# Speculate: How much noise improvement from 5D3 to 5D4?



## VelocideX (Jan 5, 2015)

I realise that the 5D4 hasn't been announced yet, but I'm curious on views about how much improvement in noise we might expect going from the 5D3 to the 5D4 (assuming it comes out in the first half of this year).

I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.

I love low-light photography, and am really hoping for 1/2 to 1 stop improvement (although I appreciate 1 stop improvement would be a huge stretch). Getting ISO 25,600 to the point where it is seriously usable (like ISO 12,800) would be fantastic. 

Many thanks!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2015)

VelocideX said:


> I realise that the 5D4 hasn't been announced yet, but I'm curious on views about how much improvement in noise we might expect going from the 5D3 to the 5D4 (assuming it comes out in the first half of this year).
> 
> I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.
> 
> ...


There is signal, and there is noise.

With the improvements in quantum efficiency lately, I would expect to see about a 1/5 stop improvement in signal strength, but as to noise, it's very hard to say... perhaps another 1/5 stop if the existing A/D system is tweaked from the 5D3, but the intro of a new technology could drastically change things....

That's a fancy way of saying probably 1/3 stop, but who knows....


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jan 5, 2015)

High ISO noise or low ISO noise?

High ISO noise maybe 1/2 stop better

Low ISO noise has a lot of room for improvement. If we are luckly (not sure atm), it could be 3-4 stops better :-X :-X :-X If not, then it's 0 stop, which means no improvement :'(

Or if Canon can employ the on sensor, dual gain ADC, then it will be 5 stops better. One could dream... ???

However I've already given up on chasing the shadow pushing mania. Even if it's clean when pushed 5 stops, the tonal range is severely limited. Better learn how to properly bracket and merge. Unless someone uses 16-bit ADC (or more) and gamma mapped raw encoding, bracket is a better option.


----------



## RGF (Jan 5, 2015)

VelocideX said:


> I realise that the 5D4 hasn't been announced yet, but I'm curious on views about how much improvement in noise we might expect going from the 5D3 to the 5D4 (assuming it comes out in the first half of this year).
> 
> I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.
> 
> ...



To be precise, based upon all available information to date, 2.34 averaged over all ISO and sensor signals from 70 to 95% of maximal count.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

VelocideX said:


> I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.



What do you expect from a crop sensor? Even Sonikon doesn't do better. Given the development with this sensor size, most people (including me) were pleasantly surprised there was progress at all.



VelocideX said:


> Getting ISO 25,600 to the point where it is seriously usable (like ISO 12,800) would be fantastic.



Btw: You do know that iso >6400 on 5d3 is simply digitally amplified, and you only loose dynamic range when shooting raw and going higher? The high iso values are for jpeg, video, marketing - but not for hq stills shooting.



VelocideX said:


> I love low-light photography, and am really hoping for 1/2 to 1 stop improvement (although I appreciate 1 stop improvement would be a huge stretch).



On *high* iso? Imho: forget it. One stop would mean 200% the efficiency of the current design. What you can expect is less banding in the shadows like on 1dx and 6d, i.e. you can really make max use of the dynamic range and software denoising w/o running into artifacts.

Personally, I expect this the only gain on the 5d4 - they'll probably raise the resolution a bit and stay about the same on snr at 100% crop. Most folks will be fine with this, there are plenty of other recent innovations to make the 5d4 sell.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 6, 2015)

Hopefully 3-4 stops DR at ISO100. Likely 1/3 stop better DR at ISO100  : :-\ :'(  ???. (Or if following 5D2 to 5D3 pattern, likely -1/4, minus yes, stops DR at ISO100   ??? ??? : : :-\ :-\   :'( :'().

Fantasy 8+ stops better SNR ;D. More realistically 1/3 to (pushing it) 1/2 stop better SNR.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 6, 2015)

To early to tell ask again in a year.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2015)

Don't expect high ISO noise improvement, Canon is going for low ISO improvements, better color, things like that. Any High ISO noise improvement will be slight. Of course, the new Digic 6 processor will produce jpegs at higher ISO settings and less detail, but the actual raw sensor output will be a incremental improvement.

The Dual Pixel sensor does have promise if Canon can do more things with it than they have shown on the crop cameras. I suspect that there are some more tricks they can use and are reserving them for the more expensive models. That is the standard sales tactic, whether its a iphone, a new car, a TV set, or a Canon DSLR.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jan 6, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Don't expect high ISO noise improvement, Canon is going for low ISO improvements, better color, things like that. Any High ISO noise improvement will be slight. Of course, the new Digic 6 processor will produce jpegs at higher ISO settings and less detail, but the actual raw sensor output will be a incremental improvement.
> 
> The Dual Pixel sensor does have promise if Canon can do more things with it than they have shown on the crop cameras. I suspect that there are some more tricks they can use and are reserving them for the more expensive models. That is the standard sales tactic, whether its a iphone, a new car, a TV set, or a Canon DSLR.



There is no any indication that Canon will be working on improving low ISO DR. They said they are working on a high resolution sensor (no DR mentioned), they also stated that their sensor is the best (sigh...). All those EXMOR wannabe rumors are more like a wishlist than actual information, that's why it seems very depressing in Canon land.

I think from current reliable source, it's best to hope for the next FF sensor to be a FF 7D2 sensor: 52MP dual pixel, no banding, same 11.5 stops low ISO DR. Then you can only get positive surprise if it turns out to be more than that.

I'm currently trying hard to master the way of shooting sky separately (2 shots bracket, -2 to -3 EV) and combine in post. If done right it looks like you have all the DR you really need. The only situation I find that needs more DR is when bright sky is present.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2015)

Okay. First of all. Sensor technology has advanced to the point where future improvements will be incremental at best. And that is across all brands, despite what the Sony fan-boys would have you believe.

That said, the 7DII sensor is, by all accounts, quite a significant improvement over the 7D sensor and even a slight improvement over the 70D. 

If you think the improvements of the 7DII were insignificant, then you will likely view the improvements of the 5DIV in the same light. If you appreciate that Canon did improve upon the sensor for the 7DII, then you'll likely appreciate any improvements that materialize with the 5DIV. 

The same people who whine on this forum about Canon sensor tech will continue to whine, regardless of what improvements may occur. 

Now, as someone who uses the 5DIII in frequent low-light situations, I am completely blown away by the capabilities of the Canon sensor. Results matter, and the results I get leave me very impressed and pleased with the performance of the 5DIII. We are playing in the margins and it is nearly impossible to see significant low-light improvements. For my purposes, the Canon 5DIII is the best available camera for all-around use, reaching a reasonable compromise between resolution, dynamic range and ISO sensitivity. 

I am one of those who has no desire for high megapixels or extreme dynamic range and I believe Canon will continue to focus the 5D series on this all-around capability, making marginal improvements across the board.

Finally, it would be a real surprise to see a 5DIV in the first half of 2015. As Maeda Masaya alluded to in his interview, product development cycles are getting longer as the technology matures. It would not be at all surprising to see a 5DIV unveiled at the 2016 Photokina.


----------



## sanj (Jan 6, 2015)

No speculation here. Around 1/2 stop.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 6, 2015)

VelocideX said:


> I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.


And that's disappointingly inaccurate.

I own both cameras and - depending on the ISO - I see the very best part of a stop in noise improvement.

Seriously - treat anything you read from/about DxO as a work of fiction compared to Real World experience...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> That said, the 7DII sensor is, by all accounts, quite a significant improvement over the 7D sensor and even a slight improvement over the 70D.



_Exactly_ that - I see the exact same thing (I've got a 70D too).



unfocused said:


> The same people who whine on this forum about Canon sensor tech will continue to whine, regardless of what improvements may occur.



