300 f/2.8 II L IS USM brickwall test - kind of

Started Feb 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 5,012
Like?
Re: 300 f/2.8 II L IS USM brickwall test - kind of
In reply to joger, Feb 22, 2013

joger wrote:

schmegg wrote:


Once again you are twisting the facts. Ho-hum. And I know you know what you are doing - which makes your obfuscation of the facts even more deplorable.

No

I was talking about technology - which is screen level when you keep the pixel size (arround 6 µm in this case for Canon) - of course the 5D II/III is better in the final images due to the bigger sensor.

Per Pixel Canon did not improve on the sensor since 2004 - more or less.

I've posted unmolested images from DxO showing image level comparisons of both a crop and full frame body from around 2004 compared to the latest full frame offering.

In both cases, the older technology is behind by a noticeable amount.

Yet you still maintain that there has been no improvement.

Further to this, consider these measurements from sensorgen.info ...

20D: Quantum Efficiency 26%, Minimum read noise 3.7 e-, Max saturation capacity 48255

5D: Quantum Efficiency 25%, Minimum read noise 4.2 e-, Max saturation capacity 55297

5D2: Quantum Efficiency 33%, Minimum read noise 3.2 e-, Max saturation capacity 64600

6D: Quantum Efficiency 50%, Minimum read noise 1.6 e-, Max saturation capacity 76606

No improvement eh? LOL! Why do I bother?

I am a materials scientist and a part of my study was semiconductors - I judge companies by there improvement

Fine. Pity you can't compare data sets and draw valid conclusions.

I stop here

OK. We're way off topic, and your assertion is looking very broken. So I don't blame you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow