# Canon 5DmkIII



## fyngyrz (Oct 22, 2010)

Here's what I want.

About 8...10 MP. Why? Because large sensels produce larger signals and this will improve the signal to noise ratio, hence allow higher ISOs, a'la the D3s *except* that Canon handles black better than Nikon and also doesn't foul up my images with noise reduction I can't turn off. Also, because an image of this size transfers faster, takes up less space both in the camera and on disk, processes faster, loads faster, saves faster, and also means the camera can shoot faster, and ALSO means that the available lenses will do an excellent job because the size of the individual pixels pushes diffraction further up the f-stops and doesn't require such tight focus to be pixel-accurate, either.

The *only* reason I don't own a 5DmkII is because of the 21 MP. That's ridiculous. My 50D, at 15 MP, is already making images that are far too large. My 40D was better; but the 50D's ability to shoot at ISO 12800 has me hooked. But I can't see going to 21 MP for ISO 25k (still, if it was in my hands... the wallet might be in danger.)

Other than low noise, high ISO, and hopefully an end to megapixel madness, I don't really care about things like AF - give me one good center point and I'd be happy; I *really* don't care about video; I'd like approximately the 50D feature set and that'd be fine.

Having said that, I'm sure they'll give me a plastic body camera with 50 MP, ISO 6400, and every video mode known in NTSC, PAL, SECAM and HD. And I'll have to stick with my 50D or break down and buy a 5DmkII.


----------



## Grendel (Oct 23, 2010)

fyngyrz said:


> Here's what I want.
> 
> About 8...10 MP. Why? Because large sensels produce larger signals and this will improve the signal to noise ratio, hence allow higher ISOs, a'la the D3s *except* that Canon handles black better than Nikon and also doesn't foul up my images with noise reduction I can't turn off. Also, because an image of this size transfers faster, takes up less space both in the camera and on disk, processes faster, loads faster, saves faster, and also means the camera can shoot faster, and ALSO means that the available lenses will do an excellent job because the size of the individual pixels pushes diffraction further up the f-stops and doesn't require such tight focus to be pixel-accurate, either.



Well, you could buy a used 1Ds -- 11MP FF, cheaper than a 5DII. Max. ISO of 1250 tho. Sometimes less isn't more 



fyngyrz said:


> The *only* reason I don't own a 5DmkII is because of the 21 MP. That's ridiculous. My 50D, at 15 MP, is already making images that are far too large. My 40D was better; but the 50D's ability to shoot at ISO 12800 has me hooked.



Set a 5DII to sRAW2 -- volia, 10.8MP... Keep in mind tho that a single photosite of the 21MP sensor is bigger than a single photosite of the 50D or even 40D sensors...


----------



## fyngyrz (Oct 23, 2010)

> Set a 5DII to sRAW2 -- volia, 10.8MP... Keep in mind tho that a single photosite of the 21MP sensor is bigger than a single photosite of the 50D or even 40D sensors...



I'd be more likely to take a full res shot and then reduce it. That gives some improvement on the noise too. That's probably what'll happen. Still end up with ridiculous RAWs, but noise and ISO are critical to my needs, so I don't see a a lot of choice. Unless Canon puts out a competitor to the Nikon D3s... now that would be a camera I'd willingly plunk down some money for!


----------



## Macadameane (Oct 25, 2010)

My interest in DSLRs is largely video, so I would love a low MP count also, but the photographer in me says 1920 x 1080 just isn't enough resolution.

I don't mind having a high MP count so long as its not too expensive and that the noise levels stay low. The end result is what's important. On the flip side, a low res camera count probably greatly reduce the rolling shutter effect in video.


----------



## pwp (Oct 25, 2010)

Problem solved with a 1DMkIV. Good video function plus the option of medium mRAW or even small sRAW if you don't want the full size files. I've often switched to mRAW on jobs depending on what the client's planned output is. If it's guaranteed 100% web use, the full size RAW is superfluous. Maybe the 5DIII will have this option too.

pwp


----------



## dahmooser (Oct 25, 2010)

professionally speaking, what I'd like to see on the Video side is:

Ability to smoothly control zoom, and have auto focus follow - even if this requires a separate "Grip" for lack of a better word.

BUT, MOST importantly, I'd like to see Canon use a compression codec that is less lossy/noisy. The current codec used is a great use of H.264, and a good quality bit rate, but when you put it up against professional shot material, it looks only mildly better than DNxHD36 (36 mbit) which is what we use to edit with in Avid. The issues arise in really dark or really bright areas (not unlike still images), the black fall apart, or in Keys, when shooting Blue or Green Screened VFX. 

If they can do something akin to Red (though at a smaller resolution) or HDCAM SR quality, I'd be far happier, and far more likely to use this camera for real work, rather than a video novelty. Yes, I know this is asking for a lot, and Red specifically uses proprietary CF cards capable of maintain a 24fps at 4480x1920, which is pretty damn impressive.

The reason I am thinking this way, is that strategically, canon has a real opportunity to get a piece of the high end market, just like Red has. We're shooting red on a $300M 3d film!! and just a few years ago, Red didn't even exist. Just goes to show.....


----------



## Macadameane (Oct 25, 2010)

That all sounds great dahmooser. This is a little aside of the point, but I also hope there are more players in the VDSLR rigs market too. Yes Zacuto is nice, but $1000 for some pipes with clamps on them? Follow Focus should be cheaper too.


----------



## jc88 (Oct 26, 2010)

Video is unimportant.

Massive megapickles are unimportant (look at the Nikon range).

AF system is super important: this is where Canon lags behind Nikon. Compare the 5DmkII to the D700 and it's pretty obvious which is the better camera on almost all fronts. The D3s is just amazing as well.


----------



## Flake (Oct 26, 2010)

_"About 8...10 MP. Why? Because large sensels produce larger signals and this will improve the signal to noise ratio, hence allow higher ISOs, a'la the D3s"_

I'm afraid that is an urban myth, it's only true at the most basic of levels.

Imagine two people buy an acre of land, one of them builds a skyscraper on it, the other a garden shed, by the logic you're using you would view the two as exactly the same, simply because they each have an acre of land.
You don't know how large the pixel sites are, and as they grow larger they become closer to each other.

Imagine that the two sites have no fences, people from each site are free to pass into each others land, but it's further to go from the shed to the boundary. Imagine a simple wire fence, everyone can see into the neighbouring plot and some are able to climb the fence into it. Now imagine a huge concrete wall no one can see it, and no one can pass through. This is isolation, and it's very important, because you can have small plots where little can pass through and cause noise.

So to bring it back to sensors, although you are given pixel densities, you are not told pixel sizes, without additional isolation there is an optimum size, but again you don't know what that is. Once isolation is introduced pixels themselves can grow larger & therefore closer, and still maintain low noise. Of course on top of that there are micro lenses to focus light into the pixel sites themselves and the design of these makes a difference too. There is a complicated mathematical formula (Cos 4) for working out light fall off at wide angle.

Hopefully I've been able to show a little that it's much more complicated than the simplistic urban myth would have us believe, and I haven't mentioned the signal processors which have a huge effect on noise.


----------



## Inst (Oct 26, 2010)

Not exactly; for certain matters like dynamic range (who cares if you have more pixels to reduce shadow effective noise if you can't read the shadow anyways due to inadequate sensitivity?) and tonality larger pixels tend to be better. But regarding noise, smaller pixels have zero correlation with SnR; the overall picture quality is determined by the total data received on camera, and if your pixels are noisier on an individual level, by increasing the total number of pixels you also increase signal so the total picture noise does not chance.

Canon, right now, is inferior to Nikon as Nikon simply has better sensor technology than Canon. They've figured out how to jam another half stop worth of quantum efficiency into their sensors, and Canon can't quite catch them. I suppose this may be why Canon may opt for a square sensor on 1Ds4; by adding another 50% onto the sensor, they can immediately compensate for, well, the half stop quantum efficiency advantage Nikon has.


----------



## dahmooser (Oct 26, 2010)

Thanks for the insightful replies.

I'm not a big fan of Video on an SLR, though, my simple point was, if you're going to do it, make it kick ass.

I was quite intrigued by the post stating that Nikon has better sensor technology. I currently own a 40D (and I do love it), but my (lucky) girlfriend owns a Nikon D3, and aside from it being a full 35mm sensor, I just think the images that are shot on that seem so much sharper, more in focus, something. It's an intangible that I've been unable to properly express. Now, I realized I am comparing an $8K camera to a $1K camera, but, my point is, it's unbelievably crisp where you want it to be.

I am not a pro (in ANY camera area, still or video), but, this issues fascinates me. I sometimes get buyers remorse over having chosen canon, then again, her camera weighs so much, and I must say, the user interface, seriously needs some improvement. It's not the kind of camera you can pick up and use...

Granted, I have seen some great 1ds images, too....

I am patiently saving my hard earned dollars for the successor to the 5D Mark II, so I truly hope it hits the mark!


----------



## Aputure (Oct 26, 2010)

If the 50D's ability to shoot 12800 has you hooked, and you can tolerate it, then I think you could tolerate a few more megapixels in a new 5D. The 5D2 is already performing much much better than the 50D. So I think there could be a middle ground, such as a 16 or 18mp sensor, but we all know that won't happen. I'm afraid the next round will likely be around the 30mp mark. The 5D2 is probably exactly what you want, just turn the resolution settings down a notch. I shoot my 50D at 8mp all the time! 



fyngyrz said:


> Here's what I want.
> 
> About 8...10 MP. Why? Because large sensels produce larger signals and this will improve the signal to noise ratio, hence allow higher ISOs, a'la the D3s *except* that Canon handles black better than Nikon and also doesn't foul up my images with noise reduction I can't turn off. Also, because an image of this size transfers faster, takes up less space both in the camera and on disk, processes faster, loads faster, saves faster, and also means the camera can shoot faster, and ALSO means that the available lenses will do an excellent job because the size of the individual pixels pushes diffraction further up the f-stops and doesn't require such tight focus to be pixel-accurate, either.
> 
> ...


----------



## Inst (Oct 26, 2010)

The difference is that the D3 is a full-frame camera and a 40D is a APS-C camera. The full-frame camera has a sensor about 2.56 times as big as your APS-C, meaning it has that much more surface area to collect light.

Generally speaking, the disadvantages of smaller pixels (less capable in gathering light, resulting in more noise, reduced dynamic range, reduced tonality) should be canceled out simply by having more of them, but if your sensor is smaller, you can't cram more pixels onto the sensor.

And as far as sharpness goes, smaller pixels demand more than larger pixels, simply because the light differentiation they're capable is greater than larger pixels. I wish people would make adapters to condense light onto an APS-C or DX camera, but apparently, first, this may be unworkable due to optical limitations (CA is supposed to get outrageous as you approach f/1.0 and a light condenser would effectively make a f/1.8 nifty fifty into a f/1.1 lens), second, you would need an adapter for every single focal length, third, there would need to be high-quality glass to render all the resolution, and fourth, Kodak is sitting on the patent for such a device.

You also should look up diffraction-limited aperture, which is caused by having low pixel-pitch.

I trust this explanation of how diffraction works.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747761

After you hit DLA, you need to start using sharpening tools to restore sharpness; you won't be able to get everything back, but you should be able to recover more resolution than you're just getting from the raw image.


----------



## Flake (Oct 26, 2010)

_Canon, right now, is inferior to Nikon as Nikon simply has better sensor technology than Canon._

What a stupid crass thing to write!! anyone who knows anything about this indusrty knows that Kikon has been buying its sensors from Sony for years! when it came to the high MP sensor for the D3x they had to use the Sony version. Thanks to inferior signal processing from the Expeed processor it's one of the slowest cameras on the market today. If you can cut through the bare faced lies which claim it's capable of 5fps to match the 1Ds MkIII (who says the photo press isn't biased!) but neglect to say that it can only do that be reducing the bit depth and sensor to Dx.

The D3 Sensor was a result of Nikons first venture into sensor production on their own, and largely it has lagged behind the likes of Sony & Canon with it's low MP count, they were lucky that people decided that they want a low light low noise camera that can do high Iso. It was an accident, it wasn't by design.

The problem for Nikon is that Sony are pulling out of FF development and that leaves Nikon in a real tight spot, thy currently have Two FF sensors in three camera bodies, that is unsustainable, both Sony & Canon only have one FF sensor in production, so either the future D3 will have a drop down to crop sensor or the High MP FF sensor will be dropped altogether. If even the biggest & best funded camera companies cannot afford to develop two sensors, Nikon has no chance.


----------



## Inst (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm not exactly sure what the relationship between Sony and Nikon is on the sensor front; they certainly share a fab, but I think Nikon does their own sensor designs.

Regarding the D3, the market knows what they want, and they picked the D3, which combines high-dynamic range and very low-noise. At the time, it was far better than Canon's equivalent offering, given that the 1D3 was on APS-H, and that the 1Ds3 didn't use gapless sensors. 

I don't see why you're fetishizing mega-pixels. It mainly matters at ISO 100 shooting, where noise is low enough that the chief limitation on image quality is the amount of detail your sensor can resolve. And even then, loss of dynamic range caused by small pixels is still a consideration. Around maybe ISO 400/800, noise becomes the chief consideration in image quality, so more megapixels is meaningless; only the quantum efficiency of the sensor matters. Canon with the 7D outperformed the D300s for that reason; it had the same noise performance, about the same if not better AF performance, but also had more megapixels. Unfortunately, it could not exceed it in dynamic range, but that was only a one-stop / half-stop consideration.

In any case, the fact remains. The D3s sensor is half a stop better than the technology on the 1D4, even when the 1D4 is scaled up. The D7000 sensor has yet to be benchmarked, but to start with, it's only 10% or so less MP than the 7D, and aside from that, from preliminary reports it appears to have better high ISO performance AND better dynamic range.


----------



## Flake (Oct 26, 2010)

The reason people changed from the 1D to the Nikon D3 was mostly down to the auto focus issues which Canon didn't do a quick enough or good enough job at resolving.

Fetishising mega pixels? how strange you are! There is no attempt to 'fetishise' anything, small pixels? How large are the pixels on the D3 then? trouble is no one knows except Nikon, it's possible to work out the density and the area, but not the size of the pixel chosen to place there. "only the quantum efficiency of the sensor matters" This is plainly not true as the image processor has at least if not more influence over noise levels.

You believe that the D3 is a half of one stop better than the D4 but so what? There's more to a camera than dynamic range and where the noise floor is, as you said yourself it doesn't become an issue until Iso 800, I'd go at least a stop further, but it's very rare I shoot at these higher Isos and most times Dynamic range isn't an issue either!

You see, to be very much in favour of Nikons products, and I have to ask the question if you've actually come to the right forum? Perhaps Nikon Rumours might be better for you?


----------



## kubelik (Oct 26, 2010)

let's strive to keep things civil and not personally directed here.

it is fair to bring up things that canon can do better - let's face it, there's lots of them.

but in this particular case, the concern of the original poster that the 5DII's files are too large ... I'd have to say I doubt they're much more of a memory/processing hog than the 50D files you're already working with. and, as the OP himself observed, he can downsample the 5DII's images into even nicer, sharper, lower-res images as part of his workflow.

the question I have is, what's the real complaint? let's face it, no one is going back to 8-10 MP, not even Nikon at this point. I know people hate using noise reduction because it destroys detail ... but an 8 MP image is clean and lacks the detail anyway ... so you're really not ending up with anything different.

I do think Flake is getting at an important point, however, which is that sensor density doesn't mean anything unless we know more about the sensor. I have owned both the 30D and 5DII, which have identical pixel densities and were released fairly soon after one another. I can tell you the images look nothing alike, even when you are only using the central 3600 x 2400 pixels of the 5DII. the 30D looks, to be honest, fairly crappy at 1600 or higher. the 5DII looks fairly usable up to 3200.


----------



## carlsanford (Oct 26, 2010)

The article states that a 5d Mk III may be announced in March. How long do you think it would take for bodies to actually be available for sale? Anyone have some knowledge as to how Canon has handled its announcements in the past? 

I really want to upgrade now and get a Mk II, but I could wait a bit longer. However, if it may not actually arrive on the market until closer to Christmas, then I may buy now.


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 27, 2010)

dahmooser said:


> I currently own a 40D (and I do love it), but my (lucky) girlfriend owns a Nikon D3, and aside from it being a full 35mm sensor, I just think the images that are shot on that seem so much sharper, more in focus, something.



That is most likely due to the lenses she has, aside from the FF advantage. Lenses are usually more important than detectors in producing a sharp image. I also assume you compared images obtained from both cameras by the same photographer, because image quality problems _can_ also be due to what's behind the camera (I'm not saying it is in your case).


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 27, 2010)

Flake said:


> Imagine two people buy an acre of land, one of them builds a skyscraper on it, the other a garden shed, by the logic you're using you would view the two as exactly the same, simply because they each have an acre of land.
> You don't know how large the pixel sites are, and as they grow larger they become closer to each other.
> 
> Imagine that the two sites have no fences, people from each site are free to pass into each others land, but it's further to go from the shed to the boundary. Imagine a simple wire fence, everyone can see into the neighbouring plot and some are able to climb the fence into it. Now imagine a huge concrete wall no one can see it, and no one can pass through. This is isolation, and it's very important, because you can have small plots where little can pass through and cause noise.



Haha, flake... that was one of the most incomprehensible similes I've ever seen  And it had no cars in it. But I agree that larger pixels don't necessarily translate to higher S/N. What mostly matters is the number of photons captured. Whether you capture them on one or four pixels doesn't matter. The exception would be in the very low S/N domain, where the noise becomes read-out dominated. Also, since the well capacity scales closely to the area of a pixel (_not_ volume!), the dynamic range does not change much with pixel size either (the well capacity will be smaller for smaller pixels, but that is exactly made up by there being more of those pixels for an equal area).


----------



## Flake (Oct 27, 2010)

Don't forget that a camera is more than its sensor, and the reason the D3 appears to produce sharper images, could be down to a number of different reasons. 
For a start Nikon sharpen the image something which cannot be turned off, not every photographer is happy about this.
A weaker anti aliasing filter will produce sharper looking images and a weaker bayer matrix will do the same at the expense of saturation and faithful colour depth.
The D3 is intended to be a fast sports & action camera, it's a pro spec model, whereas the 40D is the next step up from the entry model, it's not really fair to compare the two. 
Yes I know it's a bit of an odd similie but I think it does explain it nicely! Again don't forget that isolation of pixels from each other is very important as leakage from one to another is a big cause of noise.


----------



## Inst (Oct 27, 2010)

Part of it was that the D3 was simply better; Canon's competitor for the "pro sports shooter" camera was APS-H, and not counting the fact that they opted against gapless lenses to avoid vignetting with wide angle lenses, they had inferior noise performance.

The image processor I believe adds read noise to the system, with the rule being lower read noise is better. However, I do believe that read noise is most important in dynamic range at low ISOs, whereas at high sensitivities sensor noise overwhelms the impact of read noise, which remains relatively constant relative to ISO.

As far as the D3 goes, vs the 1D4 (what kind of Canon fanboy are you? D4 was the rumored successor to the D3 and is now the rumored successor to the D3s), part of the issue was that the 1D3 attempted an innovative autofocus system that failed on the field. Another part of the issue was that the D3 was just a comprehensively better camera than the 1D3; not only did it have superior noise performance it also had better dynamic range at low ISOs, which remains BETTER than the current D3s.

The noise advantage really does matter here, however. The D3 is $4000, as is the 1D4. The D3 is just a lot more capable than the 1D4 at photography because of the high ISO feature; it can take shots where the 1D4 cannot, and when you're paying $4000 for a camera I think the versatility is quite important.


Flake: the easy explanation for why the D3 outperforms the 40D is just that one is full-frame, one is APS-C. All the other factors don't add a lot more to that; the D3 is a lot sharper with various lenses because its requirement for lens sharpness is a lot less than the 40D due to the difference in pixel sizes; the 40D only uses the center half of the image circle, and it demands a lot more from its center than the D3 does of the entire lens.

I was recently looking at used 5D1s, and I think that they might be a bargain right now, compared to say, the D90. The high-ISO performance is antiquated, sure, it's about equivalent to the nearly obsolescent D90, has a poorer AF system, and can't do video, but you're looking at something like twice the lens sharpness of the D90 due to the larger sensor format.


----------



## NotABunny (Oct 28, 2010)

fyngyrz said:


> 8...10 MP. Why? Because large sensels produce larger signals and this will improve the signal to noise ratio, hence allow higher ISOs, a'la the D3s *except* that Canon handles black better than Nikon and also doesn't foul up my images with noise reduction I can't turn off.



At http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=83 ( old linkhttp://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm ) there are 2 images (JPEGs converted from RAW) of a scene, taken in the SAME light, one with Canon 1D4, one with Nikon D3s, at ISO 12800.

Normalize them for sensor size (you have to cut the inner part of the image taken with D3s to fit the area of the 1D4 sensor size - crop 1.3), then normalize them for resolution (because the output resolution would be the same either on screen or on print), and finally normalize them for black level (Nikon applies some in order get rid of the noise in the shadows).

At the end, you'll have two images whose quality is indistinguishable. So, at least at this technological level, pixel size is not a relevant factor for high ISO and low light photography; however, the sensor size is.

----------------------------------------

This is how to scale the resolutions:

1D4 sensor: 27.9 x 18.6 mm, 4896 x 3264 photosites
D3s sensor: 36.0 x 23.9 mm, 4256 x 2832 photosites



Crop the center part of the D3s sensor to the sensor size of the 1D4:

(4256 x 2832 photosites) * (27.9 x 18.6 mm) / (36.0 x 23.9 mm)

=> 3298 x 2204 photosites (on the D3s sensor correspond to a physical area equal with the area of the 1D4 sensor)



To scale to the same resolution, you just need to scale the larger resolution to the smaller one, so scale the image taken with the 1D4 (4896 x 3264 photosites) to 3298 x 2204 photosites. Now you can compare the images either either in full size, or pixel by pixel.


----------



## Flake (Oct 28, 2010)

Sensor size has very little influence on image quality when comparing sensors of APS H and FF, in fact it is possible to get a better image out of an APS-H because it's not using the weak corners and borders of lenses. If you want sharp images then buy a camera with a weak AA filter, (like the original 5D) , that is going to have more of a bearing on sharpness than the size of the sensor.

Comparing the 7D and the 5D MkII reviewers say it's difficult to tell a difference, and that's when people are aware there is a difference & are looking to find it!

I would suggest to anyone who believes this is a fact, that you have a read of this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml A little experiment where industry professionals were asked to tell the difference between two large prints. The fact that they could not distinuguish between one & the other tells a story, but when you consider that one image was taken with a Hasselblad P2 with phase one P45 back, and the other was a Canon G10, that's when you begin to realise that there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.

Truth is as with so many things, photography is being affected by a steeper diminishing returns curve, you spend more & more money to obtain less & less of an improvement.


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 28, 2010)

Flake said:


> Sensor size has very little influence on image quality when comparing sensors of APS H and FF, in fact it is possible to get a better image out of an APS-H because it's not using the weak corners and borders of lenses.



It depends on the lens. If the central 1.3x of FF is more than 1.3x sharper than the outer 1.3x of FF, then yes, otherwise no. Same thing for APS-H, but then with the factor 1.6x.



Flake said:


> The fact that they could not distinuguish between one & the other tells a story, but when you consider that one image was taken with a Hasselblad P2 with phase one P45 back, and the other was a Canon G10, that's when you begin to realise that there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.



I think that comparison makes a good point, but at the same time it's a bit misleading. Sure there are situations where you can do just as well with a G10 as a FF or MF camera. The comparison you link to proves that. But there are also situations when the differences between the cameras become evident - in particular low-light or shallow-depth photography, but also in those instances when you really need 39 MP or higher dynamic range.


----------



## Inst (Oct 28, 2010)

The comparison was based off full prints, not sectional prints. If you dropped the image down to a 25% crop, the difference in image quality would have been a lot more apparent.

Rescaled to 100x150, there is no apparent difference between a picture from a cameraphone and a picture from a 5D2.

Re 5D vs D90; well, actually I have JPEG comparisons where the 5D has comparable performance to the D300, but I'm still hunting down a RAW comparison.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html

why larger sensors have an inherent advantage over smaller sensors


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2010)

Flake said:


> I would suggest to anyone who believes this is a fact, that you have a read of this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml A little experiment where industry professionals were asked to tell the difference between two large prints. The fact that they could not distinuguish between one & the other tells a story, but when you consider that one image was taken with a Hasselblad P2 with phase one P45 back, and the other was a Canon G10, that's when you begin to realise that there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.



Both of those images were taken at base ISO, which for the G10 is 80. I own a G10 and it's a great p&S, but above ISO 200, the differences in noise between it and my 5D become readily apparent. At ISO 1600, most of the uneducated, unwashed photographic masses don't even see noise in the 5D image but do see it in the G10 image. Most don't find it objectionable however. What they do like about G10 images is that everything is sharp, because of the G10's huge depth of field.

I will agree with one thing...there's an awful lot of BS being talked around the forums.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 29, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> Normalize them for sensor size (you have to cut the inner part of the image taken with D3s to fit the area of the 1D4 sensor size - crop 1.3), then normalize them for resolution (because the output resolution would be the same either on screen or on print), and finally normalize them for black level (Nikon applies some in order get rid of the noise in the shadows).


This strikes me as pretty reasonable. However, I wonder how many users are actually normalizing their photographs in everyday usage - hopefully somewhere along the 'image supply chain' when an image is shot for media it gets downsampled reasonably. But many shooters are dependent on images close to the maximum resolution their cameras can output (demanded for posterity if nothing else) and probably the vast majority of shooters simply keep JPEGs straight from the camera, or at most crop RAWs in DPP or ViewNX.

In any case it's an extra step that, while reasonable to expect to be done by pros, is something most folks would just as soon not worry about.

Aside from "out of the camera-croppable" quality, I think the simple price to performance (subjective of course) ratio is the most sensible one when comparing cameras. The D3s does very well versus the 1D Mark IV in that regard, at least at launch when it was $300 cheaper.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 1, 2010)

dahmooser said:


> I was quite intrigued by the post stating that Nikon has better sensor technology. I currently own a 40D (and I do love it), but my (lucky) girlfriend owns a Nikon D3, and aside from it being a full 35mm sensor, I just think the images that are shot on that seem so much sharper, more in focus, something. It's an intangible that I've been unable to properly express.



Please check your sharpness setting. 40D is well known to be soft at standard setting (sharpness at 3). try to set it at 4. You may change your opinion on the 40D.


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 2, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > Normalize them for sensor size (you have to cut the inner part of the image taken with D3s to fit the area of the 1D4 sensor size - crop 1.3), then normalize them for resolution (because the output resolution would be the same either on screen or on print), and finally normalize them for black level (Nikon applies some in order get rid of the noise in the shadows).
> ...



They don't, but the normalization for sensor size only needs to be done in order to see how much the sensor size and photosite size influence the image quality. As visible after all normalizations, the photosite size doesn't (visibly) influence the quality of the full image (since viewed on screen or printed, the images look the same).

But since without sensor size normalization the photo taken with the D3s look better, it becomes clear that the sensor size (visibly) influences the quality of the full image. (Of course, for comparison, the relative subject magnification within the frame, must be the same, which is normally true regardless of the sensor size - this is how people do photography, they just have to get closer to the subject as the sensor size increases, for the same focal length.)


By this I don't mean to say that photosite size never influences image quality. These two images only show that photosite size doesn't influences image quality with the technology used in those sensors / cameras. Perhaps if Canon were to use larger photosites, they might be able to include technology which improves the image quality. (This is just speculation.) I prefer they work to improve the tonal range in low light rather than increase the resolution. Shooting indoors / events with a 40D in natural light is not fun, it's limiting / challenging (even with Fn less than 2).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 2, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> They don't, but the normalization for sensor size only needs to be done in order to see how much the sensor size and photosite size influence the image quality.


But then we come to my point - if people aren't normally doing this, it's less of an advantage for one camera or another.

It's also another issue entirely to talk about cropping images to get a usable image from part of it. Canon always has insisted (so I read all over the place, especially when discussing lens sharpness) that all pixels should be usable for cropping, so if a given Nikon is better than its Canon equivalent in this regard then Canon admit themselves they have some work to do.


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 2, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Canon always has insisted (so I read all over the place, especially when discussing lens sharpness) that all pixels should be usable for cropping, so if a given Nikon is better than its Canon equivalent in this regard then Canon admit themselves they have some work to do.



Canon doesn't have anything to admit here. The key word is "equivalent". One must compare photos taken with cameras with *sensors of the same size* in order to have equivalence.

So, comparing full photos taken with a Canon 1D4 (crop 1.3) and Nikon D3s is not equivalent. When Canon will release either full frame 1Ds4 or 5D3, comparing full photos with Nikon D3s will be equivalent. (Till that moment, in order to be fair, the sensor size must be normalized from the photos.)

Currently, Nikon D3s produces images with a lower noise level because it has a larger sensor, not larger photosites. (That's what those two images from before prove.)


Consider a photo taken with a D3s and the same taken with a camera with a sensor with a size of 360 * 240 millimeters (with the same photosite size). There is no equivalence in directly comparing the two photos; the one taken with the camera with the larger sensor would have an absolutely stupefying technical quality. Why? Because the larger sensor gathers 100 times more light for the same exposure - almost 7 stops (6.64 to be exact), but the noise level doesn't increase proportionally with the sensor size.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 2, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> Consider a photo taken with a D3s and the same taken with a camera with a sensor with a size of 360 * 240 millimeters (with the same photosite size). There is no equivalence in directly comparing the two photos; the one taken with the camera with the larger sensor would have an absolutely stupefying technical quality. Why? Because the larger sensor gathers 100 times more light for the same exposure - almost 7 stops (6.64 to be exact), but the noise level doesn't increase proportionally with the sensor size.



I'm not very fond of this simplified argument, removing the optical system from the question, which you really can't: for your simile to work, you have to assume that both detectors use the same (10xFF) lens. Now what if you were imaging a bird that just fit onto the small FF frame. Would the image of the bird be better with the 10xFF detector? No. Sure, you would capture 100x more photons, but 99% of those photons would come from the boring forest, of no consequence for the image quality of the bird.

A detector doesn't produce an image by itself. It needs optics. The reason a FF camera has an IQ advantage over APS-C is that _it is easier to produce suitable optics for FF than the equivalent for APS-C_. In your example, if you put a 50/1.2 lens in front of the FF and a 500/12 lens in front of the 10xFF, they would produce equivalent images. They would collect the same number of photons. There would be no difference in IQ. But while a 500mm f/12 lens can be readily produced at home by an amateur astronomer (they actually do a bit better), you need Canon's expensive top-of-the-line L-optics to find a 50mm f/1.2 lens.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 3, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> Canon doesn't have anything to admit here. The key word is "equivalent".


My point is that I'm talking about situations which most people consider relevant, while you're harping on this theme of "in theory." That's nice, and in theory I don't have any substantive disagreement with what you've written. I realize you were writing earlier in response to some earlier stuff, but my point remains that this simply ignores some pretty well-established critical points laid out by users and even the companies themselves in trying to target those users.

If I can use a sort-of similar example: Everybody agrees that you lose a bit of control and ultimately image quality when shooting JPEGs processed internally by the camera, instead of saving RAWs and processing them later. But people do it because it's convenient. You and I might have the time to apply some more sophisticated techniques, but Canon wants to market their systems as being usable, and ultimately competitive, not just when the sophisticated techniques are used, but also when the system is not at its best - like in JPEG shooting or in the case of camera crops.

Basically, the theory is nice but it has to come to grips with the mundane indignities of everday shooting.


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 3, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> I'm not very fond of this simplified argument, removing the optical system from the question, which you really can't: for your simile to work, you have to assume that both detectors use the same (10xFF) lens. Now what if you were imaging a bird that just fit onto the small FF frame. Would the image of the bird be better with the 10xFF detector?



I understand your point, but you're talking about the artistic side. The original post was talking about noise level in the context of photosite size. I was also talking about that. I've used "image quality" not to refer to the artistic side, but to the technical side, that is, also including things like tonal range. It's irrelevant for instance how much motion blur you have when talking about noise level, tonal range, dynamic range.

(Also note that DXO Labs test the camera sensors only, excluding the lens entirely.)

My argument is that photosite size is irrelevant in the context of current technology, and this is not theory - the two images that I gave are proof (but one must first understand the math behind the comparison method; otherwise, people must wait for cameras with *same sensor size*).


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 3, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> I understand your point, but you're talking about the artistic side.



No, I'm not talking about the artistic side, I just gave the bird as an example. I could just as well have said "the ability to image an intensity distribution of a given solid angle that just fits onto the FF sensor".

Of course you can test the sensors only, without an optical system. It's the statement "bigger sensors collect more light" that is misleading. I agree that photosite size is only of second-order importance for a well-sampled image.


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 3, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> I just gave the bird as an example. I could just as well have said "the ability to image an intensity distribution of a given solid angle that just fits onto the FF sensor". It's the statement "bigger sensors collect more light" that is misleading.



Ok, I think I understand. You may have missed when I said that this (= the noise level is lower in photos taken with larger sensor) works only if the relative subject magnification is the same (pointless to specify since it's the norm, but accurate). I presume that this is what you meant with the bird example - that the bird must have the same magnification in the photo.

This is how the usual photographs are taken. For example a closeup portrait is taken from the top to the bottom margins of the frame. Basically the constant relative magnification ensures that the noise level relative to the subject is lower as the sensor gets larger, since the light gathered by the sensor in the subject's area is increased.

In the case of a flying bird, as the sensor becomes larger, the photographer needs to either get closer or use a longer focal length in order to preserve the magnification.


----------

