# 26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 17, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/26-4mp-5d-mark-iii-mid-year-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/26-4mp-5d-mark-iii-mid-year-cr1/"></a></div>
A new 5D Mark III rumor popped up on [<a href="http://www.cameragearguide.com/3016/rumor-26-4-megapixel-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-by-mid-year/">CGG</a>] this weekend.</p>
<p><strong>Specifications

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>26.4 million effective pixels</li>
<li>ISO expandable to 102,400</li>
<li>19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points</li>
<li>DIGIC 5</li>
<li>4.9 fps continuous shooting</li>
<li>63-zone iFCL metering</li>
<li>1.04 million dot LCD</li>
<li>Improved camera grip</li>
<li>Improved pentaprism, approximately 100% frame coverage</li>
<li>released mid-year</li>
</ul>
<p>All the specs are reasonable and almost expected.</p>
<p>All other info Iâ€™ve received has said 30+ mp and 7D AF. No word on video specs yet.</p>
<p><em>thanks Herfried</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## foobar (Apr 17, 2011)

Sounds much more believable than most of the other rumors so far.


----------



## x-vision (Apr 17, 2011)

Very sensible rumor - even though it's hard to believe that the 5DIII will come before the 1DV (or the 1DsIII successor).

Still sticking to my prediction that the next camera from Canon will be the 1DV 8). 
The 5DIII will come later. Same specs as in this rumor but with the 1DV sensor - likely 30mp, though, not 26mp.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 17, 2011)

So is the sensor just an enlarged version of the one in the 1D4? It'll be interesting to see what ISO102,400 looks like! Also, wasn't it supposed to have raw video output, according to one rumor?

I disagree with CGG that it makes sense to use the sensor from the flagship high resolution model in another model costing 60% less. The 5D2 severely damaged 1Ds3 sales.


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 17, 2011)

This sounds great. I'd love to hear rumors of a new kit lens to go with it. Are either of the 24-? L zooms due for a refresh?


----------



## weilin (Apr 17, 2011)

So how does the AF compare to the current MK II? The current one has 9 points + 6 assists. Please excuse my ignorance (never quite understood the literature for the MK II), but I'm assuming that means 9 cross-type sensors? If so, doesn't having only 3 in the MK III mean it's actually a step (or 6) backwards?


----------



## Rocky (Apr 17, 2011)

" 19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points"
That is a few steps backward from the 7D. 7D is ALL 19 points cross.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 17, 2011)

That sounds about right for a modest upgrade to last a couple of years. Although much is left unsaid, I'll buy it -- the sooner the better.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 17, 2011)

I doubt this is all there is to a 5DIII. Not enough in those specs to tempt me to upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> 19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points



I hope this is BS. If not, that's just, well...*pathetic*. A 5D3 can have 9 or more AF points, but they all should be cross-type. Only the center point on the 5DII is cross-type, and it's the only one that works well. A 5DIII with 3 useful AF points? Egad, I hope not...


----------



## Rukes (Apr 17, 2011)

Rocky said:


> " 19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points"
> That is a few steps backward from the 7D. 7D is ALL 19 points cross.



I think they meant f/2.8 cross-type points, with the rest being f/5.6.

This is the one spec that kind of stands out to me; where would the 3 be? Seems kind of odd...I would think 5 would make more sense (1 center, 4 corners or 1 center and 1 on each side of the center). Being 3 it might be Center, then the one directly to the left and right of it.


----------



## Justin (Apr 18, 2011)

Yeah, this sounds lame enough to be promising. 

3 cross type sensors is not what any upgrading 5D2 shooter is looking for, at all. 26mpx is such a modest increase that it'll barely be noticeable. Nearly 5 fps would be a nice upgrade. This is not the 5D3 I'm looking for, that's for sure. 

The crippled AF is the number one complaint on the 5D2. If Canon ignores that, it does does so at its peril.


----------



## tivoboy (Apr 18, 2011)

So, on the next version I think we'll actually see a bit higher FPS and a better AF.


----------



## foobar (Apr 18, 2011)

Rocky said:


> " 19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points"
> That is a few steps backward from the 7D. 7D is ALL 19 points cross.


True, but I don't think the 7D is a good indicator for what the 5D3 will be. Sure, everyone (me included) wishes it to be basically a full-frame version of the 7D, but I don't think this is what Canon will do. The 5D has always been a bit on the low end in terms of features (but not the sensor, of course) - probably so it doesn't cannibalize 1-series sales too much.



neuroanatomist said:


> I hope this is BS. If not, that's just, well...*pathetic*. A 5D3 can have 9 or more AF points, but they all should be cross-type. Only the center point on the 5DII is cross-type, and it's the only one that works well. A 5DIII with 3 useful AF points? Egad, I hope not...


+1

The thing I like about the AF systems in the 40/50/60D and especially the 7D is that every AF-point is cross-type, so you can select focus points purely based on composition and not the technical limitations of the AF system.


----------



## tivoboy (Apr 18, 2011)

not 7d. i don't think we'll get a FF 7d, with 8fps, flash, wireless sycn, etc. I think we'll get a 24ish mp FF sensor, with excellent detail, etc. Probably 5.5-6 fps, and a much better AF than currently. No flash still and iso to 100K+ Could be something else, maybe GPS or something like that.


----------



## Cannon Man (Apr 18, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> I disagree with CGG that it makes sense to use the sensor from the flagship high resolution model in another model costing 60% less. The 5D2 severely damaged 1Ds3 sales.



I agree, its not smart to give it the same sensor than the flagship model, The next 1Ds should be ahead of the pack in all aspects except for maby video. Somehow i doubt the next 5d would come yet, i dont see a big demand for it yet.. People will still buy the 5D MkII, but i think people want to replace their 1DsIII's with a new model. And people looking to buy a pro dslr are waiting for the new model because the 1Ds III has been out for quite some time now.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 18, 2011)

x-vision said:


> Very sensible rumor - even though it's hard to believe that the 5DIII will come before the 1DV (or the 1DsIII successor).
> 
> Still sticking to my prediction that the next camera from Canon will be the 1DV 8).
> The 5DIII will come later. Same specs as in this rumor but with the 1DV sensor - likely 30mp, though, not 26mp.



What is not clear in my mind is whether or not Canon will risk going to market with a 1D or 1Ds as the first camera with a DIGIC V processor - there is strong conjecture that in order to push more resolution, Canon will need a processor that has more throughput than the DIGIC IV. To push the images expected from the next generation 1D or 1Ds, dual DIGIC IV may not cut the mustard.

It is likely, at least in my mind that Canon may not want to take the risk of making a 1Ds or 1D the first product with a DIGIC V - although maybe a Powershot G13 could also fulfill that requirement. *grin*
It may also be necessary to bring a new generation of DIGIC processor into mass production first in order to be able to deliver the chips cost effectively for a 1D or 1Ds platform.

All conjecture of course!


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 18, 2011)

It is likely, at least in my mind that Canon may not want to take the risk of making a 1Ds or 1D the first product with a DIGIC V - although maybe a Powershot G13 could also fulfill that requirement. *grin*
It may also be necessary to bring a new generation of DIGIC processor into mass production first in order to be able to deliver the chips cost effectively for a 1D or 1Ds platform.

All conjecture of course!
[/quote]

Canon has always introduced their new digic processors on 1 series cameras. Then they trickle down the new technology to the lower priced cameras. There is little risk in doing this, even if a catastrophic issue happens, they do not produce many of the high end cameras and can retrofit them all. They have plenty of profit $$ to work with.

However, if the same thing were to happen to a point and shoot sold by the hundreds of thousands, then the risk is higher, there is only a tiny amount set aside for repairs and maintenance, and a replacement would cost about the same.

Most introductory issues are solved by upgrades to the software. Software upgrades can even work around hardware issues, so after the years of development and testing of a new processor, the risk of something big going totally South is very small.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2011)

Looks good to me!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Canon has always introduced their new digic processors on 1 series cameras.



Not true. Digic IV was introduced on the 50D, then used in the 5DII, the 7D, the Rebel T1i, and even a bunch of PowerShots, before making it into the 1D IV. The 1DsIII still uses dual Digic III chips.


----------



## Sinsear (Apr 18, 2011)

This sounds plausible. I seriously, HIGHLY doubt that the 5D3 AF will be as good as the 7D. The whole point of the 1 series camera is to combine the features of the 7D (speed/AF) with the 5D (image quality). The maximum number of cross type AF points that the 5D3 will have is 9, with maybe 10 or so linear type AF points. This is probably the best case scenario (worst case is having exactly the same AF system as the 5D2).


----------



## Portpix (Apr 18, 2011)

My one wish is they include dual CF card slots. For wedding photography and photo journal style a dual slot would be of great benefit. But alas I don't think it will :-(


----------



## martijn (Apr 18, 2011)

The lack of any video details for the successor to the 5DII -the trailblazer for DSLR-based video, after all- makes me doubt this rumor, really...I still think it's unlikely we'll see this camera before the end of the year.


----------



## Stuart (Apr 18, 2011)

I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.

With such modest specs, i think there has to be a few better hidden features, maybe dynamic range.
The fps seems to be a good step up and there must be a significant abount of processing going on to do the AF and get the images through fast enough at 26MP with one DigicV.


----------



## foobar (Apr 18, 2011)

Sinsear said:


> (worst case is having exactly the same AF system as the 5D2).


If that's the case, they'd better market it as a sort of retro-camera.
Seriously, the AF system has been the main point of critique on the 5D2 from day one.
If they screw this up...



Stuart said:


> I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.


+1, unless Canon implements a new radio-based flash triggering system.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 18, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has always introduced their new digic processors on 1 series cameras.
> ...



I had forgotten about the 50D before the 5DII ;-) - It seems that in the past, Canon have either regarded introducing a new DIGIC chip on a 1 series camera was either too high risk (whether due to real or perceived issues) or they needed the volumes of one of the cheaper models to get the cost of the chips down to a reasonable level.


----------



## fred134 (Apr 18, 2011)

Sounds very incremental. Thus, very credible  If true, I suppose all the innovation would be on the video side.

On the stills side, I hope the AF area would be larger than 7D AF (not just copied on 24x36), else even 19 cross points don't look that much incredibly better than the single one of my 5 years old 5D1 (same AF than 5D2)...


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 18, 2011)

Portpix said:


> My one wish is they include dual CF card slots. For wedding photography and photo journal style a dual slot would be of great benefit. But alas I don't think it will :-(



I'd rather dual SD slots, or at the very least: one of each. The speed of new SD cards is making the form factor of CF look dated. And really, there's no point sticking to one just because people have invested in one or the other. Memory is too cheap these days to use that rationale.

Just my opinion. I end up buying new cards for every camera I purchase, because the old ones go with the last unit when I hand it down to my wife or sell it (or keep it). Files keep getting bigger with each body, and so do my memory cards. Do any of you really stick your 256 *Mega* byte CF into any of your new bodies? Or do you go and purchase a new 133X card to handle the crazy increase in FPS and MP? Yeah, me too.


----------



## lol (Apr 18, 2011)

On the surface, this sounds too conservative. A small change might be ok on a consumer model with annual refresh cycle, but this jump feels like too little to me. The open question would be what about the other features not mentioned in the rumour?


----------



## mathino (Apr 18, 2011)

...maybe we'll see better high ISO performance with 'less' mexapixels than expected 30+ Mpx. That would be really nice to see in new FF body.


----------



## mathino (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> If this is true it's not very. 26MP is way to little. The 18MP of the crop bodies equals 46MP in FF. This will probably be increase so anything less than 50MP in a new FF is very bad. We pay a lot more for FF and want the same reach as with crop bodies.There are a few things that are neccessary in 5D3
> >50MP
> Better (or at least equal) DR than D3x
> Better (or at least equal) high ISO performance than D3s
> ...



+1 for high ISO preformance and improved AF. I think these things are what many of us want from new affordable FF body.


----------



## kirillica (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> The 18MP of the crop bodies equals 46MP in FF.


I wonder, how this number is calculated?


----------



## kirillica (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggen said:
> ...


Actually, this is not correct calculation. Size and point of point matters. If we will follow you computations, then my 5DmII is "just" 4 times better than my 5mp Nokia N96 built-in camera. 

So I'm not worried about "just" 26.4mp in 5DmIII, because I believe Canon can make an outstanding sensor. Like it does all the time


----------



## foobar (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> There are a few things that are neccessary in 5D3
> >50MP
> Better (or at least equal) DR than D3x
> Better (or at least equal) high ISO performance than D3s


I'm pretty sure any manifacturer would love to build a sensor like that, but I guess technology isn't quite there yet.



kirillica said:


> Actually, this is not correct calculation. Size and point of point matters. If we will follow you computations, then my 5DmII is "just" 4 times better than my 5mp Nokia N96 built-in camera.


No, the calculation is correct. What is incorrect is that you assumed the same 1.6x crop factor for your N96 as well, but actually it has a 7,61x crop factor, which means it would equal 289mp on FF.


----------



## kirillica (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> Sorry, but you are wrong. My calculation is correct. I'm not talking about quality of the pixel. I'm talking about resolution of the final picture with same field of view.
> Just compare current models. A 18MP 7D picture will easily outresolve a 8MP 5D2 picture with same field of view.
> Since, as I wrote, there are only advantages and no real drawback with higher pixel density (within current manufacturing possibilities) there is no reason to increase density as much as possible.


Am not talking about incorrect numbers, but the logics you're using it. Number of pixels doesn't show anything in DSLR world: picture quality in battle 5DmII vs 7D is fatal (while mp diff is not so huge). Quality matters, and please stop counting megapixels


----------



## Justin (Apr 18, 2011)

Stuart said:


> I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.



No thanks. Gets in the way of tilt shift lens movements.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 18, 2011)

Justin said:


> Stuart said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.
> ...



I agree.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 18, 2011)

dilbert said:


> Rukes said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Seconded.

I mostly use just the central focus point... all the other are just used to confirm focus on ladnscapes.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 18, 2011)

dilbert said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > If this is true it's not very. 26MP is way to little.
> ...



One definition of superstition is seeing a pattern of correlation and/or causality where none actually exists.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2011)

DuLt said:


> I mostly use just the central focus point... all the other are just used to confirm focus on ladnscapes.



How do you use off-center AF points to 'confirm focus' on landscapes? The only thing that comes to mind is when you shoot in automatic AF selection mode so every AF point on the plane lights up. Else, the AF system will just use whichever point is selected, and the other points are inactive.

Is your primary subject dead-center in all your shots? To me, that would make for boring, monotonous, and poorly composed shots. If I wanted that special Bob-the-American-tourist snapshot look, I'd just use a point-and-shoot with a fixed AF box right in the center. On the other hand, if you want to compose a shot with an off-center subject and you're shooting with a fast lens wide open (e.g. 85mm f/1.2), focus/recompose will get you a blurry shot every time - thus the need for off-center AF points, and frankly, on the 5DII those just aren't adequate in terms of performance.



dilbert said:


> Strange as it may seem, people took good photos of all sorts of things before the viewfinder was full of autofocus points - heck, how many auto-focus points do you think Ansel Adams had? Photographers that are children of the Internet revolution are such babies.



I, too, started with an SLR in the manual focus era. Just because I _can_ manually focus, doesn't mean I want to all the time, especially with the microetching on standard focus screens that improves brightness at the cost of masking the true DoF for fast lenses.

Heck, we could walk to work through the snow every day all winter, too. Commuters that are children of the automotive age are such babies...


----------



## DuLt (Apr 18, 2011)

@ neuroanatomist

Sorry I meant "others".


----------



## traveller (Apr 18, 2011)

If these specifications are true, I can see the D800 selling well. Sorry, but Canon haven't had the full frame market to themselves for a generation now, it's no good them crippling cameras to protect the 1D series. I fully understand that people were capable of taking great photos before the AF era, but hey people were capable of driving cars before synchronised and automatic gearboxes -it doesn't mean that I would enjoy double declutching on a moden car: expectations change. 

For marketing purposes, if nothing else, a 5D MkIII needs at least the 7D's AF system and 5fps. Simply re-iterating the same package with a higher resolution sensor won't cut the mustard; 21MP is already enough for most people's printing needs.


----------



## hsoftdev17 (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm actually kinda surprised to see Digic V without CFast being mentioned anywhere. It seems to me that if Digic V is proclaiming amazing throughput, it would need the amazing throughput of CFast behind it.


----------



## ronin8600 (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> So, to not must have a crop as second body for better reach FF must currently have 46MP. They absolutely must fix this because I don't always want to carry a second body.



I'm new to digital photography so the following could be a stupid questions.

Are you talking about doing the crop in post to simulate the same effect of a crop sensor?

Also I read an interesting article the other day from a National Geographic photographer (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) saying that the 5d mark II sensor can capture more detail than the Canon L lens can give it, so would we really benefit from 46 MP with the current lenses? 

Would Canon need to make new and more expensive lenses to take advantage of 46MP? I looked at the prices for some medium format camera lenses and they seem to be significantly more expensive



Tuggen said:


> Since the only drawback of more pixels is file size and possibly frame rate, which both may be addressed in different ways, there is no reason to not fix this very severe problem.



Does ISO performance/sensitivity get sacrificed at the cost of higher pixel densities since the pixels are a lot smaller?


----------



## yellowbull (Apr 18, 2011)

What about Exposure Bracketing improvements? Nikon will go up to 9 increments!


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't see how it would be possible for Canon to crank up manufacturing for a new camera over the summer when they are straining to meet current production needs...unless they are hoarding components for a yet to be announced model.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 18, 2011)

DuLt said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Rukes said:
> ...



I was actually wondering how many people only use the centre auto-focus point. 8)
For subjects that are not moving, I still tend to prefer to focus and recompose. I have to admit that the 7D's cluster of focus points in the centre is a nice-to-have feature.
Better low-light performance is probably far more important to more autofocus points. - Even for people like wedding shooters.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 18, 2011)

@ gmrza 
With slow-lenses (f4 and up) it's quite faster than pressing all the buttons required to select a point.


----------



## traveller (Apr 18, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> Yes, 5D3 needs significantly improved AF.
> However 21MP is not enough for anyone who likes tele photo. When you crop a little you soon end up in less than 5MP. For anyone who sometimes use a 1.4x tele converter double number of pixels seems to be a very much perfered option since you will always have it on and don't have to change anything.
> Increasing the number of pixels is one part of improved image quality. All PP, cropping, angeling, resampling, whatever you want to do, will benefit to start from higher resolution.



OK, but telephoto users are often the most demanding of a cameras AF system, so boosting the resolution without addressing AF and fps is surely pointless because the camera will not appeal to them.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 19, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.



So the 5D3 will be as good at ISO 51200 as the Nikon D3s. We'll see.


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 19, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.



Yeah, but the sensor sizes in the 5D and 7D are fixed, so adding pixels == increasing density == worse high ISO performance. The only way manufacturers have been able to get around this is to increase pixel sensitivity and decrease bleed-over. Also, the crystalline structure of the sensors have been improved, creating channels for the light to enter each pixel and not its neighbor.

This is really is the nano-engineering from yesterday's science fiction. It just crept up so slowly, it doesn't seem as amazing as it should.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 19, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> ronin8600 said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggen said:
> ...



5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D, it will take you 30seconds with google to find the evidence.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 19, 2011)

Etienne said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > ronin8600 said:
> ...



I agree. It doesn't really take much research and you can see that the 5DII has at least a 1 stop advantage over the 7D in terms of ISO performance.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 19, 2011)

I bought a 2nd 5DII instead of the 7D. I was NOT impressed with the 7D's iso handling.


----------



## kirillica (Apr 19, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggen said:
> ...


Please correct if I'm wrong: do you take a crop-factor as an advantage of DSLR? If "yes", then you should be more than happy using mobile devices for shooting  
I'm talking about the same size object on photo using both cameras. I was tried both and, to be honest, it's very difficult to find advantages shooting 7D when you don't need high speed and this new-fancy AF (for example, in studios)


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 19, 2011)

> 5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D



Tuggen didn't say that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's. He said that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's *per UNIT AREA of sensor*.

The reason why there are DSLRs, crop factors, medium frame format, is because the *SENSOR SIZE DIFFERS*, not because there are more or less pixels.

Of course the 5D2 outputs cleaner images than 7D since it has a 1.6 ^ 2 times bigger sensor, but each square millimeter has the same noise level (I haven't checked this, the cameras' technologies may have differences since they are separated by quite some time, but it verifies for 1D4 and D3s).


----------



## fernando (Apr 19, 2011)

Dunno if this is relevant or not but the the site that posted this rumor says that they've talked to the source before.



> I feel better about our Canon EOS 5D Mark III tip than this one because Iâ€™ve conversed with that source before -CGG



At least it's not from a random/new/unknown source. Cheers for a 5DMKIII by mid-year


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> > 5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D
> 
> 
> Tuggen didn't say that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's. He said that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's *per UNIT AREA of sensor*.
> ...



Ok, fine, but s/he is still wrong. There are two main factors that affect noise - sensor size and pixel size. Some will argue that pixel size alone determines noise, which is also incorrect. The total light-gathering capability (i.e. size) of the sensor is the primary factor, but smaller pixels do collect fewer photons per pixel, meaning less signal and a lower SNR. With a strong signal (i.e. good light), photon noise dominates and there is effectively no difference in noise from different size pixels. But as light levels drop and gain is applied, read noise has a greater contribution. In that scenario, the smaller pixels of the 7D are going to produce more noise per unit area than the larger pixels of the 5DII.


----------



## kirillica (Apr 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok, fine, but s/he is still wrong. There are two main factors that affect noise - sensor size and pixel size. Some will argue that pixel size alone determines noise, which is also incorrect. The total light-gathering capability (i.e. size) of the sensor is the primary factor, but smaller pixels do collect fewer photons per pixel, meaning less signal and a lower SNR. With a strong signal (i.e. good light), photon noise dominates and there is effectively no difference in noise from different size pixels. But as light levels drop and gain is applied, read noise has a greater contribution. In that scenario, the smaller pixels of the 7D are going to produce more noise per unit area than the larger pixels of the 5DII.


Huh, at least someone got I've meant. Nr of pixels means nothing when we compare FF and crop, but they still insists: if we have 18Mp on crop, then Canon should show us 46Mp on FF with all other fancy stuff. ;D


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 19, 2011)

Still don't see how Canon could produce a 5DIII by mid-year with the current supply issues...and why would they announce one mid-year if it wasn't shipping until the Fall? Wouldn't that drastically cut down on existing 5DII sales?


----------



## davidpeter (Apr 19, 2011)

Dudes. The price of the AA filter and the chip itself grows exponential with both size and pixel density. Sooner or later, you have to choose. Haven't you recognised that the bigger sensors always had wider pixel pitch?


----------



## gmrza (Apr 20, 2011)

dilbert said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > If these specifications are true, I can see the D800 selling well.
> ...



Canon has also been hit badly - I'm not sure how badly. The company I work for also owns a distribution business, which includes Canon. When I checked yesterday, there was one (1) lens in stock. There have not been any xD cameras in stock for a while as well.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 20, 2011)

If the 5d mkiii had noise improvement would it make using f2.8 better for low light as you can use higher ISO?


----------



## torger (Apr 20, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> If the 5d mkiii had noise improvement would it make using f2.8 better for low light as you can use higher ISO?



Yes, but at some point there's a limit. There are two parts of noise, the camera's own ("read noise") and noise in light itself (photon shot noise). Most people forget about shot noise and assume that noise at high ISO is just contributed from the camera electronics. Actually, the shot noise is often dominating (I have not found out where the line goes, but perhaps some other reader of this forum knows).

The signal-to-noise ratio of the shot noise reduces the more light you gather, that is lower shutter speeds, larger apertures, larger sensor size. That is you always want to gather as much light as possible, to be able to use as low ISO as possible.

One other factor to know about is that not all f2.8 are the same concerning light transmission, and it is not only about vignetting. There can be quite large differences between lenses, some lenses can transmit a half stop less light than others at the same aperture. For example the 24-70 f/2.8 has a transmission corresponding to ~f/3.4 while a large aperture prime lens set at f/2.8 typically has much better transmission (did not find an example measurement unfortunately, but it can easily be observed in testing).


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > > 5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D
> ...



Okay, but this multitude of factors which affect the noise level is just theory. However, if you have physical evidence that the pixel size alters the noise level of photos, I really want to see it. I mean, physical evidence which meets scientific comparison criteria, not photos like those from IR ( http://www.imaging-resource.com ) where even the photos taken with a D3x and a D3s are not taken in the same light (the RAW images have different brightnesses: about 0.5 stops of difference).

Here is a simple way to do it: rent say a 1D4 and a D3s (or a D3x and a D3s, though they are separated by several years of technological advancements), take photos of the same subject, in the same light, with the same shutter speed, same F-number, and with the same output for the brightness of the photos. The only thing which may vary is the ISO (if the cameras do indeed have different ISO sensibilities); if any other parameter varies then that's like comparing apples and oranges. (Of course, this ignores the difference in the transmissivity of the lenses.)

Here is physical evidence that the pixel size does NOT alter (in practice, not in theory) the noise level of photos even at ISO 12800: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911

Of course, one must really understand that sensor size normalization is necessary because we want to scientifically compare noise per UNIT AREA (not per photo since the sensors have different sizes). Since the 2 cameras have a pixel density per UNIT AREA whose ratio is 2.5, one can just see that pixel density doesn't affect noise per UNIT AREA. Consequently, pixel density is irrelevant in the current technological context.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 20, 2011)

torger said:


> CJRodgers said:
> 
> 
> > If the 5d mkiii had noise improvement would it make using f2.8 better for low light as you can use higher ISO?
> ...



Yea i would love to know what the theortical best the 24-70L could be. This would be an ideal lens if it could handle low light just a bit better. So do you think no matter how good the noise handling in the camera, this lens could never be fast enough for really low light.


----------



## torger (Apr 20, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> Yea i would love to know what the theortical best the 24-70L could be. This would be an ideal lens if it could handle low light just a bit better. So do you think no matter how good the noise handling in the camera, this lens could never be fast enough for really low light.



It depends on what quality you want. For me personally, I often find f/2.8 a bit dark for indoor shooting. On the other hand, when going below f/2, the depth of field gets so short that it often becomes a problem (tricky to get focus right). Being able to go down to f/2 and sometimes below I think is often valuable indoors. If I know I'm going to shoot indoors I prefer a prime 35 or 50mm over a f/2.8 zoom - the wider aperture range gives me more flexibility than the zoom. The 50mm f/1.4 is a real good price/performance option, a bit narrow on APS-C though for being indoors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Here is physical evidence that the pixel size does NOT alter (in practice, not in theory) the noise level of photos even at ISO 12800: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911



Do you mean the links to the photos on Juza's website? Those are 'fact'? In the long list of websites that purport to provide factual information, the last place I'd go is Ken Rockwell's. But the second to last place I'd go is Juza's. He does capture great images - but technical information? No. His reviews, at least, are filled with technical inaccuracies.



NotABunny said:


> Here is a simple way to do it: rent say a 1D4 and a D3s (or a D3x and a D3s, though they are separated by several years of technological advancements), take photos of the same subject, in the same light, with the same shutter speed, same F-number, and with the same output for the brightness of the photos. The only thing which may vary is the ISO (if the cameras do indeed have different ISO sensibilities); if any other parameter varies then that's like comparing apples and oranges. (Of course, this ignores the difference in the transmissivity of the lenses.)



Your simple way sounds like exactly what Juza did in your link in the other post:



NotABunny said:


> At http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm there are 2 images (JPEGs converted from RAW) of a scene, taken in the SAME light, one with Canon 1D4, one with Nikon D3s, at ISO 12800....At the end, you'll have two images whose quality is indistinguishable.



That's a simple way to make a practical comparison - but if you're looking for 'physical evidence which meets scientific comparison criteria' then comparing a 1D4 and a D3s is a simple way to make a flawed and meaningless comparison. 

First off, those are JPGs converted from RAW. Converted how? Different RAW converters handle different files differently. Even if the same RAW converter was used (e.g. ACR), different amounts of NR are applied to files from different cameras, and NR is applied even if the NR setting is turned off in the software. A real analysis would involve starting with the RAW files themselves (Juza doesn't make those available, just the JPGs), and analyzing the raw data itself using IRIS, Rawnalyze, or dcraw. 

Even that's a flawed comparison - are you aware that RAW images are not really the raw data coming off the sensor following some sort of standard ADC? There is processing that occurs in-camera prior to the RAW file being written. On att least some Nikon models (D3, D300), a portion of the low-level signal is truncated during ADC, which obvoiusly occurs prior to the RAW file write. Astrophotographers using Nikons employ a 'mode 3 workaround' (modes 1 and 2 being Off and On) - mode 3 means powering off the camera during the dark frame exposure that follows the long exposure. Why? Because in addition to subtracting the dark frame prior to writing the RAW file, the camera also applies a median blur function to the image - something you might not want, but is baked into the RAW file creation in-camera. It's pretty likely that Canon also applies some processing of the image data in-camera prior to writing the RAW file. So comparing Canon vs. Nikon for noise in RAW files is really comparing apples and oranges. 



NotABunny said:


> Okay, but this multitude of factors which affect the noise level is just theory. However, if you have physical evidence that the pixel size alters the noise level of photos, I really want to see it. I mean, physical evidence which meets scientific comparison criteria...



If you'd like a reasonably cogent, scientifically-based discussion of image sensor noise, try the link below, in particular section 3c.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> First off, those are A real analysis would involve starting with the RAW files themselves (Juza doesn't make those available, just the JPGs), and analyzing the raw data itself using IRIS, Rawnalyze, or dcraw. Even that's a flawed comparison



Yes, those images are not ideal, but they're far better than anything else I've seen (and by the way, his interpretation of the photos is opposite - he's comparing noise at pixel level). It would be really great if you could show a better comparison.

But you're ignoring the practical point. Those images are taken at a very high ISO, where one sensor has 2.5 times the pixel density of the other. So, what does it take for all the factors that you list to cause a visible noise difference? ISO 1 million or a sensor with 100 MP? Does that make any practical difference today?

Even the RAW photos from IR taken with the D3x and the D3s, at ISO 12800, show very little noise differences (and only in the shadows, in favor of the newer one, of course), and one has twice the pixel density of the other. So, what does it take for the noise differences to be more than barely visible?

I'm not sure if we are even debating the same subject?! It makes no difference to me (or to anyone who screams at Canon to put only 10 MP on a FF sensor) if the noise differences can only be quantified with statistical means and aren't visible to the naked eye.


Later edit:
Actually, to make this simpler, I admit that a higher pixel density generates nosier images, but I want the people who want Canon to put only 10 MP on a FF sensor, to see what difference that would make: invisible to the human eye (unless you're looking for it).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Does that make any practical difference today?



I think the real thing that obviates this discussion is that 'acceptable' (noise, resolution, etc.) is totally subjective. Some people are perfectly happy with ISO 800 on a digicam. Others find ISO 400 on a 5D a little too noisy. Some people will only print up to 8x10", where the downsampling from an 18 MP image will effectively reduce even comparatively high noise levels, whereas others (me, for example) have 24x36" prints on the walls, and want them sharp and detailed with very low noise. What looks sharp and clean in a 4x6" print can easily fall apart when the print covers a 36-times larger area.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > Does that make any practical difference today?
> ...



You're right, "acceptable" is subjective.


Blabber:

I am not interested in resolution, either way. (Maybe if I had the possibility to use 30 MP, I would start cropping.) I am the kind of guy who shoots (processes and keeps) thousands of photos taken at ISO 3200 (from events). I am the guy who wants 3 stops less noise in his photos, but I have learned that the main cause of the technically bad look of a photo is not noise, it's light, not its amount, but its physical properties, like its spectral power distribution ((lack of) similarity with D65). Actually, I want to be able to shoot at ISO 12800, so that I can use my 70-200 F4 IS at 1 / 200 s.

If you are someone who thinks that noise is what makes your photo look bad from a technical point of view, you should experiment with your camera in broad daylight at ISO 3200 or higher to see what your camera is capable of. Then repeat with indoor lighting, like incandescent, fluorescent or sodium lights, or with dusk light. You should really ask yourself if its the fault of the sensor's noise or if it's the light itself that's just "wrong".

You can see here and here photos taken in normal room light at ISO 3200 (no flash, but a fluorescent tube, some sunlight and lots of luck for catching the right moment when the tube was in its best phase). Or here is one taken in daylight at the entrance of a hangar (this had lots of light, but still ISO 3200).

Does anyone believe that a lower resolution (how low? 2 MP?) would make the photos look better from a technical point of view? It would not. The problem with low light and high ISO is not the noise, is that the sensor can no longer give you dynamic and tonal range. It just can't do it because it has no light to "slice"; in other words, the tonal range quanta is an absolute amount of light, not 1/2^12 of whatever light is available. You can have whatever resolution and noise level you want, if you don't have lucky light, dynamic range, and most importantly *tonal range*, you just can't get a technically good photo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> In the specific situation where you need longest possible reach higher pixel density is an advantage....There are no disadvantages with higher density.



Ahhhh...well, then...I hope you don't use a dSLR when you need reach, because it sounds like the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS is the _perfect_ camera for that. 14 megapixels packed into in a 5.6x crop factor sensor for a very high pixel density, with a 150mm lens (840mm FF-equivalent), and no disadvantages. Well, gosh...it's just the perfect camera! I bet pro wildlife shooters are all selling off their 1DIVs and 600mm f/4L lenses, and buying SX30s, right? The SX30 even has IS, so the Gitzo and gimbal head can be left at home. Right?!?


----------



## kirillica (Apr 21, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> Yes, you are as wrong as in your previouslies posts.
> In the specific situation where you need longest possible reach higher pixel density is an advantage. This has nothing to do with APS or FF. The problem is that FF bodies currently have lower pixel density than APS bodies forcing many to buy also an APS body (how often haven't I heard people adding a D300 to their D700 because of this reason only). As soon as FF pixel density reach same level as APS this will no longer be needed.
> There are no disadvantages with higher density (the myth of lower high ISO nosie performace has since long been killed even though there are still a few with no knowledge that keep shouthing it) but there are advantages. Therefor this should be a requirement.


ahahaha.... simply read that *neuroanatomist* wrote and use powershot and mobile phones because they have no disadvantages. ;D ;D LOL, man, you made my day!

btw, good photographers use appropriate lenses and not a crop-factor to increase a focal length. if you need 800mm - use 800mm L lens with a 5d/1d or whatever you can afford, but promoting a powershot with 150mm in this case... kind a silly, isn't it?


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... it sounds like the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS is the _perfect_ camera ...



With 1.3 Âµm pixels, a 150 mm lens would produce a pixel scale of 1.8 arcsec/pix, meaning a well-sampled image would have a resolution of 3.6 arcsec. This corresponds to an aperture of 28 mm, or an "f-ratio" of 150/28 = 5.4. The SX30 lens is 5.6 at 150mm, not too far.

Thus, if there was plenty of light, and the optics were diffraction limited (we wish, 35x zoom!), then indeed the SX30 could have been perfect. 

The problem is of course that 28 mm is a very small aperture, collecting very little light. Scaling everything up by a factor of 4, we would have a 600mm lens (still ~5.6) with a ~110mm aperture and the same scale per 5.2 Âµm pixel (for a 14 Mpix sensor), but would now collect 4^2 = 16 times as much light, and be 4 times further from the diffraction limit. 

We could also scale up everything with 4x except for the pixel pitch, resulting in a 224 Mpix sensor. Then the light gathering capability per pixel would be the same as for the SX30, but the pixel scale would be 0.5 arcsec/pix.

*Conclusion:* As long as you have sufficiently many photons and do not over-sample the resolution of the image, higher pixel densities result in higher resolution images.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 21, 2011)

kirillica said:


> if you need 800mm - use 800mm L lens with a 5d/1d or whatever you can afford, but promoting a powershot with 150mm in this case... kind a silly, isn't it?



If the SX30 can do the job for 2% of the cost, why not? The problem is that it cannot, of course, because its optics is not diffraction limited at 150mm, and the light gathering power is abysmal. That said, if you increased the pixel density of 5D/1D then you _would_ get higher resolution images ("longer reach"), so it does make sense to use a 7D in those cases. Which I think was Tuggen's point.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 26, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh...well, then...I hope you don't use a dSLR when you need reach, because it sounds like the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS is the _perfect_ camera for that.
> ...



Perhaps I should let neuroanatomist reply that one to you, but since you don't seem to appreciates each others argument, maybe I can help:

1) You said there are *only* advantages to having higher pixel densities. That is obviously an exaggeration that you probably did not mean literally. 

2) neuroanatomist gave the example of SX30 to show that a higher pixel density is not sufficient. He probably gave the example to make you think and realise why you are wrong in the "high pixel densities always rule" assumption. However, I don't think his example was very successful for that purpose because a) There are many other variables in addition to pixel density that are not kept constant (like sensor size, optics), so it's hard to from this one example to disentangle what the significance of the higher pixel density is. I tried to resolve it in a post above, but perhaps it was too technical to read well. b) He was not very clear with what the example was supposed to demonstrate. c) The tone in his reply was unnecessarily deprecatory, bound to fail an explanatory purpose and trigger the reaction you gave.

To be clear, here is an explicit list of some disadvantages with higher pixel densities (in approximate order of significance):

a) Readout noise increases with number of pixels
b) Slower readout time (limits your images per second rate)
c) More quickly gets limited by diffraction, so needs faster optics to be useful
d) Requires proportionally smaller tolerances for the camera house / optics to make use of the pixels
e) More sensitive to illumination direction (limb darkening)
f) Space/processing requirements increase
g) More expensive to manufacture

Note that I don't list *noise* as a disadvantage, since the quantum efficiency and collecting area does not change much with pixel density (only in the case where you are read-out noise limited will higher pixel densities produce a noisier image). Also, the *dynamic range* will not change significantly either, because the storage capacity of pixels is usually determined by their areas, so even if pixels are smaller and have smaller capacities, the number of photons they have to take care of is proportionally smaller.

The list of advantages with higher pixel density I can think of is much shorter, but very significant:

a) Potentially resolves finer detail in an image

I say potentially, because this statement is only true within certain limits. E.g., there is a limit how fine detail the optics will resolve. For small apertures, this limit may well be the diffraction limit (this is a physical limit); in general it is probably more common with imperfect optics. It also assumes that you have sufficient light and short enough exposure time for the pixels to be well exposed without introducing motion blur at the pixel scale.

There is always a balance between the advantages and disadvantages that sets the optimum pixel density. Depending on how much weight you give the different properties, this optimum balance will shift. For FF cameras with current optics, I think a practical upper limit on the number of pixels is around 50 Mpix, approximately the pixel density of 7D. Going beyond that does not make much sense to me, unless there is a revolution in lens manufacturing. I expect higher resolution images will be the domain of larger size sensors, medium or large format, as it is _much_ easier to produce appropriate optics for them. I believe this will be even more true in the future, as sensors will be increasingly better and less expensive, while I don't expect manufacturing of optics to improve at the same pace.

I'll be happy to discuss any items above you may disagree with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2011)

Tuggen said:


> However if they could make a FF with a, high quality, PS sensor density and image quality per area unit I would buy it since it would easily outperform 5Dmk2 , as I use now, at low ISO and have *equal or better nosie* and sharpness at high ISO.



Sorry, but I just don't buy that statement. For a given sensor size, smaller pixels will resolve more (potentially, provided they aren't limited by some other part of the system, e.g. lens resolution or diffraction), but will also be noisier.

Here's an example with both quantitative and qualitative information: Super Small, Sub 2μm Pixels for Novel CMOS Image Sensors, G.Agranov, R.Mauritzson; S.Barna, J.Jiang, A.Dokoutchaev, X.Fan; X.Li, in _Proc, 2007 International Image Sensor Workshop_, Ogunquit, Maine, USA June 7-10, 2007.

In the paper, they describe and test three sensors of the same size (1/4") but with different pixel densities and thus different sizes (from 5.6 μm, which is about the same as the 1DIV, down to 1.75 Âµm, which is a bit smaller than the S95/G12). They make the point that with the smaller pixels, they achieve increased resolution while maintaining similar sensitivity. If you look at Figure 7, the smaller pixels clearly offer a resolution advantage - no argument there. If you look at the lower panels (low light), it's also clear that with the same size sensor, as the pixels get smaller the image noise increases in light-limiting conditions.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> They make the point that with the smaller pixels, they achieve increased resolution while maintaining similar sensitivity. [...] If you look at the lower panels (low light), it's also clear that with the same size sensor, as the pixels get smaller the image noise increases in light-limiting conditions.



Thanks for the link to the paper. I glanced through it quickly. I find it interesting, though, that according to the authors, _the image noise does not change with pixel scale_. That seems to be their major conclusion, and is linked to maintaining sensitivity when shrinking pixel size. That seems at odds with what you say about the small-pixel pitch low-light sub-image in Fig 7 being noisier. I have two possible explanations:

1) I agree that the small pixel pitch image _looks_ noisier, but it's hard to be quantitative "by eye" looking at what are probably strongly under-sampled images in print (with an unknown sub-sampling algorithm). It _could_ be, that if you measure the noise at the same spatial scale, then all three examples would be equally noisy, i.e. show the same S/N (this is in fact what the authors claim). It would have helped if they provided a sub-image enlargement as they did for the 1000 lux case.

2) The authors focus on the sensitivity, or quantum efficiency (QE), and they show that the QE can be kept more or less constant with pixel scale (with their particular technology), at least down to 1.75 μm. They don't pay too much attention to read-out noise, however. For bright conditions, photon-shot noise and thus QE will dominate the S/N, while in faint conditions, the read-out noise will become important. It could very well be that the authors ignored that aspect, or deemed it insignificant, thus overstating their conclusion that "IQ and low light sensitivity of the sensors with these smaller pixels is comparable with a 5.6 μm pixel-based imager".

BTW, interesting that cross-talk seems to be such a big issue in CMOS sensors, I had no idea.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > They make the point that with the smaller pixels, they achieve increased resolution while maintaining similar sensitivity. [...] If you look at the lower panels (low light), it's also clear that with the same size sensor, as the pixels get smaller the image noise increases in light-limiting conditions.
> ...



That was my interpretation.


----------



## hallwal (Apr 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you look at Figure 7, the smaller pixels clearly offer a resolution advantage - no argument there. If you look at the lower panels (low light), it's also clear that with the same size sensor, as the pixels get smaller the image noise increases in light-limiting conditions.


True, but towards the bottom of those low light images, the text on the large-pixel image is indistinguishable, but the text on the small-pixel image is quite readable. It seems that it would be fairly easy (noise reduction or some other filter) to make the bottom-right image look just like the bottom left image; it would be impossible, however, to do the other way around. In other words, I'd rather have the rightmost image (small pixel) in every example, including the low-light one.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's an example with both quantitative and qualitative information: Super Small, Sub 2μm Pixels for Novel CMOS Image Sensors, G.Agranov, R.Mauritzson; S.Barna, J.Jiang, A.Dokoutchaev, X.Fan; X.Li, in _Proc, 2007 International Image Sensor Workshop_, Ogunquit, Maine, USA June 7-10, 2007.



Great find.

Personally, I like best the image with 2.2 um pixels. To me it looks like their technology scales best around that size. The image with the 1.75 um pixels has too much noise and too much edge bleeding.

It's odd that although all the sensors are theirs, the colors are so different.

Also, in spite of their comment that "in spite of a large difference in the pixel area, image quality and low light sensitivity of the sensors with these smaller pixels is comparable with a 5.6μm pixel-based imager." I find that the low-light image with the 5.6 um pixels looks much worse than the one with 2.2 um pixels.


----------



## kirillica (Apr 27, 2011)

Well 5Dm2 pixel size is 6.4Âµm, 7D - 4.3Âµm. 
Question: What this paper means to us?


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 29, 2011)

DuLt said:


> I mostly use just the central focus point... all the other are just used to confirm focus on ladnscapes.



But don't complain about dodgy metering. With advice like that its no surprise people think of ETTL as a game of chances...


----------

