My last take on this. I assume this is about the noise discussion. I'll phrase it like this, all of these statements are true (specifically about read noise):Originally Posted by Fast Glass
- Modern tech has minimized "this" (specifically read noise) significantly
- As an example the R5 has lower read noise than the 5DIII
- The R6 still has lower read noise than the R5 which does lend itself to certain scenarios
- Higher MP cameras tend to have higher read noise than lower MP cameras.
Again, all of those statements are true. The reason why I even brought this up is the exchange you had with Kari about aurora photography. Low light/nightscape images are a scenario where read noise becomes more of an issue, thus there would be a negative impact for Kari's type of photography of more megapixels. For blacks, where signal to noise ratios are low, lower megapixel cameras still show a benefit over higher MP cameras. Now part of that discussion was motion blur, but even that could be effected as if you dial in your ISO to have acceptable noise in the blacks, a higher ISO would allow for faster shutter speed and less motion blur.
The impact for well lit images drops off dramatically, as David's DXO example showed, 3300 vs 3000, not much of a difference. So, if you want to say that "modern tech has minimized this significantly" for noise in well lit scenarios, I am going to agree most of the time. But, for blacks, the Photons to Photos measurements indicate the R6 is about 1 stop better in read noise control which will absolutely affect low light photography.
Can read noise still affect well lit conditions, yes. If you think about it, "expose to the right" (ETTR) was about two things: using the whole dynamic range of a sensor, and avoiding read noise. The left side of a histogram has a lower signal to noise ratio (the 10/3 scenario from above) while the right side of the histogram has a higher signal to noise ratio (the 20,000/3 scenario from above). If you think about it, "expose to the center" would have its benefits as, in ideal conditions, that would give you the most latitude in post processing. But, it is "ETT Right" as the right has a higher signal/noise ratio. Has modern tech minimized this, yes, the noise floor is lower, but it still exists even in some well lit conditions, for example, if you underexpose. I have seen this even with the R5. Quick examples, but a series of birds against snow, I exposed for the snow, tried to pull shadows up. I still really like the images, but there was noise in the birds. Modern tech has not minimized this to the extent I had no issues.
Final point on this, I do have a noise issue with the R5. I am still trying to understand it as it is inconsistent. It isn't awful and I will still praise the R5 as a camera (it is great). Others have seen it as well and think that Adobe is not processing modern Canon files efficiently. But, it is luma noise, which could easily be read noise, and my other theory is that as the camera warms up, you start to see more read noise. So, if it isn't the software, then the high MP of the R5 is contributing to this with both higher read noise (compared to R6), and then more heat caused by moving more data. Even in well lit situations, but testers might not see this as it would only show up during intensive use.
To sum up, I find it misleading to state that there are not trade offs going to higher MPs. I am sitting here with my R5 and have several instances of these trade offs. While I was going to upgrade my computer anyway, the R5 certainly has hastened that decision as my current computer freezes up half the time downloading R5 files. Never an issue with my previous cameras. Resolution increases linearly, file size increases exponentially. Absolutely there are trade offs, with diminishing returns. Different people want and value things differently. The R5 is an amazing camera. I have no regrets, it is worth it, modern tech is amazing, but there are absolutely tradeoffs to higher MPs. There is a balance to be struck.
Reply With Quote