be realistic. They're 2 very much different platforms, and the hardware necessary to build such subsystems will be different on each camera. I do hope we see some of these improvements moved over to the full frame field, but won't hold my breath.
Second note: You'd probably be surprised how FEW design engineers are at work in the whole imaging field at Canon. I'm not going to speculate, but these companies are likely leaner than you think. Product design lines are longer than you think as well. This isn't the same as the consumer electronics line, where it's assemble a PCB based off the newest chips available from other manufacturerers.
Also, we could look at the 7D this way....if it were a 60D, would anyone here be expecting the sensor to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 50D after what happened with all the new tech the 50D was supposed to have. No. We'd expect the same old issue that we got going from the 40 to 50D, but much better features, new metering, better AF than ever before, but no one would be expecting IQ to change for the better. This really should have been the 50D upgrade.....actually worth it.
So why are we expecting any real difference just...Show more →
Hardly a 60D--has way to much of the electronics and such from a 1D series to call it a XXD-series camera. Outside of the 1.6x crop sensor, the body has a lot going for it that was never introduced into the XXD model line. It IS a paradigm shift.
If anything, it looks to me that they are releasing the 7D as a way to test certain components that may make their way into a should-be-as-reliable-as-all-get-out 1D camera.
Note: people hemming and hawing about metering and af of 5DII versus the 7D, please be realistic. They're 2 very much different platforms, and the hardware necessary to build such subsystems will be different on each camera. I do hope we see some of these improvements moved over to the full frame field, but won't hold my breath.
Second note: You'd probably be surprised how FEW design engineers are at work in the whole imaging field at Canon. I'm not going to speculate, but these companies are likely leaner than you think. Product design lines are longer than you think as well. This isn't the same as the consumer electronics line, where it's assemble a PCB based off the newest chips available from other manufacturerers.
Sep 02, 2009 at 09:43 AM
p.3 #37D noise vs 50D numbers
PhotogDave wrote:
Also, we could look at the 7D this way....if it were a 60D, would anyone here be expecting the sensor to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 50D after what happened with all the new tech the 50D was supposed to have. No. We'd expect the same old issue that we got going from the 40 to 50D, but much better features, new metering, better AF than ever before, but no one would be expecting IQ to change for the better. This really should have been the 50D upgrade.....actually worth it.
So why are we expecting any real difference just...Show more →
I stated this in a couple of other threads a few days ago and people disagreed. I just don't see the room anywhere for an XXD camera. The Rebel or xt group was approaching the quality and specs of the XXD cameras quite fast and to put a XXD camera inbetween the Rebels and 7Ds, say at a $1000 (USD) price tag would not be worth it to some people. I just feel this is the XXD replacement and we will never see a 60D.
Perhaps I am still wrong
Also, we could look at the 7D this way....if it were a 60D, would anyone here be expecting the sensor to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 50D after what happened with all the new tech the 50D was supposed to have. No. We'd expect the same old issue that we got going from the 40 to 50D, but much better features, new metering, better AF than ever before, but no one would be expecting IQ to change for the better. This really should have been the 50D upgrade.....actually worth it.
So why are we expecting any real difference just...Show more →
I stated this in a couple of other threads a few days ago and people disagreed. I just don't see the room anywhere for an XXD camera. The Rebel or xt group was approaching the quality and specs of the XXD cameras quite fast and to put a XXD camera inbetween the Rebels and 7Ds, say at a $1000 (USD) price tag would not be worth it to some people. I just feel this is the XXD replacement and we will never see a 60D.
Perhaps I am still wrong
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:07 AM
p.3 #47D noise vs 50D numbers
skibum5 wrote:
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?
7D ONLY has 11.2 stops of DR? Hmmm.. that's like 1 stop lower than what one gets from the D5000.
Sigh.... what's wrong with Canon?
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?
7D ONLY has 11.2 stops of DR? Hmmm.. that's like 1 stop lower than what one gets from the D5000.
Sigh.... what's wrong with Canon?
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:08 AM
p.3 #57D noise vs 50D numbers
Oh, come on!
That D5000 is freakishly good in the DR department - way better than can easily be explained by the sensor in it (if you believe the figures) - but 11.2 stops of DR from a 17 mp sensor is hardly something to bitch about...
Besides, good conversion/PP practices can make a big difference: http://www.eos-images.com/tips-techniques/dynamic-range-and-raw-conversion
Edited on Sep 02, 2009 at 10:36 AM · View previous versions
That D5000 is freakishly good in the DR department - way better than can easily be explained by the sensor in it (if you believe the figures) - but 11.2 stops of DR from a 17 mp sensor is hardly something to bitch about...
Besides, good conversion/PP practices can make a big difference: http://www.eos-images.com/tips-techniques/dynamic-range-and-raw-conversion
Edited on Sep 02, 2009 at 10:36 AM · View previous versions
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:32 AM
p.3 #67D noise vs 50D numbers
Daan B wrote:
....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)
Agreed.
....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)
Agreed.
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:35 AM
p.3 #77D noise vs 50D numbers
I agree totally Gil.
Only time will tell everyone if we are right. If a 60D comes out, I'll eat crow, but I think I am on the right track. Look at the camera. Its the exact same size, they look almost identical, pricing, crop sensor. It smells like a 60D to me.
Only time will tell everyone if we are right. If a 60D comes out, I'll eat crow, but I think I am on the right track. Look at the camera. Its the exact same size, they look almost identical, pricing, crop sensor. It smells like a 60D to me.
Sep 02, 2009 at 10:51 AM
p.3 #87D noise vs 50D numbers
Gil_W wrote:
I stated this in a couple of other threads a few days ago and people disagreed. I just don't see the room anywhere for an XXD camera. The Rebel or xt group was approaching the quality and specs of the XXD cameras quite fast and to put a XXD camera inbetween the Rebels and 7Ds, say at a $1000 (USD) price tag would not be worth it to some people. I just feel this is the XXD replacement and we will never see a 60D.
Perhaps I am still wrong
While the x0D line is close to a 7D, so is the xx0D line to the x0D, and so is the xxx0D line to the xx0D. In fact I'd argue that the first 3 steps from the bottom is closer than the third to the fourth step (x0D to 7D). I think Canon intended it to be crowded, in fact Sony started this sort of strategy by having multiple entry level bodies that are barely different. If this is truly so, we might even see a 3D to close the gap between the 5 series and the 1 series (the biggest gap right now). And if it happens it will be their way of firing broadside to both Nikon and Sony with all their bases covered. Years ago Canon was the big daddy while Nikon is limping along, now they want the title back.
If I were to hazard a guess, we might never see a 5D with 7D's AF, and the FF body with the 7D's AF will be called the 3D. 5D will be like the FF version of x0D.
Just my opinion of course
I stated this in a couple of other threads a few days ago and people disagreed. I just don't see the room anywhere for an XXD camera. The Rebel or xt group was approaching the quality and specs of the XXD cameras quite fast and to put a XXD camera inbetween the Rebels and 7Ds, say at a $1000 (USD) price tag would not be worth it to some people. I just feel this is the XXD replacement and we will never see a 60D.
Perhaps I am still wrong
While the x0D line is close to a 7D, so is the xx0D line to the x0D, and so is the xxx0D line to the xx0D. In fact I'd argue that the first 3 steps from the bottom is closer than the third to the fourth step (x0D to 7D). I think Canon intended it to be crowded, in fact Sony started this sort of strategy by having multiple entry level bodies that are barely different. If this is truly so, we might even see a 3D to close the gap between the 5 series and the 1 series (the biggest gap right now). And if it happens it will be their way of firing broadside to both Nikon and Sony with all their bases covered. Years ago Canon was the big daddy while Nikon is limping along, now they want the title back.
If I were to hazard a guess, we might never see a 5D with 7D's AF, and the FF body with the 7D's AF will be called the 3D. 5D will be like the FF version of x0D.
Just my opinion of course
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:00 AM
p.3 #97D noise vs 50D numbers
Navyblue wrote:
....If I were to hazard a guess, we might never see a 5D with 7D's AF, and the FF body with the 7D's AF will be called the 3D. 5D will be like the FF version of x0D.