And _especially_ that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 6, 2015)

BozillaNZ said:


> High ISO noise or low ISO noise?
> 
> High ISO noise maybe 1/2 stop better
> 
> ...



What he said....a lot of truth here.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 6, 2015)

VelocideX said:


> I realise that the 5D4 hasn't been announced yet, but I'm curious on views about how much improvement in noise we might expect going from the 5D3 to the 5D4 (assuming it comes out in the first half of this year).



The difference between the 5DIII to 5DIV isn't as great as the difference between the 5DIV to the 5DV. I'd wait.

The direct print button finally works too.


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 6, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> VelocideX said:
> 
> 
> > I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.
> ...



I concur

I've learnt big time with my 7Dii that it's not just noise but the type of noise which is different. So much easier top clean up which results in a cleaner, sharper image after post.

In respect of the 5D4, I really, really would like to see less noise at base ISO, with the same manageable type of noise that the 7Dii renders.


----------



## whothafunk (Jan 6, 2015)

VelocideX said:


> I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D


this statement is complete and utter bullcrap.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > VelocideX said:
> ...


it is right and it is wrong...

The 7D2 is about a third of a stop more sensitive than the 7D and that gives you more light.... that part of the statement is right, but the electronics of the A/D system also seems to be better, and that gives less noise. We have more signal and less noise... according to many reviewers it is roughly a stop better. My personal experience would be to say 1 1/3 stops better, but that's anecdotal, not controlled testing..... but the DXO claim of 1/3 stops is rubbish. What else would you expect from a company that ranks the 50F1.8 as a superior lens to the 600F4II???


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 6, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> The 7D2 is about a third of a stop more sensitive than the 7D and that gives you more light



Hmmmm, I don't know if this statement is precise, but I know what you're trying to say :->

In fact, what I am still missing and would like to have as a feature on the 6d is a second dial which controls the ambient light - dial left = sun goes up, dial right = sun goes down


----------



## sdsr (Jan 6, 2015)

One aspect of this that may matter is the resolution of the 5DIV's sensor and how you view your images. If you look at your photos at, say, 100%, higher resolution images are more magnified than lower resolution images - and of course that includes any noise. I mention this because I own both a Sony a7r and the much-touted high ISO king, the Sony a7s. If you view at 100%, the a7r's images look much noisier than the a7s's, but that's largely because of the difference in magnification between 36MP @ 100% and 12 MP @ 100%. View them at the same scale and the differences diminish drastically - or so it seems to me (I'm referring to comparisons of RAW files here). In terms of noise, the differences among those two and the 6D (which I still own) and 5DIII (which I recently sold) strike me as pretty trivial in terms of noise. You can try this for yourself with the DPreview comparison tools. (There may be more significant differences among these cameras in terms of color and detail as the ISO gets higher, but those differences seem minor to me too.) 

Of course, I haven't a clue when a 5DIV will appear, or how its sensor will perform in practice. But I wouldn't be surprised if, assuming it has much higher MP count than the 5DIII, that some/many will buy one, take high ISO images, view them at 100%, and complain about the noise....


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jan 6, 2015)

The sCMOS design seems to be a solution. If it can be economically produced in a high mega pixel version, the sCMOS could be a great improvement for very low noise levels. I could see using it in the top of the line first.

http://www.scmos.com/


----------



## lintoni (Jan 6, 2015)

Sporgon has speculated, elsewhere on CR, that Canon may have some hitherto unused features in their dual pixel sensors that they're saving for the higher end cameras. I find the idea appealing, but there's nothing (that I know of) to back up his speculation.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> I find the idea appealing, but there's nothing (that I know of) to back up his speculation.



This is certainly the right place to discuss this possibility  

I know for a fact that Canon doesn't use all features built into their DIGIC processors because Magic Lantern managed to unlock some of them. And I know from ML coding that Canon hides fw features like "af patterns": The 9-pt "diamond" systems have the ability to select multiple af points (not just one or all), but Canon simply chose not to make this feature accessible through their GUI - most likely to protect their premium cameras.

While the above it the Truth(tm), it's difficult to separate it from conspiracy theories. Btw do you know you only use 10% of your brains' power and can unlock the rest by paying a lot of €€€ for pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo?


----------



## lintoni (Jan 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > I find the idea appealing, but there's nothing (that I know of) to back up his speculation.
> ...


You don't need to pay for it anymore, it's all on facebook, punctuating the cute cat and dog videos.


----------



## VelocideX (Jan 6, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> VelocideX said:
> 
> 
> > I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.
> ...



I was basing my information on http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/


----------



## VelocideX (Jan 6, 2015)

I appreciate that my original statement conflates signal and noise, when they are two separate issues. Perhaps then I should have been more specific and mentioned signal/noise improvement, which is higher than 1/3 of a stop.

My takeaway from this is that the signal/noise ratio for the 5D4 may be 1/3 to 1/2 stop higher than the 5D3 (at high ISOs), and that's basically the information I was seeking.

I agree that the banding issue at low ISOs is problematic for the 5D3. I expect this will be much better in the 5D4.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jan 8, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Btw: You do know that iso >6400 on 5d3 is simply digitally amplified, and you only loose dynamic range when shooting raw and going higher? The high iso values are for jpeg, video, marketing - but not for hq stills shooting.



I think its ISO 25600 native, and of course 51200 and 100k (called H1 and H2) are digital versions, which you can disable in custom menu... ?

I don't know exactly - but is there a "big" sensor (APSC/FF) with back-illumination technique? The small sensors for phones and small cameras have it since some generations. Shouldn't there an effect on big sensors too? Or isn't this as much, because of the lens for every pixel?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 8, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Btw: You do know that iso >6400 on 5d3 is simply digitally amplified, and you only loose dynamic range when shooting raw and going higher? The high iso values are for jpeg, video, marketing - but not for hq stills shooting.
> ...



Definitely wrong, the h1/h2 are as "digital" as 25k - Canon just calls them "extpanded iso" from tradition and to mark the fact that you're to expect an even more severe degradation of image quality.

To be precise, "digital" amplification can happen at several stages of the in-camera image data path - I'm just using it here as word to differentiate from "real" sensor analog settings which are full iso stops 100-1600/3200/6400 (depending on the camera model, ff, crop, ...).

Their marketing div certainly won't burden innocent Joe Sixpack users with the internal workings of their sensors, esp. as so many people think the camera's highest iso setting equals the real low light sensitivity of the sensor.


----------



## jrista (Jan 8, 2015)

I believe ISO 25.6k is not digital, it is still done by an analog amp. It's just an analog amp that is downstream from the pixels. Supposedly that results in less noise. Not sure how, but I gather there are limitations with how much you can amplify the signal with per-pixel amplifiers. 


The only truly digital ISO settings (where the adjustment is made AFTER ADC) are the expanded settings, as far as I know.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 8, 2015)

The other day the mentioned that the 5d mkiv might be the BIG sensor people have been asking for and it should have the same pixel density as the 7d mkii.....

SO I WOULD GUESS THAT THE USABLE ISO WILL BE LOWER... NOT DRAMATICALLY LOWER, BUT LOWER. And that makes me sad.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 9, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> VelocideX said:
> 
> 
> > I note that the 7D2 has about 1/3 stop noise improvement (via increased sensitivity) from the 7D, which is disappointingly low.
> ...



says one of the Canon forums biggest writer's of fiction....

(I will give you that sometimes the character of noise can make it work out better in some cases, like the 7D has less high ISO banding than the 5D2 so in scenes with much of the scene near black but a few parts clipping white, the 7D could actually outdo the 5D2 even when not distance limited. In other shots the larger frame of the 5D2 made it do much better though.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> The only truly digital ISO settings (where the adjustment is made AFTER ADC) are the expanded settings, as far as I know.



It's really hard to tell, the ML devs really dug into it while trying to optimize the digic registers to get more dynamic 
range "for free". There are multiple amps involved, and they work in different ways on each iso setting, currently my impression is that they won't be able to figure it out completely.

What it comes down to "digital" vs "analog" is if it's "worth it" dumping dynamic range for probably a tiny bit of less noise because the amplification is done in the image data chain. For most purposes, at least for what I do, the answer is "no" - I'd rather shoot raw 6400 underexposed than go higher on my 6d.

Imho there are lots more people out there cranking iso up w/o knowing what the tradeoff is, that's why I'm (and the ML devs, if you read the thread over there) are rather verbal about the minimal benefits of post-sensor amplification on high iso settings.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> says one of the Canon forums biggest writer's of fiction...



Just you're incapable of getting these results out of your cameras, don't run away with the assumption that we're all as inept...

And as for "writers of fiction" - _as well you bloody know_, back when I used to put up with your BS on the likes of DPR, I backed my arguments up _time and time and time again_ with images that proved the point I was making.

Like I say - don't transfer your lack of talent onto others. I don't have to lie - I leave that to others.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 12, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Don't expect high ISO noise improvement, Canon is going for low ISO improvements, better color, things like that. Any High ISO noise improvement will be slight. Of course, the new Digic 6 processor will produce jpegs at higher ISO settings and less detail, but the actual raw sensor output will be a incremental improvement.
> 
> The Dual Pixel sensor does have promise if Canon can do more things with it than they have shown on the crop cameras. I suspect that there are some more tricks they can use and are reserving them for the more expensive models. That is the standard sales tactic, whether its a iphone, a new car, a TV set, or a Canon DSLR.



The Digic 6 is not new. It has been around on point and shoots since 2013.


----------



## FTBPhotography (Jan 12, 2015)

Silly topic IMHO. Why people are so obsessed with noise is beyond me. I notice its mainly from amateurs who have never shot film. Everyone wants to shoot at ISO 25600 and want it to look like
ISO 100. I dont get it. Get over it people.


----------



## Khufu (Jan 12, 2015)

FTBPhotography said:


> Silly topic IMHO. Why people are so obsessed with noise is beyond me. I notice its mainly from amateurs who have never shot film. Everyone wants to shoot at ISO 25600 and want it to look like
> ISO 100. I dont get it. Get over it people.



Oooor you get over it, person!

It's painfully obvious why people would want improved performance and capabilities. Do yourself a favour and stop painting yourself as such a bitter old-timer


----------



## jrista (Jan 12, 2015)

FTBPhotography said:


> Silly topic IMHO. Why people are so obsessed with noise is beyond me. I notice its mainly from amateurs who have never shot film. Everyone wants to shoot at ISO 25600 and want it to look like
> ISO 100. I dont get it. Get over it people.




Actually, you have that backwards. We want to shoot at ISO 100 and not have it look like ISO 800. ;P That is the primary issue with Canon sensors...the noise ramps up as you get to LOWER ISO settings. ISO 100 has aroun 1.5-2x more read noise than ISO 200, which in turn has 1.5-2x more read noise than ISO 400, etc. That flattens the DR curve out, WASTING information that the sensor actually gathered and could otherwise be usable. 


It's never been about shooting at ISO 25600 and having it look like ISO 100. It's about getting out of ISO 100 what is there to start with. Canon's high frequency, low parallelism, off-die ADC units are throwing away massive amounts of usable information, where as sensors from other brands are preserving 2-8x more information.


----------



## telemaq76 (Jan 12, 2015)

i just want clean iso-100 !


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 12, 2015)

when will they realize the market wants...
12 mega pixels and 2 stops better noise than 5d3 ........... across the range

and 45 megapixels and all the noise reduction possible... try hard
.....

I guess the market ...means ....me

I would buy another lens or two to help this along...AFTER the lower noise camera is delivered..
...ok 3

....

or I could go back to sleep....


my vote


----------

