# How can Nikon remain in business with 12MP FF?



## poias (Dec 6, 2011)

Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.

Now Canon doesn't feel like they have to better the specs and come with 18mp 1Dx and similarly sized 5D3?

Canon has always been about pleasing its customers with better specs, but if Nikon does not push them, they will remain content and cruise, not innovate. This is frustrating.


----------



## Orion (Dec 6, 2011)

To answer your question, it is because they have very good cameras, just like Canon does, while bettering Canon in ISO performance and to some degree in ergonomics and AF (but not by much . . and it is real world experience that counts, not "specs").


----------



## torger (Dec 6, 2011)

poias said:


> Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.



12 megapixels is for many shooting styles all you need. Pretty much everything handheld without flash you won't get sharper than 12 mp anyway. For newspaper and magazine prints you don't need more. High mp is for tripod and studio, fine art and large commercial prints, which is probably a smaller (?) market than say photojournalism, wedding photography etc where great ISO performance is much more important than high mp.


----------



## Alba (Dec 6, 2011)

Just had a National Geographic photographer in the area, shooting with a nikon d700. His images are spectacular


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 6, 2011)

Orion said:


> To answer your question, it is because they have very good cameras, just like Canon does, while bettering Canon in ISO performance and to some degree in ergonomics and AF (but not by much . . and it is real world experience that counts, not "specs").



ditto, try shooting the same things with a 5dmk2 next to someone with a d700 and compare AF and you will cry like a baby :'(


----------



## pedro (Dec 6, 2011)

Then the 5D3 SHOULD get 1Dx sensor definitely. But I know: Wishful thinking only. Or as there are several rumored protoypes out in the wild as I read in some post here...A revamped 21 MP as is with a 1Dx sensor treatment...I bet they'd beat Nikon hands down. Or is that too enthusiastic?


----------



## Flake (Dec 6, 2011)

This is a post by someone without the first understanding about digital cameras - cue the smiting!

The 1Dx is not about high MP counts, but it's still an amazing acheivement, and does what it's supposed to in an amazing technological tour de force. It's all about high fps 14 to be precise, it's a camera for action photography, up the MP count and the frame rate would fall, which is not what the market wants. 

As for Nikons 12MP sensor, many users love it, end users only want web or low res print and even for bill boards 12MP is enough. PP is faster as is file transfer, there's a whole host of advantages to lower MP counts. Then perhaps you might like to check out just how much as a percentage larger the 21MP canon senosr actually is. The funny thing though is the way that Nikon users are looking forward to a 36MP camera extolling the virtues of high MP count sensors while forgetting the arguements they used to defend the 12MP they currently have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> The funny thing though is the way that Nikon users are looking forward to a 36MP camera extolling the virtues of high MP count sensors while forgetting the arguements they used to defend the 12MP they currently have.



Indeed. It's _almost_ as funny as Canon extolling the virtues of ISO performance and downplaying higher resolution, while talking about upscaling images... :-X


----------



## ghosh9691 (Dec 6, 2011)

poias said:


> Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.
> 
> Now Canon doesn't feel like they have to better the specs and come with 18mp 1Dx and similarly sized 5D3?
> 
> Canon has always been about pleasing its customers with better specs, but if Nikon does not push them, they will remain content and cruise, not innovate. This is frustrating.



Because it is good enough for everyone other than those that are predisposed to standing with their noses against a 10-foot print with magnifying glass in hand or those that live and die by specifications. For the rest of the proletariat, 12MP is high enough resolution. 21MP of the 5DII is even better. Size does not matter - what you do with it does...


----------



## JR (Dec 6, 2011)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



I am hoping that somewhere in between, like 18MP, will bring us the best of both worlds - or at least the best compromise money can buy for $7000!


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 6, 2011)

poias said:


> Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.



Because you can walk around shooting at ISO 4000 just because you want to. The noise performance on the D3s is so good I've heard of people shooting at 4000 or higher just because it doesn't really matter. The noise is low and the noise is more attractive than Canon cameras. I can speak personally that the noise on the 7D is pretty hideous.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 6, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I can speak personally that the noise on the 7D is pretty hideous.


Then you need to learn how to use it and convert/process the files properly - I have no problem at all with 4000 ISO and _way_ higher, with mine - _at the image level_ it easily compares with the D700/D3 :

*3200 ISO*











*6400 ISO*:















*12800 ISO*:





And feel free to check the Exif - these are almost all _low_ light images...

