Does it make sense? An $1800 Full frame DSLR from Canon

[Keith B]

Seriously, who is this Daniel Browning?


Is no one else frightened.


Like Doc Brown from Back to the Future.

[SRPHOTO]

Daniel Browning is the-digital-picture forum GOD ahaha. good stuff

[Colin]

I'm not frightened, because Jon keeps his attention. When Daniel goes Tech postal, I won't be the one in front of him []

[Jon Ruyle]

I dunno. Daniel seems pretty reasonable to me (except that stuff about "Raw Conversions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"... that was a little dogmatic. As for me, I'll ditch DPP at the drop of a hat.)


You know who I'm scared of? The guys at dpreview who wrote that article about how downsampling doesn't help reduce snr. That was pure madness. Not to mention their 50D review:


Cons:


1) High resolution sensor means you have to have high quality lenses


2) You'll have to use high shutter speeds to take advantage of the high resolution


3) High resolution sensor means smaller pixels and thus more noise and worse dynamic range


4) It has a high resolution sensor. You'll get big files and they won't fit on your hard drive


5) Per-pixel detail not as good as in a camera with fewer pixels


6) You don't really need 15mp to get a good picure. 12mp is enough.


Whoa man. I don't want to be anywhere near them when *they* snap.

[alexniedra]

I can't begin to say what's wrong with the 50D generalisations from dpreview...





I bet for any money they went ooo-ahh at the 21 MP of the 5D II, yet with the 50D, "they won't fit on your hardrive"?





What gives?

[ShutterbugJohan]

ISO 1600 has 10 times less read noise than ISO 100. If Canon could get ISO 100 down to the same level as ISO 1600, dynamic range would increase greatly and 14-bits would no longer be sufficient.

What? I don't understand that... Wouldn't it be the other way around? :-)

[ShutterbugJohan]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all photographs are created equal, that they are endowed by their Photographer with certain unalienable Qualities, that among these are Color, Contrast and 12 stops of dynamic range.

That to secure these rights, Raw Converters are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the users, That whenever any Form of Software becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new raw conversion, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Dynamic Range and Contrast. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Raw Conversions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the software to which they are accustomed.

LOL! :-) I currently shoot JPEG (because I have a very slow computer and lousy software; when I get a faster computer and better software, I will switch to RAW).


A question: Most of this thread has been a discussion of APS-C vs. FF sensor size noise and signal-to-noise ratio. (At least, that's how I understood it.) :-) How about the same thing with CMOS vs. CCD?

[Jon Ruyle]

Okay, I may have been paraphrasing. They might not have actually said "it won't fit on your hard drive." []


But I just looked at it, and some of the stuff I meant in jest actually in the review. (They really did list "less per-pixel sharpness than cameras with 10 or 12 megapixles" as a con)

[Jon Ruyle]

ISO 1600 has 10 times less read noise than ISO 100. If Canon could get ISO 100 down to the same level as ISO 1600, dynamic range would increase greatly and 14-bits would no longer be sufficient.

What? I don't understand that... Wouldn't it be the other way around? :-)

Pictures *look* less noisy at low iso- not because noise is less, but because there is more light, and high signal/noise ratio is what makes a picture look noisy. Even if read noise is 10 times as great at iso 100, snr from read noise is usually less because typically you're letting 16 times as much light hit the ccd as compared to iso1600.


I have no understanding of why read noise would be different at different iso's. I guess the component coming from the adc (if any) is greater, because that comes after amplification (I think). So if you amplify the signal then add noise (as you do at high iso), your noise (translated back to electrons) counts less. Maybe that is why.


Anyhow, if Daniel says the read noise is 10 times as great at iso 100, I believe him


Keep in mind, though, at iso 1600 and below photon noise is in most cases more important than read noise. Photon noise is independant of iso (and goes like the square root of the signal strength) so your snr will in general be much lower at iso100 than 1600.

[Daniel Browning]

I agree with Jon.

I guess the component coming from the adc (if any) is greater, because that comes after amplification (I think).

I think that's correct too. The Sony A900 has on-chip ADC and the read noise is the same at almost all ISO, so compared to Canon it has an extreme range of highlight headroom in low light. For example, if you shoot them both at ISO 1600, the Canon will have less shadow noise, but the Sony has over four stops more highlight headroom. I hope some day Canon can bring its ISO 1600 noise level to all ISO settings, in which case it would blow away the Sony for dynamic range in low light.