#41  
Old 04-03-2012, 06:10 PM
philiphart's Avatar
philiphart (Phil Hart)
Registered User

philiphart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,060
and don't get me wrong.. of course i will be getting myself one of these too :-)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-03-2012, 06:14 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Hey Phil,

I'm not down on the science behind it all.

I just know that if I can shoot at ISO-6400 to ISO-25,600 during weddings, I couldn't ask for anything more.

Some more ISO-6400 JPGs (straight out of camera) have surfaced today, and, aside from the model being slight out of focus, the images are clean.

Excited.

H
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-03-2012, 06:31 PM
philiphart's Avatar
philiphart (Phil Hart)
Registered User

philiphart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,060
but does the 6400 JPG look any better than a 5DII 6400 after noise reduction in lightroom? the high ISO JPGs i've seen look like they've had heavy noise reduction applied to them.. which is exactly what is happening..

Phil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Hey Phil,

I'm not down on the science behind it all.

I just know that if I can shoot at ISO-6400 to ISO-25,600 during weddings, I couldn't ask for anything more.

Some more ISO-6400 JPGs (straight out of camera) have surfaced today, and, aside from the model being slight out of focus, the images are clean.

Excited.

H
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-03-2012, 07:35 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,408
You bring up an interesting point Phil.

I take it that the gains both Nikon and Canon are achieving in noise control come more from improvements in the supporting processing electronics and chips.

For example not to pick on SBIG but it serves as an example - the STL11 is very very noisy compared to identically chipped FLI Proline 11002. Why? Better A/D conversion probably. Now you are seeing ST8300F models with these improved electronics and SBIG is now acknowledging these available improvements and incorporating them into their newer models. No doubt STX has these improvements.

Same I suspect with DSLRs. Expeed 3 for Nikon and Digic 5+ for Canon have way more processing power. So there would be a gain there.
Plus they must be able to process perhaps more advanced noise suppression using the extra computing power available than earlier models.

There is also optimising the antialiasing filter. These filters are pretty harsh. I have changed a few over on EOS20D and also Nikon D70. They must cut down QE a lot. So optimising them must have a gain at the expense of flirting with moire.

But I know what you mean. I have a 20D and a 40D and I shot a 5D mark ii and the 40D seemed to have same or better noise performance as the 5D mark ii or at minimum it was similar. I was surprised I expected the 5D mark ii to be a lot cleaner. Both used under near identical conditions.

I guess in that case it comes down to pixel size.

Surely 36mp though must be some sort of ceiling or close to the theoretical limit. Geez, that same sized sensor in an astro camera is the Kodak KAI11002 chip and that is a mere 11mp (probably a tad less). My 16803 chipped camera is twice the sensor size of these chips and its only 16.8mp so that would be 8.3mp if it were full frame!

Yet when Kodak brought out the KAI16000 which is 16mp full frame size it seems to have been hugely unpopular in the astro world. Noone really uses it.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-03-2012, 07:49 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Dunno, don't use LightRoom. Only DPP for me. The one and only Canon RAW converter.

The ISO-6400 JPGs I saw today have had absolutely nothing done to them. They're straight out of camera and look incredible.

Cheers.

H

Quote:
Originally Posted by philiphart View Post
but does the 6400 JPG look any better than a 5DII 6400 after noise reduction in lightroom? the high ISO JPGs i've seen look like they've had heavy noise reduction applied to them.. which is exactly what is happening..

Phil
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:07 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,408
Isn't there an update to Photoshop that has Canon RAW conversion? I thought I saw one.

Greg.

[QUOTE=Octane;826657]Dunno, don't use LightRoom. Only DPP for me. The one and only Canon RAW converter.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-03-2012, 08:00 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Greg,

If you do a search on my posting history, you'll see my thoughts on LR/ACR/PS when it comes to Canon RAW conversion.

Just on my way to work, hence brevity.

Cheers.

H
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-03-2012, 08:09 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,408
I see, so the Canon one works much better. Fair enough.

Greg.

If you do a search on my posting history, you'll see my thoughts on LR/ACR/PS when it comes to Canon RAW conversion.

Just on my way to work, hence brevity.

Cheers.

H[/QUOTE]
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-03-2012, 12:41 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/canon-5d...hSLI025600.JPG

ISO-25,600.

Wee!

H
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-03-2012, 11:25 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Canon 1Dx ISO-12,800 SOOC JPG sample: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/sam...nloads/009.jpg



H
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-03-2012, 11:36 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
It's sideways
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-03-2012, 11:54 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Yeah, I know.

H
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-03-2012, 01:33 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,585
The MKIII is a nice piece of kit. Embedded timecode would make me happy for video, and the depth of field preview is now where my finger expects to find it. No real bump in resolution over the MKII but the high ISO looks great.

Though I can't believe Canon *still* doesn't have full colour metering or decent flash metering, this should have been fixed 10 years ago. They did finally put fringe correction in. We will be upgrading our MKIIs at work, hocking them while the price is still good.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-03-2012, 01:35 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,585
As long as they are clean due to a great sensor and electronics (they probably are) rather than noise reduction/smoothing in camera (let's hope not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Hey Phil,

I'm not down on the science behind it all.

I just know that if I can shoot at ISO-6400 to ISO-25,600 during weddings, I couldn't ask for anything more.

Some more ISO-6400 JPGs (straight out of camera) have surfaced today, and, aside from the model being slight out of focus, the images are clean.

Excited.

H
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:45 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,408
Though I can't believe Canon *still* doesn't have full colour metering or decent flash metering, this should have been fixed 10 years ago. They did finally put fringe correction in. We will be upgrading our MKIIs at work, hocking them while the price is still good.[/QUOTE]

Per a video I watched the 5D mark iii does have exposure metering based on RGB now. It was B and W before.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:24 PM
philiphart's Avatar
philiphart (Phil Hart)
Registered User

philiphart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Here's a sample at ISO25,600 from my 5DmkII, with noise reduction applied in Lightroom:

http://philhart.com/files/_MG_7741.jpg

Is it really that much worse than the 5DIII example above? Look particularly at the colour chart and around the wine bottles in your sample. It's also not true that the mkIII sample JPGs have had nothing done to them.. they've had heavy noise reduction applied in camera.. you can see it clearly.

The reason '6400 is the new 1600' is that greater processing power allows much more sophisticated noise smoothing to be applied in camera than what the mkII could do. But you can apply that with software yourself as you have to with RAW anyway.

I'll bet a new 1DX *and* a 5DMKIII that RAW 6400 from the mkIII does not look like 1600 on the MKII. a small gain for sure.. but no way two stops. it's simply not possible to have improved the efficiency of the mkII sensor that much (whoever the manufacturer is) since it was already so good. quantum mechanics says so.

if you're disappointed when your new camera arrives, i'll happily take it off your hands.. i'll appreciate the 10% improvement a lot more!

cheers
Phil
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-03-2012, 07:34 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by philiphart View Post

if you're disappointed when your new camera arrives, i'll happily take it off your hands.. i'll appreciate the 10% improvement a lot more!

cheers
Phil
Nice try

I'm not convinced absolute QE is the problem with CMOS chips. By their intrinsic design you have pixel to pixel variation in the (on chip) read-up electronics.

A bit like weighing yourself many times on one set of bathroom scales (al la CCD..same result every time) as opposed to weighing yourself with different scales (al la CMOS, this scale says I've put on weight! )

Canon may have discovered a method to make their "scales" more consistent. In which case the S/N will have improved and you can push the signal harder before the noise becomes offensive.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-03-2012, 08:04 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Phil,

I've never been disappointed with /any/ of the Canon gear that I have bought or owned. I don't think this baby is going to disappoint, either.

I take my gear for what it is; a tool designed to do a job. Ilike having the latest and greatest, though. Will it make me abetter photographer? I doubt it. Will it allow me to make better photographs? Possibly. Will ISO-6400 or ISO-25,600 allow me to get shots that I previously would not have dreamed of taking, even if I end up converting them to black and white? You bet!

DPP now has a state of the art Digital Lens Optimizer module, too, by the way.

H
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-03-2012, 08:11 PM
philiphart's Avatar
philiphart (Phil Hart)
Registered User

philiphart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Nice try

I'm not convinced absolute QE is the problem with CMOS chips. By their intrinsic design you have pixel to pixel variation in the (on chip) read-up electronics.

A bit like weighing yourself many times on one set of bathroom scales (al la CCD..same result every time) as opposed to weighing yourself with different scales (al la CMOS, this scale says I've put on weight! )

Canon may have discovered a method to make their "scales" more consistent. In which case the S/N will have improved and you can push the signal harder before the noise becomes offensive.
thanks Peter! i've been digging for people to describe ways the sensor may have actually improved to deliver real change.. that sounds like a plausible area of improvement. i bet you don't expect a gain of two stops though! canon do claim a slight improvement in 'photoelectric conversion rate' but it's clearly an incremental rather than revolutionary step even the way they phrase it. they also claim better 'on-chip' noise reduction which may be their way of saying what you are without revealing too much?

Phil
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-03-2012, 08:31 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by philiphart View Post
thanks Peter! i've been digging for people to describe ways the sensor may have actually improved to deliver real change.. that sounds like a plausible area of improvement. i bet you don't expect a gain of two stops though! canon do claim a slight improvement in 'photoelectric conversion rate' but it's clearly an incremental rather than revolutionary step even the way they phrase it. they also claim better 'on-chip' noise reduction which may be their way of saying what you are without revealing too much?

Phil
No problem Phil....I gave a presentation on CMOS vs CCD at CWAS
(now there's a few acronyms ) a few years ago.

There are a few other hallmarks of CMOS design...their complex architecture often shows us as weird off-axis diffraction spikes with point sources (i.e. stars)...& I see back illuminated CMOS are now coming on line to mittigate this as well as improve QE

However, pixel to pixel read-up variation has always been the bane of CMOS design.

Canon may now have tackled this at a wafer fabrication level, rather than calibration look-up tables, as well as using a full field micro-lens to achieve a few Db gain with similar noise reduction.

In short, I don't think it's all smoke and mirrors.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement