DR only tells a very small part about the noise performance as I see it, and this part is in the very dark greys just over black. If only the SNR curves rises to the theoretical maximum soon enough (i.e.- if the amp noise is low) then a slightly smaller DR affect only the most astute of shadow-diggers...
Getting rid of the banding noise is maybe the biggest gain here. It reduces the usable region of the shadows by quite a lot, as it "upsets" my visual impression of camera noise quite a bit. When I use cameras that exhibit banding, I try to push it into black - which reduces the usable region of DR.
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.
The patch I used, had a mean value of 1652 ADU (Black level subtracted)
Std.dev at ISO 12800 was 288 ADU
[snip]
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.
When I tried doing a similar analysis using the ISO 100 image, I noticed that the std devs for the two green subarrays of the RAW could differ wildly (tens of percent) for the same patch. I'm not sure I trust the results at the moment.
However, a rough guide is that Canons, since (and including) the 20D, have not had the gain per unit area (normalized for ISO) change by much, and the slight increases over time might be attributed to increased microlens coverage. For instance, adopting this rule of thumb, and assuming ISO normalization similar to the 50D and 5D2, gives a read noise at high ISO of about 1.8-1.9 electrons, which is quite spectacular. As the Suede notes, read noise has to decrease in proportion to pixel spacing in order to be the same over the image, so relative to the 5D2's 2.5 electrons read noise at high ISO, the 7D would have to achieve 1.7 electrons. That difference might be accounted for if the ISO normalization were slightly different; for that one will have to wait for DxO.
Might some of this possible improvement be accounted for by the allegedly lower drain/cooler chip and the reduced distance between the microlenses and photodiodes?
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
I can't even believe I'm about to stick up for the 5DII here, but here goes.
I can relate and I know how hard this can be.....
It's too hard for me to do, but I applaud your effort. Even the original 5d, of which I've purchased several and has always provided very good IQ, was $1,000 over priced at release. Sadly, it's the same for the 5d2 and it rightfully belongs at the $1700 level. Besides the sensor, it's all basically 2004 technology (yes, 2004)...
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....Show more →
There's no proof is a little generous, but I understand you're doing this with the best of intentions.
What Canon offers on the 7d, other than another crowded 1.6x sensor that 5d2 buyers didn't want anyway, and VF tilt overlay were all available as far as I know. Much better AF has been around since 1998 as released on the EOS 3 and then the 1V and was a standard 1 series feature from 2000 to 2007.
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.
I think we all come to accept and learn to use our tools, and for the most part, focus on the positive aspects. The 5d2 is a very usable camera, and if it had come out in 2005 it would be justified at the price. As a 2008 release, it's less than stellar.
If I were forced to buy a camera today, it would be my very reluctant choice, though I would always feel burned. I'm hoping nothing happens to my current bodies until a decent FF camera is released in the next year or so...
(Jamesf99: I disagree about the pricing, but I can respect how your feel about what kind of tool is important to you.)
Your post reminded me that I was pondering why the 5D2 has drawn such criticism from some quarters, despite being a killer product in so many ways.
I recall that almost nobody complained about the AF on the 5D: it just worked for the kinds of photography the camera was suited for. So I believe Canon when they say that the AF system was carried forward in part because it's a thing that users were happy about.
Then the 5D2 is released and suddenly there is this drumbeat about "poor" AF. I'm sure this has caught Canon by surprise since the 5D2 is not positioned as a sports/action camera, and its AF system, while it has limitations, is still well suited to most wedding/portrait/commercial/landscape photography applications.
So what happened? Well, the D3 and D700 happened.
I think the criticism aimed at the 5D2 is motivated by the fact that a lot of people want a Canon full frame sports/action camera that does not cost $8K. After all, Nikon has done it.
I don't think Canon is clueless. Likely the 5D2 feature set was already decided *before* the D3 was released in 2007, and before 1DIII AF issues caused people to care about this aspect of camera performance a great deal.
If you consider the 7D a response to the D300, then it seems the Empire can indeed strike back. So, I think we'll all get the full frame camera we want sooner rather than later. My money is still on a "3D" rather than a "5DIII", but we'll see...
I recall that almost nobody complained about the AF on the 5D: it just worked for the kinds of photography the camera was suited for. So I believe Canon when they say that the AF system was carried forward in part because it's a thing that users were happy about.
Then the 5D2 is released and suddenly there is this drumbeat about "poor" AF. I'm sure this has caught Canon by surprise since the 5D2 is not positioned as a sports/action camera, and its AF system, while it has limitations, is still well suited to most wedding/portrait/commercial/landscape photography applications.
It always seems odd to me so many people want to force the 5D series to be something it was not designed to be. Realize if Canon were to upgrade the camera to the mystical EOS 3D status, it would cost $4000 instead of $2700. I think "as is" it is positioned perfectly for gentleman amateurs, studio, travel and landscape. After all, the gun slinger shooters already have the 1D series, 7D and 50D.
I'm still amazed how good the 5DII AF actually is. I spend 10 years shooting with an EOS 5, several with an Elan 7E and then a 10D, 20D and 5D. Sheesh, compared to my prior cameras the 5DII rips and rarely fails me. Oddly I hardly ever missed focus with any of those more "primitive" AF systems either. You learn your tools and plan your shots accordingly. However I rarely need to second guess the 5DII and use all the countermeasures I employed in the past. Of course I mainly shoot travel, studio and landscapes.
I disagree with your price assessment of $4000, especially if it is a 5D II + 7D goodies. Despite all the extra features of the 7D, it's only $500 dearer than a 50D. In fact all you need from the 7D is the AF, the video firmware, the sealing and the new lcd screen and overlay lcd with the ability to change screens and you have a 3D for $3500 max IMO. Or just call it 5D IIn. Maybe they reserve 3D for something special or they never release such a thing. I don't care what they call it, but with those features the 5D II would sell out in hours.
keithreeder wrote:
Might some of this possible improvement be accounted for by the allegedly lower drain/cooler chip and the reduced distance between the microlenses and photodiodes?
interestingly the european technical site says that the 5D2 already used the reduced distance between microlenses and photodiodes (and implied it had been the first to do so). It said the 7D was the first to combine that plus the gapless tech first used in the 50D.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I disagree with your price assessment of $4000, especially if it is a 5D II + 7D goodies. Despite all the extra features of the 7D, it's only $500 dearer than a 50D. In fact all you need from the 7D is the AF, the video firmware, the sealing and the new lcd screen and overlay lcd with the ability to change screens and you have a 3D for $3500 max IMO. Or just call it 5D IIn. Maybe they reserve 3D for something special or they never release such a thing. I don't care what they call it, but with those features the 5D II would sell out in hours....Show more →
More like only $400 more than the 50D was at intro.
And the faster mirror box to hit at last 6.3fps.... but it seems it could reasonably be done for $3400 to me.
I wonder if they can make a smart vf with interchangeable screens. If not, I hope they ditch it for the 5D3/3D.
The one advantage, I guess, of 5D2+7D over 3D is that the 7D would give you a lot more reach for widlife than a 3D. Not a worthless point certainly....
garyvot wrote:
(Jamesf99: I disagree about the pricing, but I can respect how your feel about what kind of tool is important to you.)
Your post reminded me that I was pondering why the 5D2 has drawn such criticism from some quarters, despite being a killer product in so many ways.
I recall that almost nobody complained about the AF on the 5D: it just worked for the kinds of photography the camera was suited for. So I believe Canon when they say that the AF system was carried forward in part because it's a thing that users were happy about.
Then the 5D2 is released and suddenly there is this drumbeat about "poor" AF. I'm sure this has caught Canon by surprise since the 5D2 is not positioned as a sports/action camera, and its AF system, while it has limitations, is still well suited to most wedding/portrait/commercial/landscape photography applications.
So what happened? Well, the D3 and D700 happened.
I think the criticism aimed at the 5D2 is motivated by the fact that a lot of people want a Canon full frame sports/action camera that does not cost $8K. After all, Nikon has done it.
I don't think Canon is clueless. Likely the 5D2 feature set was already decided *before* the D3 was released in 2007, and before 1DIII AF issues caused people to care about this aspect of camera performance a great deal.
If you consider the 7D a response to the D300, then it seems the Empire can indeed strike back. So, I think we'll all get the full frame camera we want sooner rather than later. My money is still on a "3D" rather than a "5DIII", but we'll see...
I'm not so sure i buy ti about the AF. In fact canon said they put the old 5d af in it instead of the 50D system because ti was better for sports tracking! So how can you say they had no care about sports/action tracking with the 5D2?
Mostly I think marketing wouldnt dare let a 1 series AF be put in it in general combined with the 1d3 system getting complaints combined with if they put 1d2 in it the 3 series people might complain combined with the new AF system really might not have been ready a year ago.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
In fact all you need from the 7D is the AF, the video firmware, the sealing and the new lcd screen and overlay lcd with the ability to change screens and you have a 3D for $3500 max IMO.
Or, if you look at it from a marketing perspective:
The FF premium of the 5DII over the 50D was $1300 at introduction and $1600 a year later.
That would put a 7D body with the 5DII sensor at $3000-3300.
I'm betting on 5DIII as the name, release date September 2010, and price of $2999.
It won't do 8 fps for sure - more likely 4-5 fps.
It may not have a 100% viewfinder either.
Gochugogi wrote:
Of course I mainly shoot travel, studio and landscapes.
Which explains why you don't have any AF problems with the 5D2. Hardly challenging conditions. Even a xxxD series AF would have no problems with that
When the 5D2 was just released, my CPS rep told me it was also targeted towards wedding shooters (besides landscape, studio and portrait shooters). Hence the high ISO (which is of little value to landscape and studio shooters) and HDVideo capabilities.
And even Westfall made the infamous remark that the 5D2's AF was better at tracking sports/action than the 40D/50D.
Of course this is all marketing BS. Still, it shows that Canon was trying to bet on different horses when they were designing the 5D2. Resulting in a cam that doesn't excel in any of those areas (except maybe for landscape and studio work - which isn't hard to design: basic AF (only center AF point/One Shot) and clean ISO50-400 will do.
Canon could have made a killer all-round performer when they would have added all the 7D goodies. But if they would have done that, what would happen to 1Ds3/1Ds4/5D3 sales
Which explains why you don't have any AF problems with the 5D2. Hardly challenging conditions. Even a xxxD series AF would have no problems with that
Well it's not as easy as you think. I owned a XTI (400D) and it needed a lot more owner overrides to get it to focus in low light compared to late model xxD and XD bodies. I recall my 10D and 20D were really poor in low light too. Lots of missed focus with those 3 cameras. Many of my images are at dusk, dawn or on dark streets and interiors, so having a camera like the 5DII perform consistently well under dim light was like a breath of fresh air.
jorkata wrote:
Or, if you look at it from a marketing perspective:
The FF premium of the 5DII over the 50D was $1300 at introduction and $1600 a year later.
That would put a 7D body with the 5DII sensor at $3000-3300.
I'm betting on 5DIII as the name, release date September 2010, and price of $2999.
It won't do 8 fps for sure - more likely 4-5 fps.
It may not have a 100% viewfinder either.
144MP/s from the 7D can go up to 6.8fps.
I bet the 5D3 will get the 1DsIV new sensor a year after being released.
I would rather bet in a new line of 3D with FF sensor and high speed and 7D-like AF to go against the new Nikon D4/D800. We know now that Canon is at last realizing that Nikon has been doing very well with the D300, they probably know about the D700 as well, and they may even have some idea about what Nikon will be coming up with in the near future. In fact I feel the 7D is really designed to compete with the D400s rather than the D300s. Any MP-upgraded D300s would look like old news now.
Fred Relaix wrote:
In fact I feel the 7D is really designed to compete with the D400s rather than the D300s. Any MP-upgraded D300s would look like old news now.
Except, Nikon is not the kind of company that puts MP's as #1 on their DX priority list. All their recent DX offerings all stick to 12MP's. In fact, they have choosen (so it seems) to perfect output from these 12MP sensors first and design excellent DX lenses to match these sensors - before doing anything else. Meanwhile they are capable of releasing the best 24MP DSLR out there. So, they have the technology to do that as well. So, Canon's best effort to top the coming D400 is (probably) more MP's? Kind of sad. Especially considering that the D300s has all the "new" 7D goodies for quite some time now (100% VF, pro-AF, weathersealing, overlay LCD VF, etc).
Mind you, I am not a Nikon or Canon fan. I use both brands. But as far as I can be objective, I think Nikon offers a better deal when it comes to crop cameras. Purely a matter of focus. The 7D helps Canon to be back in the ball park. But, they will have to do more than copy cat Nikon and add a few MP's in order to top Nikon.
Gochugogi wrote:
Well it's not as easy as you think. I owned a XTI (400D) and it needed a lot more owner overrides to get it to focus in low light compared to late model xxD and XD bodies. I recall my 10D and 20D were really poor in low light too. Lots of missed focus with those 3 cameras. Many of my images are at dusk, dawn or on dark streets and interiors, so having a camera like the 5DII perform consistently well under dim light was like a breath of fresh air.
No doubt But compared to shooting moving targets in low light while using large apertures (weddings), the conditions in which you focus for landscape/scenery/interior work are much less demanding.
Besides, the 450D/500D have LiveView, right? So, you can always resort to a tripod + MF + Liveview. But that is another discussion
Sep 05, 2009 at 04:55 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Daan B wrote:
Except, Nikon is not the kind of company that puts MP's as #1 on their DX priority list. All their recent DX offerings all stick to 12MP's. In fact, they have choosen (so it seems) to perfect output from these 12MP sensors first and design excellent DX lenses to match these sensors - before doing anything else. Meanwhile they are capable of releasing the best 24MP DSLR out there. So, they have the technology to do that as well. So, Canon's best effort to top the coming D400 is (probably) more MP's? Kind of sad. Especially considering that the D300s has all the "new" 7D goodies for quite some time now (100% VF, pro-AF, weathersealing, overlay LCD VF, etc).
Mind you, I am not a Nikon or Canon fan. I use both brands. But as far as I can be objective, I think Nikon offers a better deal when it comes to crop cameras. Purely a matter of focus. The 7D helps Canon to be back in the ball park. But, they will have to do more than copy cat Nikon and add a few MP's in order to top Nikon....Show more →
IMO Nikon sticks with a 12MP sensor, not to perfect it but because they don't make their own sensors and have little choice. I think there is little doubt that one big competitive advantage that Canon has is that by making their own sensors they get much more control over what sensors go in their cameras and they can decide what features they want and put them in. Nikon has to convince someone else to do what they want. Canon for better or worse has decided to use this competitive advantage at the 1.6 crop level to add a lot more megapixels. Nikon doesn't really have this option.
Steve Spencer wrote:
IMO Nikon sticks with a 12MP sensor, not to perfect it but because they don't make their own sensors and have little choice. I think there is little doubt that one big competitive advantage that Canon has is that by making their own sensors they get much more control over what sensors go in their cameras and they can decide what features they want and put them in. Nikon has to convince someone else to do what they want. Canon for better or worse has decided to use this competitive advantage at the 1.6 crop level to add a lot more megapixels. Nikon doesn't really have this option. ...Show more →
Correct me if I am wrong... but Nikon just orders its sensors... or do they have to beg Sony to give them what they want
Sep 05, 2009 at 07:34 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It would seem that the relation between Sony and Nikon is complex and I doubt Nikon can just give the orders and Sony marches to these orders. Sony is both a supplier and a competitor and from Nikon's point of view it seems to me it is less than ideal to have one of your competitors as the supplier of one of the key components of your product. So far Sony and Nikon seem to have cooperated well, but I don't think it is so simple as Nikon just ordering from Sony whatever they want. They may not have to beg Sony, but planning a new sensor for Nikon is likely to open some complex negotiations for Nikon, whereas Canon can just make whatever they would like.
Steve Spencer wrote:
They may not have to beg Sony, but planning a new sensor for Nikon is likely to open some complex negotiations for Nikon, whereas Canon can just make whatever they would like.
Agreed on that the Nikon/Sony relation might be more complex. OTOH Canon can't just what it wants either, because they have to take the risk involved in developing something new themselves. They also have to sell enough units to break even or make a profit. But at least they can do the development themselves. Even more confusing why they choose to cramp their sensors with more MP's again and again, while IQ remains the same or becomes even worse (pattern noise/banding issues). Which leads me to believe that Canon sensor strategy is more marketing driven than Nikon's... at least when it comes to MP count.
