New Canon on 22nd March?

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: New Canon on 22nd March?
In reply to bobn2, Mar 10, 2013

bobn2 wrote:

howardroark wrote:

A lot of companies were making huge jumps in pixel count but the noise got worse and worse.

Could you please post some evidence that as pixel counts increased 'the noise got worse and worse' - I have seen nothing to support that, and I collect more information about sensor performance than most. Maybe I've missed something here, so I'd be interested in you posting some hard evidence that separated this statement from a sweeping and mostly false generalisation.

It seemed like DSLR's were heading the same way.

I'd be interested in knowing why it seemed that way. Again, I haven't seen any evidence that DSLR's were getting noisier as pixel counts increased. For instance, from DxO:

"Seemed" being the operative word. If it didn't seem that way to you, goody. There's no need for a scientific paper here. With the D30, D60, 10D, 20D, even 30D we saw every generation improve noise, DR, and increase pixel count which was awesome (even in Nikons, etc.). Then things did start leveling off. The graph you've shown below just shows they could increase pixel count with very small improvements in noise. The D5000 was 2009 and I'm talking about trends starting in 2000.

DSLR's weren't make the leaps they had been making and consumer P&S's were indeed becoming noisy for the sake of increased pixel count (find the measurements for cameras several years old if you can....tests weren't very DxO-esque back then, but DPReview did some good noise tests minus the pretty graphs). I was pointing out two trends and saying that there was reason to think the DSLR market might go the same way as the consumer market.

Three generations of camera, going from 12 through 16 to 24 MP on the same size sensor. The noise performance has got better, not worse.

Slightly. Look at the jumps occuring back when DSLR's were first coming into their own. My context goes back about 9 years before your start point here.

Notice how many camera models over the last few years had fewer pixels than their previous iteration?

How many was that? Not many. I can think of one major change, when the industry standard 1.7" Sony sensor went from 14MP to 10MP. The result was a significant loss in image quality ( as DPReview said when reviewing the Canon G11, 'The G10 remains the most impressive small-sensor camera we've seen, at low ISO settings. The level of detail it renders is very impressive and is enough to put some entry-level DSLRs to shame .' The G11 traded that quality for a small increase in low light performance (some of which was actually gained by 'recalibrating' the metering to give more exposure for the same ISO setting).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51007191 To quote "G6 7.1MP, G7 10MP, G9 12.1MP, G10 14.7MP, G11 10MP, G12 12MP, G15 12.1MP.....and these were some of the most modest increases." Many other cameras finally tended down before then trending back up when the technology allowed for similar noise and DR with higher real detail resolution to match higher pixel counts.

The manufacturers were starting to realize consumers were wising up and the Best Buy salesman couldn't simply say (as they very often did) "more megapixels means better image quality."

Or one could infer the the reduction in pixel count was a reaction to a perceived market desire for lower pixel density, driven in good part by this site, and the result was a loss in image quality.

You could also infer a lot of incorrect things if you so desired. Your one case doesn't disprove the overall trend.

It CAN mean better image quality, but lots of people were figuring out the lens, noise, dynamic range, zoom, and other important considerations for a camera.

Most of those things are actually improved by higher pixel density. The MTF delivered by a lens is higher with more pixels behind it, increasing pixel count by decreasing pixel size generally increases dynamic range, as above it has little if any effect on noise and it provides more capability for 'digital zoom'.

"...CAN..." A crappy lens still makes a crappy picture.

Watching Canon's slow to non-existence progress in sensor design for the past few years you might conclude that progress has reached a plateau. I still think we will see some substantial improvements in the next few years. I am inclined to believe that camera manufacturing is overdue for some competition. Canon and Nikon seem like two peas in the same pod. Let us hope that China or some other country will enter the game and get competition moving. It is time to see the end of the phony megabuck pricing for cameras, lenses and accessories.

I disagree. Canon has been developing larger pixels on a chip while maintaing the same megapixel count (back-illuminated CMOS),

Two points about this. Firstly, back illuminated CMOS does not make pixels larger. Its advantages are about increasing the speed of the microlenses, and thus getting more light to the sensor. Secondly, Canon does not yet produce back-illuminated sensors. It has some in its cameras, but they are all sourced by sony, which is already onto the next thing, stacked back illuminated sonsors. All the major CMOS sensor manufacturers have back illumination in production, except Canon.

And they have filed patents indicating that they are working on their own in-house BI-CMOS. And they are working on shrinking the circuitry to increase pixel size. Excuse my lack of clarity, I was typing in a hurry.

better microlenses,

Canon seems to have caught up with other manufacturers with its latest sensors. The small pixel ones still lag, due to the rather coarse process geometry that Canon is using.

video capability (I don't care much about),

Shame, that is what Canon is really good at.

You just want to argue.

on-chip Phase Detect AF sensors,

along with it seems everyone else.

Yeah. So what's your point?

and they've simply waited longer to put those improvements into play in higher resolution chips. They have created new production lines for G1 X chips, 6D, 5D Mark III, EOS M,

All those are made in the existing fabrication facilities. Chip manufacture is a batch (wafer by wafer) process, not a production line one, so all their sensors share the same two fabrication plants.

Yes, I know. Again, my context was going back further than just those cameras.

Your main point is usually clarifying things that others understood. Your other main point is, when some does happen to be right, being MORE right than them. Please stop responding to me when I'm not talking to you. Your pedantic, condescending attitude is offputting. I won't respond any further to you.

Question is will you be quiet now or lay on more condescension mixed with some righteous indignation to prove my point?

 howardroark's gear list:howardroark's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow