# Poll: Most wanted new features for 5D Mark IV



## andrewflo (Dec 17, 2014)

We all have a wish list for the 5D Mark IV. What's on yours?


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 21, 2014)

There's one clear cut want for me: dynamic range at least equal to what the Sony sensors deliver. 

I would also like the best ever noise performance seen at ISO 100. 

That's it. I'd be happy with that.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 21, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> There's one clear cut want for me: dynamic range at least equal to what the Sony sensors deliver.
> 
> I would also like the best ever noise performance seen at ISO 100.
> 
> That's it. I'd be happy with that.


+1
I would also like to see >40 MP


----------



## pedro (Dec 21, 2014)

I would like them to keep the MP count either as it is or not higher than 24 MP, as the 5Ds are considered allrounders. Therefore I definitely would like to see a slightly enhanced IQ above ISO 25k. 1/2 or 3/4 stop better than my 5D3. Is that feasable? Even at 24 MP? Hope so. ;-)

Or will they trump up the 5D and make the 6DII the new lower MP cam?


----------



## ramon123 (Dec 21, 2014)

Not many rumors on release date but we are meant go be getting close! Its nearly January and the release is scheduled for March/April! I'm hoping some leaks get out soon!


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 21, 2014)

- Other focusscreens
- Better display resolution, 1920x1080 minimum (!)
- Fokus peaking/zebras - lots of stuff from MagicLantern builtin (intervalometer and so on)
- WLAN, not for pictures, for control with DSLR controller app and so on
- Maybe a little bit lighter (as 5D2), size is ok. 60D and 6D is "too" small (ringfinger not included), so I used a battery grip on 60D, which I never missed on my 5D3.
- On or two additional buttons... the custom button is used for 99% of the users for switching AF modes... maybe I want another one?
- One or more button more on the top, and get rid of the double function with both wheels. I often switch the wrong wheel after pressing the ISO button, so I change the flash exposure compensation... Double function for White balance and measuring type is ok...
- A manual focus switch and stabilisation switch on body, so I can select this in custom programme C1/C2/C3... I often shoot at night, and I always have to switch both on the lens off (if available of course), but it would be easier, to get it only by using C1...
- I have no problems with megapixel or DR, maybe they could enhance this a little bit, but the features above would be more interesting...


Edit: And I want ISO 25, ISO 10 more than ISO25600++ (as possible base ISO, not shifted like ISO50 yet)


----------



## infared (Dec 21, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> There's one clear cut want for me: dynamic range at least equal to what the Sony sensors deliver.
> 
> I would also like the best ever noise performance seen at ISO 100.
> 
> That's it. I'd be happy with that.



Yes...What's above and I don't need to see 40mp.(don't want to deal with post production & storing the files).
24mMP would be fine...just give me a faster frame rate and bigger buffer.
Oh..and in this market...I WANT TO SEE A LOWER PRICE than what the 5D III intro'ed at.
It's a tough market out there Canon...you need to get real.


----------



## Cosmicbug (Dec 21, 2014)

25 Mpx
Improved DR
>7.5 FPS
Improved high ISO capability


----------



## johnkiv (Dec 21, 2014)

Light the selected focus point in AI servo.

Same sensor as the Nikon D3x or 1DX.

Optional base with 2 xlr inputs and manual control.

60 fps in 1080.

A Canosonysonic?


----------



## SPL (Dec 21, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > There's one clear cut want for me: dynamic range at least equal to what the Sony sensors deliver.
> ...


+1, +1


----------



## stefsan (Dec 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> How about "Elimination of horizontal/vertical noise banding"?



+100


----------



## tron (Dec 21, 2014)

stefsan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > How about "Elimination of horizontal/vertical noise banding"?
> ...


+100000000000000 Very good suggestion!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 21, 2014)

I'm going to put more buttons as my #1 choice, improving the way you interface with the device is probably the most impactful thing that can be done.
Next is more resolution, and then and articulating screen because I like to do macro stuff.


----------



## JonB8305 (Dec 21, 2014)

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I'd rather have a more focused picture taking camera. I think they've gotten away from it and focused on video too much. Do what Sony did and make different focused versions for those that want them.

I want a studio body with fast shutter/flash sync(not HSS), low iso, high DR, high megapixel 


EDIT: Or add those things to a body with 4k video


----------



## brad-man (Dec 21, 2014)

Most of the above plus weathersealing equal to that of the 7Dll...


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 21, 2014)

For me it either needs to be
- 4k video and i believe some of those other options will fall in line with that(fast fps, video specific features, sharper video, etc). 
- High Megapixel 

I honestly don't think they can avoid these two topics any longer in a under $10k body. 

My forecast for whats going to happen?
The 5d is an everybody camera-They can put 4k in it and not effect any wedding shooters, event, etc. It would just increase all the specs to handle the data and will benefit everyone even on the shooting side. A camera that can handle more data faster is a plus for all teams. 

They will create a separate specialist camera that will specifically be a high MP line. I think there are people who genuinely do not want that many megapixels. This fits the needs of landscape, studio. Video is hard to tell on this one.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 21, 2014)

tron said:


> stefsan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


A million times yes!!!

Judging by what the 7D2 is doing, this may be very, very likely


----------



## Gino (Dec 21, 2014)

An improvement in the sensors Dynamic Range would be #1 on my wish list! Ideally, I'd like to see around 30MP of resolution. I think it's a given that the 5D Mark IV will have the same improved autofocus system as the 7D Mark II.

A few items that are important to me for the 5D Mark IV, but weren't on the poll:

** Illuminated back buttons for low light shooting (like the Nikon D4)

* Improve the red illuminated autofocus points in the view finder, so they light up in all autofocus modes, and the autofocus points are translucent, but are very easy to see when they light up (like the Nikon D4) 

* Dual Compact Flash memory card slots...this is as good of a time as any to move to the new CFast 2.0 compact flash cards. Whichever memory card format Canon decides to use, I just hope Canon uses the same memory card format for both the new 1DX Mark II and the Canon 5D Mark IV, so those of us who own both cameras don't have to carry different types of memory cards with us all the time.*

I'd like to see an increase to 8 fps, but I think the fps and buffer go hand in hand, so there is no point in increasing fps, if the camera doesn't have a healthy buffer of at least 35 full size RAW files before the buffer fills. If they can't give us a buffer of at least 35 full RAW file shots with more fps, then I'd rather they just keep it at 6 fps and increase the buffers capacity.

Cost is only an issue in the absence of value, so if Canon can give me these improvements, then I'm a buyer as long is the price reasonable, which to me would be under $4,000.


----------



## asmundma (Dec 21, 2014)

I have almost given up Canon for video (not talking about the cinema line), it does not help much to include 4k, it must be way sharper with more detail. Now it feels just stupid to shoot video without a EVF.
From Canon, I want a high megapixel camera with high DR. 
However itś not so important maybe as I will buy a Sony A7r (ii) if they fail and use a metabone adapter for landscapes. For normal pictures, there is not so much need for 40 mega pixels- 
You know, as I got the A7s - the 12 MP seems very nice, unless you print large print or crop a lot. But the main use is video. 
For action and wildlife I have the 1Dx. 
I don´t believe anymore to just a have one camera for all needs - unfortunately.


----------



## Zoltan Ajtay (Dec 21, 2014)

New, important features:

- full size still picture possibility during video recording 
(if I remember well, the Samsung can made it four years (?) ago on the Photokina expo in pocket size camera, the expensive DSLR-s with uber-speed Digic X processor why don't can?)

- video "shutter" sync. signal output

- quick, reliable remotable video start-stop for synchronize many of cameras (now it is OK with cable remote, but delayed or not working well with wireless trigger)


----------



## martti (Dec 21, 2014)

For me the question would be: What new features would make me upgrade from 5D III and pay 3### dollars for the new body?

–Picture quality: Higher ISO, lower noise, better DR
–Autofocus that you could 'lock on' a part of the subject and follow it if it moves or if you reframe (SciFi?)
–Wireless tethering with iPad or Android slate right from the box (yes, I have the WiFi router and I can do it with DSRL Control SW on Android)
–A graphical interface on the EOS Utility that would let you configure the setup(s) of the camera AND issue the fonction of each button and dial 'as you like it'. While you are at it, make it wireless and interactive.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 21, 2014)

Couldn't find my wishes in the poll:

- better IQ over the whole ISO range (if possible with foveon-like sensor tech)
- dual CF/ CFast 2.0
- ethernet interface (at least USB 3.0)
- sync speed 1/250 or faster
- some FW gimmicks from the 1D X

The rest I'm quite fine with


----------



## V8Beast (Dec 21, 2014)

How about red AF points that you can actually see on dark objects in AI Servo, and a built-in radio trigger for Speedlites?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 21, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> How about red AF points that you can actually see on dark objects in AI Servo



Where's the challenge in that  ?



V8Beast said:


> and a built-in radio trigger for Speedlites?



Probably a model policy problem: More expensive metal camera bodies cannot have it due to transmission/range problems, and so cheaper plastic cameras like 6d/70d can't either...



Zoltan Ajtay said:


> - full size still picture possibility during video recording



Fyi: Magic Lantern already has full res silent pix - though the shutter speed is unfortunately limited. But then again, it's free and available right now.


----------



## Drum (Dec 21, 2014)

I'll be honest I really don't care for video features if I want to do video I'd buy a dedicated video camera. for stills I would prefer 1/250 flash sync (or even faster). A few more MP to get better resolution and better noise handling.


----------



## V8Beast (Dec 21, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > and a built-in radio trigger for Speedlites?
> ...



Interesting info. Didn't know about the transmission problems. I thought Canon didn't include built-in transmitters because they're greedy and want to force people to buy a $300 transmitter. I'm sure that plays some factor in it, though


----------



## SPL (Dec 21, 2014)

Drum said:


> I'll be honest I really don't care for video features if I want to do video I'd buy a dedicated video camera. for stills I would prefer 1/250 flash sync (or even faster). A few more MP to get better resolution and better noise handling.


+1000!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 21, 2014)

Built in RT transmitter is not on the list.


----------



## JonB8305 (Dec 21, 2014)

Drum said:


> I'll be honest I really don't care for video features if I want to do video I'd buy a dedicated video camera. for stills I would prefer 1/250 flash sync (or even faster). A few more MP to get better resolution and better noise handling.



They gotta do better than 1/250 at this point. Nikon has been doing 1/250 for a while, they have to differentiate and go higher. 

The 6D's 1/160 flash sync really sucks, and the 1/200 of the 5d3 is probably not much better.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 22, 2014)

Gino said:


> * Dual Compact Flash memory card slots...this is as good of a time as any to move to the new CFast 2.0 compact flash cards. Whichever memory card format Canon decides to use, I just hope Canon uses the same memory card format for both the new 1DX Mark II and the Canon 5D Mark IV, so those of us who own both cameras don't have to carry different types of memory cards with us all the time.[/b]



That's a terrible idea. Maybe five years ago, but not now. At this point, it would make a lot more sense to just adopt dual SD with *full* UHS-II support. SD's maximum speed (512 MB/s) is almost as fast as CFast's real-world performance after factoring in SATA overhead, but is a lot more broadly compatible and a lot cheaper.

Also, CFast is probably a dead standard at this point. A few years ago, the SATA folks realized that there was no feasible way to make SATA scale to the speeds of modern SSDs, so they basically stopped developing SATA and started developing a way for devices to use the same pins for a completely different signaling standard (PCIe). The only way CFast will ever get any faster than it is right now is if they do a major redesign of both host and card hardware.

More importantly, one could extend the SD card standard to communicate using PCIe just as easily, but with SD, there are enough extra pins to provide 2x PCIe instead of 1x, so a pin-compatible SD card design based on PCIe would utterly stomp any PCIe-based CFast standard into the ground unless they also change the CFast pinout in what is likely to be an incompatible way.

Given that SD is more than capable of handling the fastest flash cards currently in existence, is cheaper, is more ubiquitous, and is better capable of scaling to faster speeds than CFast in the long run, it's really hard to justify going with CFast, IMO. About the only rational reason to do so involves trying to keep two standards groups competing against one another for petty patent portfolio reasons, and that just doesn't justify the consumer harm, IMO.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

Better high ISO performance and dramatically lower fixed pattern noise are on the top of my list, but not part of the poll.

Low ISO performance is already good enough.

I do want dual pixel focusing.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 22, 2014)

I would most like the 5D4 to...


Stay away for a little while longer, please!

The UK price of a new 5D3 is already getting scarily close to the Grey Market price I paid a couple of years ago. Don't make me eventually sell it at a loss!! :


----------



## martti (Dec 22, 2014)

Khufu said:


> I would most like the 5D4 to...
> 
> 
> Stay away for a little while longer, please!
> ...



Just think that you rented the 5D3 for two yours for such a good price when you sell it.
I bought a car for 34 000 and sold it two years later at 28 000. I felt bad until a friend of mine told me that you rented a Porsche for 250 euros a month and you complain!?


----------



## Hill Benson (Dec 22, 2014)

Khufu said:


> I would most like the 5D4 to...
> 
> 
> Stay away for a little while longer, please!
> ...



We're you going to try and sell it as a non-grey market body?

As for features I wouldn't mind in the 5D4...

1.A Sony Sensor (if Canon haven't managed to come up with something that performs even better.)
2.To be able to spot meter on my chosen focus point outside of the center one. (Like the 1DX)

I'm still VERY happy with my 5D3 though.


----------



## zim (Dec 22, 2014)

That was an interesting exercise, focusing on only three freatures!

Only looking at the list presented I whittled it down to this list (in order)

Better low light ISO performance
Upgraded auto-focus system
Reduced horizontal/vertical noise banding
Faster flash sync speed
Bigger image buffer
Faster FPS
Faster SD card reader
Better dynamic range
Touchscreen

The second and third changed but my thinking was what's the point of better low light performance if you can't focus on anything!
What was interesting for me was how better DR got pushed down the list. Al those other things for me are just more important.
I'd liked to have seen 7D2 weather sealing but I would expect it to get that.

Oh and the one thing I don't want to see, 40MP !! that is just a whole other camera.

Regards


----------



## jchung (Dec 22, 2014)

*Less noise in shadows*

What I really want is less noise in the shadows. Nikon is killing Canon in the shadows. I look at pushed shadow regions and Canon's IQ is abysmal.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Dec 22, 2014)

"available in white" ;D


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 22, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Gino said:
> 
> 
> > * Dual Compact Flash memory card slots...this is as good of a time as any to move to the new CFast 2.0 compact flash cards. Whichever memory card format Canon decides to use, I just hope Canon uses the same memory card format for both the new 1DX Mark II and the Canon 5D Mark IV, so those of us who own both cameras don't have to carry different types of memory cards with us all the time.[/b]
> ...



Quite recently, my worst fear about SD cards came to fruition... I did a large expo... a combo of raw images and some grab videos... We were the featured photographer... didn't record to both cards, but had 1 cf and 1 sd, filling each up individually subsequently... Anywho, i removed the cards after the expo, plugged them into the computer, the CF card popped right up on the computer, the SD did not... I grabbed another card reader, nothing... i looked at the card and to my dismay, the entire side of the flimsy card somehow broke off! that's why it wasn't reading... crap... nothing was working... luckily I was able to gently reinsert the card back into the 5d3 and it started reading it... so i had to USB import it over... Ironically it still would read in DPP or Canons utility like it normally would, but apple's iphoto saw the files and allowed me to copy the images over... After the card was done copying, i cut up that card and destroyed it... But WTH? I've used CF cards for well over a decade and only had 1 fail on me (a CF microdrive) and another have a corrupt file here and there which made me stop using that card. But never anything like this.


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2014)

Although I realize that this may be a single case would you mind mentioning which brand the SD was? 

Thanks.


----------



## RGF (Dec 22, 2014)

Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents. These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

RGF said:


> Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents. These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.



Those don't compete.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 22, 2014)

tron said:


> Although I realize that this may be a single case would you mind mentioning which brand the SD was?
> 
> Thanks.



I tossed the card, but i want to say it was a sandisk if i'm not mistaken...


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents. These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.
> ...


For a specific technology I think they do at least a little.

For example you can compare Sony 7, 7R and 7S.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

tron said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



For ISOs in the 4 and 5 digits, I think smaller pixels do better, all else being equal.

Where people go wrong is they compare different size pixels all at 1:1. That's not fair. They should be compared at the same final size. In that case, smaller pixels generally win, and win easily.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 22, 2014)

FPS, focus system improvements in line with 7D2, increased buffer performance, better high ISO performance, AF during video, and faster flash sync would be nice. All of these things are the incremental changes that one would expect with an upgrade that can leverage expected technological improvements.

One thing that I do NOT want in a 5D4 is higher pixel count. 22 megapixels is plenty. I don't want to deal with RAW files bigger than 30 MB. Instead, I'd rather see Canon introduce a sibling to the 5D3 and 1Dx with the high megapixel sensor. Keep the 5D and 1D series in their current pixel count range to keep their low light and high speed buffer performance benefits.


----------



## grainier (Dec 22, 2014)

- SD card slot - not just faster, as fast as CF
- Better ISO performance in 4-10k range (I don't care after that, so far)
- Wi-fi implented in a way that'd enable me to sync camera to my working drive
- Focus peaking/trap focus would be nice


----------



## pedro (Dec 22, 2014)

FTb-n said:


> FPS, focus system improvements in line with 7D2, increased buffer performance, better high ISO performance, AF during video, and faster flash sync would be nice. All of these things are the incremental changes that one would expect with an upgrade that can leverage expected technological improvements.
> 
> One thing that I do NOT want in a 5D4 is higher pixel count. 22 megapixels is plenty. I don't want to deal with RAW files bigger than 30 MB. Instead, I'd rather see Canon introduce a sibling to the 5D3 and 1Dx with the high megapixel sensor. Keep the 5D and 1D series in their current pixel count range to keep their low light and high speed buffer performance benefits.


+ tenthousand!



grainier said:


> - SD card slot - not just faster, as fast as CF
> - Better ISO performance in 4-10k range (I don't care after that, so far)
> - Wi-fi implented in a way that'd enable me to sync camera to my working drive
> - Focus peaking/trap focus would be nice


Better ISO performance in 40-10k range will affect the other ISO levels as well. Really hope Canon keep with 22 MP so, at least 1/2 stop better in high ISO might be possible. I am no expert in tech...


----------



## PVS (Dec 22, 2014)

I don't know if anyone mentioned but selectable aspect ratios would be real nice. 4x5, to be exact, with nice masking in the viewfinder.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 22, 2014)

I most want to see this killer sensor we keep hearing rumors about. I expect the camera to have significantly better dynamic range and also better high ISO image quality. I most want to see ISO 6400 and maybe ISO 12800 be usable for prints.

In terms of resolution, a touch more would be nice, but I really do not need more than 24 MP. I far prefer any improvement in DR and high ISO than MP.

I expect that they'll add the ergonomic improvements recently introduced in the 7D2, though I do not expect it to match the 7D2 in fps.

I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) that it will not be tolerated with a more premium camera like the 5D4.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 22, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



With Canon, generating as much profit as you can squeeze out of customers is always a consideration :-\ esp with an item such overpriced as the st-e3 transmitter initially was.

But if radio waves wouldn't be blocked, they'd have put wifi into the 7d2 instead of going for a "screw under" external wifi block. Probably rt and wifi might work *somehow*, but customers would expect the same performance as an external unit, and that might really be a problem.

But Canon being Canon, they skipped gps on the 70d because the little brother cannot have more features than the flagship model 7d2


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 22, 2014)

more (usable, so make sure the banding is also fixed and it's not like Exmor DR and 5D2 banding that makes most of the extra DR unusable anyway) DR most especially at low ISO, 4k video (not waxy), 10bit video

maintain the 6fps (at the very least in a cropped mode, NOT some silly sRAW or mRAW nonsense mode, something that is real RAW and maintains reach for sports and wildlife; if it is in the cropped mode it should maybe hit 7fps or even 8fps although I guess an 8fps mirror box starts adding too much to the cost on a FF perhaps so maybe 7fps) although if the MP count did not go up then the fps needs to go to 8fps in FF mode 100% for sure and at 30-36MP it should probably handle the FF mode in 6fps and not need to drop to cropped mode for that, if it goes 40-50MP then it maybe needs the crop mode to hit 6fps unless they want to give it dual digic



more MP
4:2:2 (4:4:4 for 1080p)
focus peaking and zoomed focusing box
zoomed video mode for wildlife (and not some silly 640x480 zoomed mode nonsense either)
zebras
having the back LCD calibrated would do wonders, you could dial in correct colors right on scene, all those color cards and stuff don't work unless you want neutral which kills all sorts of interesting lighting


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) ...


I don't know where you got that idea, but it's totally wrong.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

I'd love to see Canon support the new DNG spec.

It includes arbitrary downsampling and both lossless and lossy compressed raw files.

The raw files are much closer to raw than Canon's sraw and mraw files, which have white balance baked in.

The lossy compressed full-res DNGs are way better than mraws, and they're smaller as well. Having the option to arbitrarily downsample and then lossy compress raw files, while still retaining almost everything that's wonderful about raw, would be a major advantage over shooting JPEGs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 22, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) that it will not be tolerated with a more premium camera like the 5D4.



Yeah I completely agree. They can get away with in a 7D2, but the 5D4 really needs to catch up to low ISO quality beyond just the MP count of the other brands at this point. It can't just be a 5D3 sensor scaled to 36+ MP or a 7D2 sensor scaled by *1.6*1.6.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 22, 2014)

tron said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Scale A7R to A7 and the difference really isn't there. Maybe the A7S, with somewhat different tech too keep in mind, would still do a little bit better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 22, 2014)

Well the one thing the poll tells us is that the 'DRoners' are an insignificant bunch because DR votes are in very last place by a good margin .


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Well the one thing the poll tells us is that the 'DRoners' are an insignificant bunch because DR votes are in very last place by a good margin .



The problem is, "better dynamic range" is meaningless. I think base ISO DR is a relatively meaningless pursuit but I want "better dynamic range" at high ISO where DR is necessarily far more limited. So, should I vote for that one or not? I voted not because it doesn't specify what it means.


----------



## RGF (Dec 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that two competing features are chosen, both by about 50% of the respondents. These are higher megapixels and the other is better low light noise.
> ...



For fixed sensor dimension, higher MP means smaller photo site size which leads to lower signal to noise.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Isn't the a7R meant to be both a higher resolution image producer and a marginally better High-ISO performer than the a7? If so, it kinda messes up the resolution vs low light argument, doesn't it?...


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

RGF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



No, it doesn't. Not for the same sensor area.

I like to use this analogy.

Which way do you get more pizza, when you cut the 15" pizza into 8 slices or 12?


----------



## Khufu (Dec 22, 2014)

RGF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



surely that's only true when assuming all micro-engineering is equal - as I just posted... isn't the a7R the higher res shooter and better high-ISO performer out of the a7 and a7R?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Smaller pixels tend to do better for a very easy to understand reason - larger pixels do nothing but block-average when compared to smaller pixels, and block averaging is a very primitive and poor way to reduce noise. Modern NR algorithms are far more efficient than that.

Everything is the same between these two - focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, lighting, location, processing (from raw), final image size, sensor generation, performance per unit of area, everything. Everything except pixel size. The pixels on the left are 16 times smaller than those on the right. So, which has better detail-to-noise ratio?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


Which cameras are you comparing in these pictures?


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 23, 2014)

Khufu said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



A7r is meant to be the higher resolution image producer the A7 has marginally better High-ISO performance. In reality the A7r has slightly more noise but retains more detail because it has no AA filter. 

Your whole smaller pixel produce better ISO performance completely ignores reality.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 23, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Your whole smaller pixel produce better ISO performance completely ignores reality.



I posted some reality above, and the smaller pixels just crushed the larger pixels.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 23, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




I think those came from a P&S vs DSLR test from a few years back. With P&S on the left and with equal areas o the sensor compared on each and the DSLR upscaled to the same pixel dimensions as the P&S shot.


----------



## RGF (Dec 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



A photo site that is larger will have more signal. For equivalent electronic noise, which is doubtful since the weaker signal will need more, statistic very clearly tell us that the S/N in the larger site will be lower. The noise from the signal (number of photons reaching the site) is governed by the Poisson distribution and the variance is equal to the signal. Noise is typically reports as the std dev which is the square root of the variance. For if the signal is 10,000 the variance is 10,00 and the std dev is 100. S/N is 10,000 / 100 = 100. If the area is 1/4 the size the signal will be ~ 2,500 with a variance of 2,500 and a std dev of 50. S/N is 2,500 / 50 = 50.

Which S/N would you rather have, 100 or 50?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 23, 2014)

RGF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



That's not the proper comparison.

This is.

Which would you rather have, one pixel with a SnR or 100 or four pixels each with an SnR of 50?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Which would you rather have, one pixel with SnR of 2, or four pixels with an SnR of 1?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 23, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Which would you rather have, one pixel with a SnR or 100 or four pixels each with an SnR of 50?
> ...



Neither. However, either one will do.

The ideal situation is to have each and every photon's position and wavelength recorded separately. That's equivalent to an infinite number of pixels. That will produce the most information possible and thus the best image possible from that exposure (scene, FOV, illuminance, shutter period, etc.).


----------

