Tariq Gibran wrote: moondigger wrote: Don Clary wrote: On page 3 of this thread Steven SPencer quoted Rob Gilbraith:
the array of red, green and blue coloured filters over the sensor have been made more transmissive, which effectively bumps up the sensor\'s light sensitivity, plus they tweaked the way the sensor\'s signal (the light it has gathered during the exposure) is amplified and then read out.
So the 5D2 sensor appears to be a 1Ds3 sensor with a thinner rgb filter and different read-out electronics.
That constitutes a different sensor, in my mind. Who\'s to say what specific kinds of changes to a sensor constitute a \'real\' change? The RGB filtering is an important component of sensor design and (at least in this case) the sensor\'s light sensitivity has been improved by altering the filters and electronics.
Two stops higher native (not \"expanded\") ISO is not something you can get by tweaking software in Digic IV. You need a real change (or changes) to the sensor to achieve that. Whether the changes are to the filters and electronics or the microlenses and gaps between them is immaterial -- in both cases the physical sensitivity of the sensor to light has improved.
As I mentioned previously - I\'d like to see some side-by-side tests (of the same subjects in the same light) to determine whether these changes will translate into a real-world advantage or not.
Looks like to me the 1dsIII might actually perform better and that all the talk of the superiority of the 5DII sensor was all Canon marketing BS.
OTOH, the people who have looked at the RAW RAW data with rawanalyzing programs (a MUCH more uniform test than the LL one) have found the 5DII to have almsot a stop less read noise at high ISO so at least at higher ISO it\'s hard to see the 5DII being worse....
Nov 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #6435983 « 5DmkII less sharp than 5D! »