(The forum software has reduced the size of the images - look at them full size. And yes, they look great much bigger and printed).

*But as usual, it's easier to blame the gear than to actually work out how to get the best from it, isn't it?*


----------



## MK5GTI (Dec 6, 2011)

judging from the reflection off the bottle, these image you have are kind of well lighted, my understand is that shooting high iso in well lighted situation will perform better than same iso in really low light situation, anybody confirm that. 

also, you using flash as well, which makes shutter speed faster?


to answer OP question, have you seen the used market for the 5Dc? old 12mp FF, still lots of people want it. such a great camera to use if you don't print poster


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 6, 2011)

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f#6
I shot this on a 7D & 16mm-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, f/2.8, ISO 3200, 1/13 sec.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f#5
7D & 16mm-35mm f/2.8L II @ 32mm, f/2.8, ISO 2500, 1/50 sec.
This one is a little lower on ISO strength but was shot in even lower light 

If you click on the pictures they will load in high res and you can study the noise levels on each, zoomed in.

The noise is acceptable for my purposes (but could be improved, along with low-light performance in super high ISO settings in general), I didn't touch any fancy noise removal tools on either shot. That said I have no argument that Nikon's aren't good, I'm sure they are awesome, but I wouldn't call 7D performance hideous.


----------



## poias (Dec 6, 2011)

I think some here are missing my point. I did not say Nikon was bad or low MP is bad. It is just that 12mpx and still competing. Come on!

Since Nikon is competing with these 12mpx, Canon hosed us by going back on resolution in the flagship 1Dx. Sounds like resolution is not what matters anymore to Canon. Ironically, Nikon is rumored to have 36mpx and moving much ahead of Canon in the resolution department.

I may not print big, but high resolution gives me option to crop. It is just another tool.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 6, 2011)

KeithR said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I can speak personally that the noise on the 7D is pretty hideous.
> ...



Hey man, don't insult my photography that you've never seen. Did I blame the 7D for troubles in my work? Did I talk about how much the 7D ruins my photography? Nope. So basically you need to stop telling me that I'm converting my RAWS incorrectly when you have no earthly idea how I do my work. And you need you to not insult my photographic skill as good or bad as it may be.

I actually didn't even say the noise was unacceptably high. I typically defend the 7D when people complain about the noise. I was simply speaking to the look of the noise. I'll shoot at 4000 and 6400 if I have to and process them quite nicely. But I don't like the pattern of the noise. 

Thanks for your useful suggestions anyway... :


----------



## LEGACY (Dec 6, 2011)

Have you ever shot a D3S? it is 12mp 

It is no joke that it's called the LOW LIGHT KING ! 8)

I have and believe me when i say this, if D3S were in $2k price range, i would BUY IT in a Second ! ;D



poias said:


> Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.
> 
> Now Canon doesn't feel like they have to better the specs and come with 18mp 1Dx and similarly sized 5D3?
> 
> Canon has always been about pleasing its customers with better specs, but if Nikon does not push them, they will remain content and cruise, not innovate. This is frustrating.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2011)

MK5GTI said:


> judging from the reflection off the bottle, these image you have are kind of well lighted, my understand is that shooting high iso in well lighted situation will perform better than same iso in really low light situation, anybody confirm that.



That's absolutely true. Most internet/review ISO noise tests are carried out in an expeident manner - a scene with bright, constant lighting, aperture held constant (so DoF doesn't change), and ISO increased with corresponding decreases in shutter speed to keep exposure the same. So, the highest ISOs are shot with the shortest shutter speed - a typical range might be from 1/30 s at ISO 100 to 1/8000 s at ISO 25600. Those settings are not often real-world relevant - usually, if you need to use ISO 6400, you don't have anywhere near enough light for a 1/2000 s shutter speed (exceptions exist such as needing to stop action in motorsports). Those short shutter speeds minimize the effect of read noise, which is a major contributor to total noise when light is limiting. So, ISO 6400 and 1/2000 s is going to look a lot better than ISO 6400 at 1/60 s.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 6, 2011)

I would have bought a D3S for the low light performance, but switching all my lenses makes the cost of a body look like chump change.

Tha main advantage of high mp is the ability to crop, and I do a lot of cropping of my 5D MK II images with good results. If you fill the frame of a 12 mp camera the image will be excellent, since 6mp is about all you need for most prints.


----------



## JR (Dec 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> MK5GTI said:
> 
> 
> > judging from the reflection off the bottle, these image you have are kind of well lighted, my understand is that shooting high iso in well lighted situation will perform better than same iso in really low light situation, anybody confirm that.
> ...



This makes perfect sense Neuro and I always wondered why I had better high ISO shots in daylight! From my own limited experience with the 5D mkII, if I need to shoot at 6400 or even at 12,800 during the day to stop the action it gives me very good and usable results. However if I try the same settings indoors at night in low lights the noise shows up a lot more and even with a heavy dose of noise reduction in Lightroom, the picture then become very "artificial" and not usable...


----------



## funkboy (Dec 6, 2011)

Like this:







(D700 & 85mm f/1.4 wide-open)

I was the backup that day on a friend's D300, but got to use the D700 for about a minute. Sweet setup.

Note to self: make sure the bride doesn't take her earrings off before a shoot...


----------



## poias (Dec 6, 2011)

funkboy said:


> Like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fantastic shot, but with 12mpx, you are hoping that your shot is spot on (like this) so that you do not have to crop much. My philosophy in shooting is bringing in raw ingredients and it is in PP where the magic happens.

Most of my 21mpx turn out to be 15 or even 10mpx even everything is said and done. I cannot afford a 12mpx, because it will cripple my WF (and may be make me better). The risk is too much!


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 6, 2011)

poias said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > Like this:
> ...



Not heard of genuine fractals then?


----------



## Cetalis (Dec 6, 2011)

poias said:


> Fantastic shot, but with 12mpx, you are hoping that your shot is spot on (like this) so that you do not have to crop much. My philosophy in shooting is bringing in raw ingredients and it is in PP where the magic happens.
> 
> Most of my 21mpx turn out to be 15 or even 10mpx even everything is said and done. I cannot afford a 12mpx, because it will cripple my WF (and may be make me better). The risk is too much!



Isn't it riskier to hope that what you want just happens to be in your image? Don't want to sound belligerent but, um, aren't you supposed to use the viewfinder to make sure your shot is 'spot on'?


----------



## JR (Dec 6, 2011)

poias said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > Like this:
> ...



Great shot funkboy. For me though i am not yet at the level where I can compose eveyone of my shot like this one. To get there, I still need to crop a lot of them. What ISO was your shot taken again?


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 7, 2011)

Cetalis said:


> Isn't it riskier to hope that what you want just happens to be in your image? Don't want to sound belligerent but, um, aren't you supposed to use the viewfinder to make sure your shot is 'spot on'?



Not to pick on you specifically, but it seems like there is a lot of "if you fix it in post, you suck as a photographer" type of comments or at least insinuations, and I guess I disagree with that. I view photography as a visual art, not a "how well can you time the button pushing" art.

If you can capture that visual art straight out of the camera, great. But if I use a bunch of post processing and get as good or better results, does that somehow make my product inferior? We are using different tools and skills neither of which is inherently superior to the other to achieve the same end result.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 7, 2011)

Please tell me how you know this factored into any Canon design or marketing decisions.




poias said:


> Since Nikon is competing with these 12mpx, Canon hosed us by going back on resolution in the flagship 1Dx.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those short shutter speeds minimize the effect of read noise, which is a major contributor to total noise when light is limiting. So, ISO 6400 and 1/2000 s is going to look a lot better than ISO 6400 at 1/60 s.



I found this intriguing. Why would read-out noise change with exposure time? Is the read-out mode really different for different exposure times? If that was indeed the case, I would have expected the _slower_ read-out mode to be cleaner. Are you sure you don't mean the dark current? I wouldn't have though the dark current would be perceptible for exposures shorter than 1 second, even at 6400, but I could be wrong of course. I usually like to refer to Clarkvision for technical details, because I like their write up, but unfortunately they haven't measured the dark noise of detectors (probably because it is negligible in typical situations with shorter than a second exposures). Can you point me to somewhere where the effect you describe is documented?


----------



## gmrza (Dec 7, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I would have bought a D3S for the low light performance, but switching all my lenses makes the cost of a body look like chump change.
> 
> Tha main advantage of high mp is the ability to crop, and I do a lot of cropping of my 5D MK II images with good results. If you fill the frame of a 12 mp camera the image will be excellent, since 6mp is about all you need for most prints.



In the last sentence lies the point as to why 12MP is not an issue for many shooters: an image file is not a final product and, in most cases, clients never get to see the image file. If you consider the portrait/wedding world, clients buy prints, mounted prints, albums etc. In many areas of photography (there are exceptions to this) the client does not care what camera you use, provided you deliver the results - which the client can hang on the wall or moor on the coffee table.
For press shooters, for instance, it is more important to get the shot (i.e. AF, high ISO capability, fps) than being able to blow the result up to billboard size.

(There are more specialised areas where the specific gear you use matters more.)

for my personal photos, I like to have as much resolution as possible - who knows what I may want to do with the image in 10 years time. For the material my wife shoots for her clients, the files will all be deleted after a few years anyhow - you can't keep all the material for ever, so as long as there is enough resolution there to produce the products the client wants, that is good enough.

Camera manufacturers have done a good job so far, continually convincing us that we always need more megapixels, in order to sell us new cameras. With the exception of a few users who really need high resolution, the times have changed, and Canon, Nikon et al need to find new reasons to convince us to shell out for new gear if our current gear isn't broken.
Digital has been wonderful for Canon and Nikon, because we have all been buying new bodies at a much higher rate. Film bodies had a much longer "lifespan" before anyone worried about upgrading, with the end result of lower sales. (Of course we didn't spend less money, because a lot of our money went into film and developing.)


----------



## Cetalis (Dec 7, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> Cetalis said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it riskier to hope that what you want just happens to be in your image? Don't want to sound belligerent but, um, aren't you supposed to use the viewfinder to make sure your shot is 'spot on'?
> ...



I believe you misunderstand me; I'm not implying anything about post, except cropping, and even then, there are many legitimate reasons to crop. I agree that it does not matter how you got the shot and what you do to it as long as the result works. What I don't understand is why the OP seems to believe that cropping is more likely to work than framing the shot, where one can see the results in the viewfinder and thus not have to rely on luck. There are times when erratic subject movement makes shooting wider more practical, but few people have to shoot this way all the time and the OP hasn't said that he is one of them.



poias said:


> Fantastic shot, but with 12mpx, you are _*hoping*_ that your shot is spot on (like this) so that you do not have to crop much. My philosophy in shooting is bringing in raw ingredients and it is in PP where the magic happens.
> 
> Most of my 21mpx turn out to be 15 or even 10mpx even everything is said and done. I cannot afford a 12mpx, because it will cripple my WF (and may be make me better). The _*risk*_ is too much!


----------



## funkboy (Dec 7, 2011)

JR said:


> Great shot funkboy. For me though i am not yet at the level where I can compose eveyone of my shot like this one. To get there, I still need to crop a lot of them. What ISO was your shot taken again?



Thanks poias & JR.

My friend the wedding photographer has all the RAWs & did most of the post-prod on it, so to be honest, I don't recall the capture settings (other than the aperture), but given that we were in light shadows in a park on a sunny afternoon I'd say probably around ISO400 & exposed to the right. Anyway one likely couldn't tell the difference with this little thumbnail even if it was shot at ISO6400 with that thing.

For the record, I recall that we may have cropped it a little bit when we first took a look at it, maybe 5%. The evening after the shoot we went over a good chunk of the ~2.5k photos from our two cameras, so my memory on this particular one's a little hazy...


----------



## funkboy (Dec 7, 2011)

poias said:


> Most of my 21mpx turn out to be 15 or even 10mpx even everything is said and done. I cannot afford a 12mpx, because it will cripple my WF (and may be make me better). The risk is too much!



Native resolution of an A3 print at 240dpi is about 10mp. That happens to work out rather well with my 40D. I consider anything over that to be a bonus, as I've never needed a print bigger than A3 and I don't have any friends with a printer bigger than that anyway. (Granted, there's a shop a few blocks away with a pair of Epson 9600s that do wall posters for boutiques, but I shudder to think what they'd charge for a print that big...).

Now don't get me wrong, it would certainly be nice to have the luxury of being able to crop half the image away & still have that kind of resolution if necessary, but it's not too high on my wish list. I'd say that if you're cropping most of your shots more than 5-10% then you might be better served just taking more shots from different focal lengths to be sure that you got what you want from the beginning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So, ISO 6400 and 1/2000 s is going to look a lot better than ISO 6400 at 1/60 s.
> ...



In the example below (100% crops from the 5DII, processed with DPP using no NR or other adjustments), the light source illumination was the same. For the shot on the right, ND filters were used reduce illumination by a fixed amount to match exposure, giving (IMO) a more common real-world situation where you might need to use ISO 6400.


----------



## JR (Dec 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the example below (100% crops from the 5DII, processed with DPP using no NR or other adjustments), the light source illumination was the same. For the shot on the right, ND filters were used reduce illumination by a fixed amount to match exposure, giving (IMO) a more common real-world situation where you might need to use ISO 6400.



This is *very  * insightful Neuro! I would be sooo curious to see the same chart done with a D700...just curious... But the difference in your test is striking. I would say almost 1 to 2 stop delta no?


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

ghosh9691 said:


> Size does not matter - what you do with it does...



Depends who you ask ;D


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> short shutter speeds minimize the effect of read noise



How so? Can you explain how read noise is affected by shutter speed? Careful now...

The other parts of your comment sound about right... just this particular point somehow seems off.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 7, 2011)

Yes, I think it's the case that it's not the shutter speed, but rather having enough light to satisfy the high sensitivity requirement of that ISO setting.

More light = less shot noise


----------



## Radiating (Dec 7, 2011)

12 mp is plenty for almost any usage. In fact for most pro photographers more than 12 mp serves literally no purpose whatsoever. To this majority therefore Nikon provides cameras that have much higher ISO performance, much better A/F and much better ergonomics than Canon, Nikon devastates Canon in performance on it's bodies. Even the 1Dx is better for studio stuff. Personally though I like to crop my images a bit so 18mp is a must for me but beyond that i have no use for more MP. Either way Canon has superior lenses which is why I chose Canon. However Nikon really does have better bodies not the other way around and they are driving technology. Canon's dynamic range and USO are laughable in comparison. 

In any case for me the 1Dx is the holy grail cropping + ISO + Dynamic range. It's perfect.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 7, 2011)

Radiating said:


> 12 mp is plenty for almost any usage. In fact for most pro photographers more than 12 mp serves literally no purpose whatsoever. To this majority therefore Nikon provides cameras that have much higher ISO performance, much better A/F and much better ergonomics than Canon, Nikon devastates Canon in performance on it's bodies.



Hyperbole on every point. The D3s has better high ISO (not much better) because it's a newer sensor design than the 5D2. The D700 does not have better high ISO despite being 12 MP.

AF is better on the D700. With Canon you can get a low cost 21 MP FF body, with Nikon you can get low cost pro AF in a FF body. Only their sales departments know which differentiation is better. (That said, I don't understand it when competitors fail to take open shots. Canon should have put pro AF in the 5D2.)

Ergonomics is very much a matter of personal preference. There are things I like and dislike about both.

That said, 12 MP is enough for many uses, so Nikon is not at a huge disadvantage. But there are some popular uses which require more MP. I would rather shoot landscapes with my 7D than with my friend's D700.



> Canon's dynamic range and USO are laughable in comparison.



A roughly 1 stop difference on either is not laughable, especially when Nikon has younger sensor designs. Let's see what the differences are with Canon's newest FF sensor.


----------



## PeterJ (Dec 7, 2011)

Meh said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > short shutter speeds minimize the effect of read noise
> ...


I'd tend to agree, read noise is probably not the cause. Same ISO IMO would lead to the same amplification and the number of photons striking the sensor with the ND filter should be the same. I'd suspect it's thermal noise, I'm a bit rusty but think that increases either directly or with the sqare root of time. Also the dark current of a photodiode may have an effect, the low level when you get a reading when no light is present, it would make sense that accumulates over time.

Anyway bit of a technical argument, end result is the same that high ISO and lighting with short shutter speeds isn't a good comparison against low light with longer shutter speeds. Interesting discussion because I've seen a few test shots that look very different to my results and I've never given it much thought before.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the example below (100% crops from the 5DII, processed with DPP using no NR or other adjustments), the light source illumination was the same. For the shot on the right, ND filters were used reduce illumination by a fixed amount to match exposure, giving (IMO) a more common real-world situation where you might need to use ISO 6400.