Just my opinion of course
I'm hoping your right.
....If I were to hazard a guess, we might never see a 5D with 7D's AF, and the FF body with the 7D's AF will be called the 3D. 5D will be like the FF version of x0D.
Just my opinion of course
I'm hoping your right.
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:02 AM
p.3 #107D noise vs 50D numbers
thw2 wrote:
7D ONLY has 11.2 stops of DR?
11.26. I Repeat: 11.26
7D ONLY has 11.2 stops of DR?
11.26. I Repeat: 11.26
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:09 AM
p.3 #117D noise vs 50D numbers
Heh!
Bear in mind too that - according to DxO - the 5D only weighs in at 11.1, and yet they reckon the Nikon D200 has 11.5, which is more than the 11.3 of the 40D, the camera decribed by DPR in the following terms:
One surprise came from our testing of the cameras dynamic range, it delivered a consistently higher range than both the competition [they specifically tested the D200 against it] and its predecessor.
If the 7D has the same DR as the 40D, I'll be bloody ecstatic.
Bear in mind too that - according to DxO - the 5D only weighs in at 11.1, and yet they reckon the Nikon D200 has 11.5, which is more than the 11.3 of the 40D, the camera decribed by DPR in the following terms:
One surprise came from our testing of the cameras dynamic range, it delivered a consistently higher range than both the competition [they specifically tested the D200 against it] and its predecessor.
If the 7D has the same DR as the 40D, I'll be bloody ecstatic.
Sep 02, 2009 at 01:08 PM
p.3 #127D noise vs 50D numbers
Estimate of the photon full well (saturation) of the 7D
The background of the still life scene used by image-resource.com has some areas that are uniformly lit, and clean.
For high ISO's (6400-12800), the photon shot noise is practically all that contributes to the Standard Deviation (or variance, or Sigma) in those areas.
We can then use the mean-variance method to calculate the system gain.
The system gain is the number of photons collected per ADU (A/D conversion unit)
The mean-variance method utilizes the fact that photon shot noise is the square root of the number of collected photons.
The patch I used, had a mean value of 1652 ADU (Black level subtracted)
Std.dev at ISO 12800 was 288 ADU
The system gain at ISO12800 then becomes 1652/(288*288) = 0.02
Converting to ISO 100, the system gain is estimated to 2.56
If the data set is contaminated with other contributions to Std.dev, like a non-uniform surface or other noises, the estimated system gain will be lower than the actual. So my method should be conservative, regarding optimism about performance.
I got from the ISO 100 histogram that the saturation level is 11532 ADU (Black level subtracted)
The maximum number of photons a 7D pixel can collect, will be 11532 * 2.56 = 29500
For comparison, the 50D does 27300
The "betterness" per pixel is 1.08
For the whole sensor, 1.3 times more photons can be collected.
Take this with a grain of salt, it is only an estimate, and I apologize for the tech language.
The background of the still life scene used by image-resource.com has some areas that are uniformly lit, and clean.
For high ISO's (6400-12800), the photon shot noise is practically all that contributes to the Standard Deviation (or variance, or Sigma) in those areas.
We can then use the mean-variance method to calculate the system gain.
The system gain is the number of photons collected per ADU (A/D conversion unit)
The mean-variance method utilizes the fact that photon shot noise is the square root of the number of collected photons.
The patch I used, had a mean value of 1652 ADU (Black level subtracted)
Std.dev at ISO 12800 was 288 ADU
The system gain at ISO12800 then becomes 1652/(288*288) = 0.02
Converting to ISO 100, the system gain is estimated to 2.56
If the data set is contaminated with other contributions to Std.dev, like a non-uniform surface or other noises, the estimated system gain will be lower than the actual. So my method should be conservative, regarding optimism about performance.
I got from the ISO 100 histogram that the saturation level is 11532 ADU (Black level subtracted)
The maximum number of photons a 7D pixel can collect, will be 11532 * 2.56 = 29500
For comparison, the 50D does 27300
The "betterness" per pixel is 1.08
For the whole sensor, 1.3 times more photons can be collected.
Take this with a grain of salt, it is only an estimate, and I apologize for the tech language.
Sep 02, 2009 at 01:32 PM
p.3 #137D noise vs 50D numbers
keithreeder wrote:
If the 7D has the same DR as the 40D, I'll be bloody ecstatic.
I hear you ... IMO running out to buy champagne will probably be a waste of time (though it might come in handy if you win the lottery).
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
If the 7D has the same DR as the 40D, I'll be bloody ecstatic.
I hear you ... IMO running out to buy champagne will probably be a waste of time (though it might come in handy if you win the lottery).
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Sep 02, 2009 at 01:41 PM
p.3 #147D noise vs 50D numbers
alundeb wrote:
and I apologize for the tech language.
No need - it's interesting and informative stuff, and you're not forcing anyone to read it.
Assuming your calculation is thereabouts, is this a worthwhile "betterness"? I guess any improvement is worth having, but an idea of scale would be appreciated - 1.3 times more sounds like quite a lot!
Edited on Sep 02, 2009 at 02:52 PM · View previous versions
and I apologize for the tech language.
No need - it's interesting and informative stuff, and you're not forcing anyone to read it.
Assuming your calculation is thereabouts, is this a worthwhile "betterness"? I guess any improvement is worth having, but an idea of scale would be appreciated - 1.3 times more sounds like quite a lot!
Edited on Sep 02, 2009 at 02:52 PM · View previous versions
Sep 02, 2009 at 02:48 PM
p.3 #157D noise vs 50D numbers
Hi Joe,
with the price of the 7D in the UK, if I do get one, I won't be buying champagne for a long time!
with the price of the 7D in the UK, if I do get one, I won't be buying champagne for a long time!
Sep 02, 2009 at 02:49 PM
p.3 #167D noise vs 50D numbers
That's fine, Keith.
The betterness at pixel level is so far not much to talk about, other than we will probably not get the usual complaints that it got worse than the 50D.
The total number of collectable GigaPhotons (full well photons * Pixels) at ISO100 for some Canon cameras (old data from clarkvision.com):
5DII: 1250
1DIII: 709
40D: 438
50D: 410
7D(conservative estimate): 530
The betterness at pixel level is so far not much to talk about, other than we will probably not get the usual complaints that it got worse than the 50D.
The total number of collectable GigaPhotons (full well photons * Pixels) at ISO100 for some Canon cameras (old data from clarkvision.com):
5DII: 1250
1DIII: 709
40D: 438
50D: 410
7D(conservative estimate): 530
Sep 02, 2009 at 03:12 PM
p.3 #187D noise vs 50D numbers
PhotogDave wrote:
Steve Spencer>
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...Show more →
Steve Spencer>
Earlier quote
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.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...Show more →
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:01 PM
p.3 #197D noise vs 50D numbers
keithreeder wrote:
Heh!
If the 7D has the same DR as the 40D, I'll be bloody ecstatic.
you're gonna be bloody ecstatic
My 40D topped out at 11.32 but it was a true performance outlier, my 5D2 at 11.24 and my 50D at 11.07 and we have the 7D at 11.26 (actually I saw some data implying it might do better at ISO200 and this 11.26 is from ISO100).
A more fair comparison is normalized (here to 8.2 MP but it doesn't matter, ignore the absolute number and just look at relative differences):
5D2: 11.9 (ISO 100)
7D: 11.9 (ISO 100, ISO 200 might be a tiny bit better)
50D: 11.5 (ISO 200)
40D: 11.5 (ISO 200; my 40D was a real outlier, better than most)
for kicks at ISO1600:
5D2: 11.1
50D: 9.9
40D: 9.7
Keep in mind DR is mostly important when looking into deep shadows, above that the 18% SNR measurements of DxO are probably more sensible of a comparison and here the 5D2 does well over a stop better than all the APS-C from Canon at all ISO. I think like 1.6 stops better than the 40D, for instance.
Heh!
If the 7D has the same DR as the 40D, I'll be bloody ecstatic.
you're gonna be bloody ecstatic
My 40D topped out at 11.32 but it was a true performance outlier, my 5D2 at 11.24 and my 50D at 11.07 and we have the 7D at 11.26 (actually I saw some data implying it might do better at ISO200 and this 11.26 is from ISO100).
A more fair comparison is normalized (here to 8.2 MP but it doesn't matter, ignore the absolute number and just look at relative differences):
5D2: 11.9 (ISO 100)
7D: 11.9 (ISO 100, ISO 200 might be a tiny bit better)
50D: 11.5 (ISO 200)
40D: 11.5 (ISO 200; my 40D was a real outlier, better than most)
for kicks at ISO1600:
5D2: 11.1
50D: 9.9
40D: 9.7
Keep in mind DR is mostly important when looking into deep shadows, above that the 18% SNR measurements of DxO are probably more sensible of a comparison and here the 5D2 does well over a stop better than all the APS-C from Canon at all ISO. I think like 1.6 stops better than the 40D, for instance.
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:10 PM
p.3 #207D noise vs 50D numbers
alundeb wrote:
Estimate of the photon full well (saturation) of the 7D
The background of the still life scene used by image-resource.com has some areas that are uniformly lit, and clean.
For high ISO's (6400-12800), the photon shot noise is practically all that contributes to the Standard Deviation (or variance, or Sigma) in those areas.
We can then use the mean-variance method to calculate the system gain.
The system gain is the number of photons collected per ADU (A/D conversion unit)
The mean-variance method utilizes the fact that photon shot noise is the square root of the number of collected photons.
The patch I used, had a mean...Show more →
let's be optimistic and say there was some texturing and call it 1.4x
well the APS-H surface area is 1.56x larger (I think) so that is almost giving everyone their desire for an APS-H sensor then plus this one takes EF-S and has normal walk-around zooms made for it And since the 1D2 photon collection stunk this should be better for both DR and SNR than the 1D2 APS-H and even the 1D3 was not quite as efficient per area as the 50D I don't beleive so let us now bump the 1.4x to 1.45x and compare to 1.56, pretty close
of course this is optimism placed on top of rough calculations....
and again I did take some optimistic liberties above!
(anyway my initial crazy estimates from looking at the jpgs that it might go half to a FF in terms of SNR appear to have beem a bit much; it didn't really make sense that it could do that much better really, just caught up in teh initial release enthusiasm)
hmm, something seems odd, did you take a very bright area, is high iso where you want to do this, is the background of that scene all taht bright??
Edited on Sep 03, 2009 at 01:37 AM · View previous versions
Estimate of the photon full well (saturation) of the 7D
The background of the still life scene used by image-resource.com has some areas that are uniformly lit, and clean.
For high ISO's (6400-12800), the photon shot noise is practically all that contributes to the Standard Deviation (or variance, or Sigma) in those areas.
We can then use the mean-variance method to calculate the system gain.
The system gain is the number of photons collected per ADU (A/D conversion unit)
The mean-variance method utilizes the fact that photon shot noise is the square root of the number of collected photons.
The patch I used, had a mean...Show more →
let's be optimistic and say there was some texturing and call it 1.4x
well the APS-H surface area is 1.56x larger (I think) so that is almost giving everyone their desire for an APS-H sensor then
plus this one takes EF-S and has normal walk-around zooms made for it And since the 1D2 photon collection stunk this should be better for both DR and SNR than the 1D2 APS-H and even the 1D3 was not quite as efficient per area as the 50D I don't beleive so let us now bump the 1.4x to 1.45x and compare to 1.56, pretty close of course this is optimism placed on top of rough calculations....
and again I did take some optimistic liberties above!
(anyway my initial crazy estimates from looking at the jpgs that it might go half to a FF in terms of SNR appear to have beem a bit much; it didn't really make sense that it could do that much better really, just caught up in teh initial release enthusiasm)
hmm, something seems odd, did you take a very bright area, is high iso where you want to do this, is the background of that scene all taht bright??
Edited on Sep 03, 2009 at 01:37 AM · View previous versions
Sep 02, 2009 at 11:28 PM