# Kodak 620X ISO performance vs now?



## RLPhoto (Sep 13, 2012)

I read this review, and believe that the manufacturers can deliver much better IQ than we're lead to believe.

http://www.lonestardigital.com/DCS620x.htm

Stunning for year 2000 tech.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 13, 2012)

Well, not really.

You see, the Pixels on the Kodak sensor are 13 microns across. 

We've now got 5 micron pixels and a 36mb sensor in the D800

It isn't just about the ISO performance but the size of the files relative to the pixel size.

Relatively it's HUGE jump in 12 years.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 13, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> Well, not really.
> 
> You see, the Pixels on the Kodak sensor are 13 microns across.
> 
> ...



I Disagree, kodak managed to get usable files all the way up to ISO 6400. Of course, they're were trade-off in the CMY design, but none-the less if your saying thats its not about ISO performance, Then we haven't made as big of stride as we could have.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 13, 2012)

You're completely and utterly wrong, don't understand sensor tech or are just have some kind of crazy reality around you.
.
But I'm assuming you just don't understand my original comment.

Imagine the ISO performance of a 2 mb full frame sensor with a 13 micron pixel size using todays tech.

The 1DX for example. even ISO 512k will still be better than the ISO 6400 from 12 years ago.
On a sensor holding 9 times the pixel number, of which the pixels are half the Kodaks size.

If Canon for example had just held things at 2mp you would see some literally jaw dropping ISO capabilities that would leave the 1DX weeping in a corner.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 13, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> You're completely and utterly wrong, don't understand sensor tech or are just have some kind of crazy reality around you.
> .
> But I'm assuming you just don't understand my original comment.
> 
> ...



Ahh Interesting, Its nice to see someone whose well versed in such things.

I still believe we should already be seeing much better ISO performance by now, but its probably classified tech or held back for profit. :


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 13, 2012)

Not only is there a large difference relating to pixel size and sensor total MP output, the level of detail carried through (including sharpness per pixel) needs to be taken into account.

That ISO 6400 welding photo is very much lacking in detail and has noise smear written all over it, as well as quite inaccurate colours. The same ISO today at much higher resolution yields much superior results. Still it's fairly impressive for the year 2000.

PS - wockawocka wrote "The 1DX for example, even ISO 512k.." I assume you mean ISO 51.2k! 

Paul


----------



## risc32 (Sep 14, 2012)

i think you're both wrong. that image stinks. for 2000 it doesn't but today stuff is much much better. even a crappy camera phone beats that all to hell. that wasn't a 100% crop, that was it, and it didn't look that great. again, good for 2000. not even close to anything now. Big pixels = better iso is also just funny business. Certainly, everyone knows that's why the d800 sucks so bad. I don't think anything is being held back. not in the sense that they have something waiting in the wings for future. Sure, Nikon was holding back when canon was eating their lunch during the first many years of digital(until the D3). they liked losing market share.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 14, 2012)

risc32 said:


> Big pixels = better iso is also just funny business.



Ah....it's common knowledge that the bigger the 'light gathering pixel' the more light it will gather relative to the technological advances of the day.

The 1DX's pixels are 1 micron smaller than the 5D3's and has better high ISO performance as a result.


----------



## dr croubie (Sep 14, 2012)

I'll agree that those samples, compared to today's 18MP tech, don't look that great. As for what it could do vs what was available in 2000, or what 2MP could do today, i'll let the arguments continue.


But think about the other side of that article. RGB Bayer Arrays vs CMY Bayer Arrays. Pretty much as written in the article, CMY arrays just let more light through than RGB arrays. Punkt. So for the same sensor, with a CMY array, you're going to let in more light and need less gain, have less noise, than the same sensor with an RGB array.
And that's going to hold true for 2000, and 2012. I'm sure the RGB arrays in 2012 are better, let more light through, than RGB arrays in 2000. But what if we design a CMY array today? Would it not be also better than an RGB array today?
Sensors are always going to improve, interwiring will get thinner, wells deeper, whatever. But there's more to a sensor than just silicon and the bits of metal therein, playing with that will only gain so much. Besides this article, only Sigma (Foveon) and Fuji (with their hexagonal whatsit array) seems to even be thinking much past the boring old "can we pack more in?", and "can we make them bigger too?".

I'm curious as to why this CMY array never came about to mainstream use in the last 12 years? Patents? (ie, Kodak patented it and promtly went belly-up, ergo noone else could make one?) Processing? (ie, Adobe and DxO said they weren't going to write another raw-converter, and no camera maker had the balls to stand up to them?) Maybe it just didn't actually fill the right colour space and was really lacking in a certain colour, despite its much better ISO performance? (Maybe it had something to do with Magenta and Yellow being totally overlapping, RGB on the graph looks a lot more spread out and clearly defined. Or maybe because of that increased Transmission, the pixels saturate more easily = less DR?)


----------

