PIX 2015

New Canon on 22nd March?

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 36,182
Re: New Canon on 22nd March?
In reply to howardroark, Mar 10, 2013

howardroark wrote:

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.

It seemed that way to you, then. No evidence, but it seemed like that. I think tehre is good evidence that it wasn't like that.

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.

That's not surprising. The improvement in noise is brought about by improvements in quantum efficiency.It's gone from around 25% for the 5D to about 50% for the Mark II. That is a stop gain. All the time pixel density was being increased.

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.

Quoting yourself. All you are doing is stating your opinion again. At least I quoted someone else's opinion, on the basis of undertaking reviews.

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.

There is no reason to suspect that my inference is any more or less accurate than yours. The truth is that you have no information on what the manufacturers were starting to realise. You are just staing your speculation on what they were doing. Unless of course you can produce some evidence from the manufacturers on what they were thinking.

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.

But a better one with more pixels behind it.

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.

Certainly, but they haven't brought it to market.

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

Shame, that is what Canon is really good at.

You just want to argue.

No, I just thought it rather ironic that the one thing Canon is doing really well with respect to sensors, you don't care much about.

on-chip Phase Detect AF sensors,

along with it seems everyone else.

Yeah. So what's your point?

So the point is that Canon is doing just a bit less than it needs to do to keep pace with everyone else, unless of course we see a big step forward with the next round of cameras.

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.

These are public forums. If you want a private conversation with someone, use a private email.

Your pedantic, condescending attitude is offputting. I won't respond any further to you.

That's your privilege, but I'll keep on responding to your posts where I think there is something to say.

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

On whose part is the righteous indignation here?

-- hide signature --


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