S Dilworth wrote:
William Claff has crunched the numbers for many Nikons SLRs here. Note how close the D3S and D4 curves are to the ideal FX line, which represents the maximum theoretical performance for that sensor size. At very high ISOs there is no longer room for big leaps.
His chart tells us there will never in the future of the universe be a \"full-frame\" camera that performs above ISO 25600 better than the D3S performs at ISO 12800: the noise inherent in light itself prevents that possibility.
At the moment, Canon has a slight high-ISO read-noise advantage, Nikon has a slight quantum-efficiency advantage, and Sony has a big low-ISO read-noise advantage (all based on their latest sensors). Beyond that, they perform more or less the same.
It\'s exceedingly unlikely that the EOS-1D X would be significantly better than the D3S or D4 at high ISOs. And it\'s not even theoretically possible for it to be one stop better. You\'ll just have to somehow muddle along with that level of performance. I know you can manage it!
Future advances will lie in increasing the pixel count, improving low-ISO performance, and fixing the many ways in which our cameras are poorly designed for the tasks they are expected to perform.
None of this has much to do with making photos that people want to look at.
Fortunately this is untrue.
For Bayer sensors there is not that much room for improvement. For any technology that no longer needs light absorbing CFAs before their photosite equivalent, there is a long way to go.
Feb 07, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Previous versions of ausemmao's message #10320845 « 1D X samples »