Imaging Resource tests don't show as dramatic a difference as shutter speed drops. Are you sure you got the exposure right?


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 7, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the example below (100% crops from the 5DII, processed with DPP using no NR or other adjustments), the light source illumination was the same.



Wow, that really looks convincing. I would never have guessed and am really at a loss how this can be. I will have to test it myself.



Edwin Herdman said:


> Yes, I think it's the case that it's not the shutter speed, but rather having enough light to satisfy the high sensitivity requirement of that ISO setting. More light = less shot noise



That would be he case if the exposures (the number of photons captured) for the two images were different. But in these exposures the total number of photons captured is the same, the only difference is that the photons arrive at different rates (hence you need to expose longer in the second case to get the same number of photons).

Same number of photons = same shot noise, implying that the noise must come from elsewhere. One suggestion is readout noise, but I can't see how that could be the case - the readout is normally independent of the exposure. Thermal noise (same thing as dark noise) grows with time, so that could be it, but normally dark noise is insignificant at exposure times less than a second. But perhaps it isn't, I really see no other explanation.


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In the example below (100% crops from the 5DII, processed with DPP using no NR or other adjustments), the light source illumination was the same.
> ...



@epsilonari good points this is what I initially thought when I first read Neuro's comment but struggled with the reason because his later examples do in fact show an obvious difference. From your comments in other threads you seem to know much about this type of thing.... a couple of ideas occur to me that perhaps you can comment on... 

1) Since the ISO, aperture, and exposure is the same then we know that the same number of photons are collected. However, they are collected over a longer time as you said. Could the slower arrival of photons cause a greater spatial variation of the photons? But this would be "shot noise" which normally scales with number of photons collected not exposure time and 1/60s shouldn't be long enough to cause any unusual effect.

2) The ND filter (4 stops in Neuro's example) is not a perfect filter... could it be causing the noise by unevenly blocking the incoming photons causing additional spatial variation?


----------



## poias (Dec 7, 2011)

Okay, I will take most of what I say back.

I did not realize that Nikon has had a 24mpx FF, which is apparently its flagship. It is expensive, but it was there.

So, Nikon had the highest mpx FF and the highest ISO FF at the same time? I think I answered my own question -- that is why they are in business.


----------



## TimKaldas (Dec 7, 2011)

Canon didn't "hose us" by having the 1Dx with 18 MPs. They didn't hose us because we got a native ISO that reaches 51,200 with virtually no substantive drop in resolution. We got 12 fps with nearly no drop in resolution. We got a range of improvements with basically no sacrifice. I wish my 5D IIs had 12 MPs and d3s ISO performance. I export my images at 12 MPs anyways for my clients because that's plenty for most uses. I use high ISOs much more than I use 21 MPs. I think a lot of us were rather frustrated with Canon's endless pursuit of resolution while Nikon focused on perfecting image quality at a perfectly sufficient resolution. Finally Canon is getting that we're not stupid and understand that going any further in resolution is a wasteful distraction and that pros aren't as easily fooled as the point and shoot crowd who believe that more MPs = better. The 1Dx was exactly the camera I wanted Canon to make and frankly I can't wait to get one...or two.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 7, 2011)

Meh said:


> 1) Since the ISO, aperture, and exposure is the same then we know that the same number of photons are collected. However, they are collected over a longer time as you said. Could the slower arrival of photons cause a greater spatial variation of the photons? But this would be "shot noise" which normally scales with number of photons collected not exposure time and 1/60s shouldn't be long enough to cause any unusual effect.



No, the path of a photon does not depend on the rate, so it shouldn't make a difference for the spatial distribution (otherwise sharp static objects would look blurrier in long exposures).



Meh said:


> 2) The ND filter (4 stops in Neuro's example) is not a perfect filter... could it be causing the noise by unevenly blocking the incoming photons causing additional spatial variation?



No, the ND filters are in the (almost) parallel beam, meaning that they are way, way out of focus. So any inhomogeneities of the filter will be spread over large parts of the detector and not give rise to the noise seen in neuroanatomist's images. We have to find the explanation elsewhere...


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Since the ISO, aperture, and exposure is the same then we know that the same number of photons are collected. However, they are collected over a longer time as you said. Could the slower arrival of photons cause a greater spatial variation of the photons? But this would be "shot noise" which normally scales with number of photons collected not exposure time and 1/60s shouldn't be long enough to cause any unusual effect.
> ...



Yes, that's right of course shot noise is not spatial variation... it's the statistical variation in the arrival rate of the photons incident on each photosite. That variation causes adjacent/nearby photosites to have variation in the number of photons each should have collected. Now, each exposure was the same so the average/total number of photons collected is the same but there is more variation in the longer shutter speed image. Are we sure that shot noise is the square root of the number of photons collected and does not depend on the time over which they were collected (at least in the range of 1/2000s to 1/60s?

I just can't see how the difference in noise for these two equal exposures is due to read noise... the read noise is low and fairly constant. The exposure was the same therefore approximately the same number of photons were collected at each photosite. Therefore, the contribution of read noise to the SNR has to be about the same.


----------



## skitron (Dec 7, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> ...and not give rise to the noise seen in neuroanatomist's images. We have to find the explanation elsewhere...



I believe the issue is that the longer length of time the analog and AD conversion circuits are in use, the more cumulative noise from these circuits there will be imparted on the final image. Remember, circuit noise is a random deviation from ideal performance (i.e. amplitude in the analog domain) and these deviations also have a random frequency in which they occur.


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

skitron said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > ...and not give rise to the noise seen in neuroanatomist's images. We have to find the explanation elsewhere...
> ...



That's true in general, however, the readout of the image sensor and the A/D conversion takes place after the exposure is completed. I'm fairly certain the readout and A/D process would be identical and take the same amount of time regardless of the exposure time.


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

Maybe it is thermal noise. It's normally considered to be insignificant at exposures less than 1 second but certainly it's continuous and would be greater (although possibly still very small) at 1/60s than it is at 1/2000s. Any thoughts?


----------



## skitron (Dec 7, 2011)

Meh said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > epsiloneri said:
> ...



So the sensor is actually a storage device? There is no way to have a fixed length of time for the analog and AD to be used *regardless of exposure* unless the sensor actually is a storage device as well. I don't see how that is possible but confess it's not an area of electronics I know anything about.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Dec 7, 2011)

Flake said:


> The funny thing though is the way that Nikon users are looking forward to a 36MP camera extolling the virtues of high MP count sensors while forgetting the arguements they used to defend the 12MP they currently have.



Some maybe, but I would say a majority of Nikon shooters, especially the D700 shooters are not in favor of a 36MP cam.
Of course, the landscape shooters are saying "bring it on!"


----------



## jaduffy007 (Dec 7, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f#6
> but I wouldn't call 7D performance hideous.



Sorry,but compared to a D3S? Hideous comes pretty close imo


----------



## skitron (Dec 7, 2011)

Meh said:


> Maybe it is thermal noise. It's normally considered to be insignificant at exposures less than 1 second but certainly it's continuous and would be greater (although possibly still very small) at 1/60s than it is at 1/2000s. Any thoughts?



Wiki has a decent and short writeup of different noise types found in all electronics. They all apply all the time, it's just a matter of when do they become significant. Obviously neuro's example reaches 'significant' since we're spending our time talking about it.  And that said, the useful principle seems to be that system S/N is closely correlated to instantaneous intensity of light reaching the sensor and lowering the instantaneous intensity and then collecting the same number of photons over time does in fact reveal this to be true. At least that's what I'm taking away from it.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 7, 2011)

jaduffy007 said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f#6
> ...



Ug, I didn't even say the performance was hideous. Just the look of the noise.
Anyway, moving on...


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

skitron said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > That's true in general, however, the readout of the image sensor and the A/D conversion takes place after the exposure is completed. I'm fairly certain the readout and A/D process would be identical and take the same amount of time regardless of the exposure time.
> ...



In a way, yes, just during the exposure. During the exposure the photodiodes are electrically isolated... they are an electron well. Each photon that's absorbed frees one electron and that electron gets trapped in the well and stays there. By the time the exposure is finished each photodiode will have somewhere between a few (maybe 10) and a lot (many thousands, depends on the size of the photodiode) electrons that together create a voltage. Then the readout circuits start selecting rows and columns and measure the voltage at each photosite. That voltage (analog value) is then passed through the ADC and assigned a digital value. Even after all that is done the voltage is still present in each photosite so a reset circuit is activated that drains all the electrons out of the photodiodes. And the next exposure can then be made.

I may not have that exactly right and I'm omitting a few details so take it as a general explanation.

That is for a CMOS sensor. A CCD sensor works a little differently.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 7, 2011)

Meh said:


> Are we sure that shot noise is the square root of the number of photons collected and does not depend on the time over which they were collected (at least in the range of 1/2000s to 1/60s?



Yes, it's called poisson noise. Technically, in the extremely-few photon case (like, you-can-count-them-on-your-fingers few), the photons do not follow poisson statistics (because of the quantum mechanical fact that photons are bosons), but that's not a case we come remotely close to here.



skitron said:


> So the sensor is actually a storage device?



Yes, that's precisely right. A fraction of the photons that strike the detector produce electrons (the fraction being called the quantum efficiency, QE, of the detector), and these electrons are then stored in the pixel "electron well". The depth of the well (how many electrons fit in) gives an upper limit on the dynamic range of a pixel. At the end of the exposure, the well is emptied and the number of electrons in each pixel are counted and given a (_digital_) number.

Dark current (also called thermal noise) arises because at any given temperature, electrons tend to move around (more the higher the temperature), and some of these thermal electrons accidentally fall into the electron wells of the pixels (electrons may also escape from a well this way). For longer exposure times and higher temperatures, the electrons are more likely o re-assemble like this, which is the reason longer exposures generate more thermal noise.


----------



## Meh (Dec 7, 2011)

@epsiloneri

Thanks. I didn't think we were anywhere near a regime where the photons were not statistically well behaved. Although, in very dark areas of an image I think there would be very few photons collected. Somewhere between 10 and 100.

I'll add something to your explanation of the sensor read out process. In a CMOS sensor the electrons are not emptied during readout. It has to be reset after the readout. In a CCD they are emptied sequentially as they're read out. I think so anyway 

And +1 to you sir!


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 8, 2011)

Meh said:


> I'll add something to your explanation of the sensor read out process. In a CMOS sensor the electrons are not emptied during readout. It has to be reset after the readout. In a CCD they are emptied sequentially as they're read out.



Yes, you're right. The pixel is first measured, then emptied (reset). A CCD has to physically transfer the charge to the border of the chip where it's read out, that's why CCD readouts are destructive while CMOS's are not.

Since it's trivial to set up, I repeated neuroanatomist's experiment but cannot confirm his result that the noise depends on exposure time. I produced a scene that at f/4 was 75% well exposed at 1/2000s and iso 6400 (with a 5D2). Since we are interested in the detector rather than the lens I set the focus to infinity to blur any details of the scene (just a blank homogeneous wall).

For the second image, I used the same setting but with a Hoya NDX400 filter and 1/5s exposure instead. I chose the time carefully so that the exposure would be the same (judging from the on-screen histogram), and predictably the difference in exposure time was a factor 400 (expected because of the 400x ND filter).

I set noise reduction and sharpness enhancement to 0 in DPP, and white balance to "white fluorescent light" to keep it constant (and since it matches the lighting conditions). The same recipe was used on both exposures.

The attached image shows 100% crops of the identical region, the left being from the 1/2000s image and the right from the 1/5s image. Apart from the obvious colour cast introduced by the filter, there is no discernible difference in the noise. Computing the noise (stdvar) of the image confirms the visual impression; for the left/right part of the (R,G,B) channels, the noise is (3.03/3.06, 2.43/2.40, 3.03/3.07), i.e. the difference in noise between left and right is on the order of 1%, clearly insignificant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2011)

Interesting! I'll have to see if I can replicate my own results...


----------



## skitron (Dec 8, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > So the sensor is actually a storage device?
> ...





Meh said:


> In a way, yes...



Thanks to both of you for enlightening me.  I know quite a bit about audio related circuitry but nadda about this sort of thing and the explanations are good.


----------



## skitron (Dec 8, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> The attached image shows 100% crops of the identical region, the left being from the 1/2000s image and the right from the 1/5s image.



Very interesting. I guess I can't "take away" what I thought I could earlier LOL.


----------



## Meh (Dec 8, 2011)

skitron said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...



Thank you for your thank you. Yeah, audio sampling is different since it's a time varying signal which is sampled and digitally encoded in real time.


----------

