a7S high ISO claim - - -over hyped or not ?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 950
Like?
Re: a7S high ISO claim - - -over hyped or not ?
In reply to Rishi Sanyal, 2 months ago

Rishi Sanyal wrote:

Well, I think the bigger issue here is that physics is physics, and once you've already gotten read noise down as low as many of these cameras have (through sophisticated techniques like correlated double sampling), the only way to drastically increase ISO performance is to capture more light. Capturing more light increases SNR by decreasing shot/photon noise contributions.

And the only way to do that is to (1) increase sensor size, or (2) increase sensor efficiency. Or, of course, use faster glass.

So Sony's investment in MF probably reflects these realities, to a certain extent. Increasing sensor efficiency is difficult, as far as I understand. Partly b/c sensors are already so good, and also b/c it's difficult to mitigate perhaps the largest source of light loss - the color filters. Short of making a 3-CCD/CMOS with 3 different light paths, that is.

By the way, the higher SNR due to lower shot noise I referred to above is also what gives medium format 'that medium format look' (aside from conversations about DOF and bokeh, of course). It's the same reason a shot taken at ISO 100 looks better than the same shot taken at ISO 400 on even the best performing camera. The ISO 100 shot received 4x as much light as the ISO 400 shot (assuming you matched exposures accordingly); since bright shot-noise limited tones have SNR = sqrt(signal), the ISO 100 image would have twice the SNR of the ISO 400 shot in well-exposed regions (so we're ignoring read noise and tones of the image affected by read noise).

Sony's new MF CMOS sensor has 1.68x the surface area of full-frame, so theoretically can potentially give you almost 2/3 EV ISO performance advantage. But that's assuming similar aggregate read noise performance (and remember, with 50 million pixels - that's twice as many pixels to be read as a 25 MP sensor), similar QE, and of course similar access to fast lenses (which is definitely *not* the case). And, by the way, before this MF CMOS sensor from Sony, previous MF digital sensors had really, really low performance (either low QE, high read noise, or both) that limited their ISO performance despite their theoretical advantage due to their size. But for well-exposed images (landscapes, studio lighting, etc.), you couldn't beat those MF shots (well, unless you used multi-imaging techniques). Not just because of their resolution, but b/c of the very high SNR due to lower photon/shot noise contributions.

And while we're on this subject - you can increase the SNR any camera is capable of by averaging multiple shots. For example, take two APS-C shots, align them, then average them together and you'll basically get pretty close to what a FF camera might have gotten given the same focal plane exposure. This is simply b/c averaging two shots is like collecting twice the amount of light as far as photon statistics is concerned - and a FF has ~2.25x the surface area of APS-C and so, generally, collects twice as much light given the same shutter speed/aperture. Neat, huh? It doesn't perfectly work out b/c the two APS-C shots together had twice as many pixels read as the FF would have (assuming equivalent resolutions). But, generally speaking, SNR increases as the square root of the # of images averaged.

Anyway, to answer your question: I think it is somewhat fair to say that sensors have gotten so good that we're running up against practical limitations that'll require quite some innovation to overcome. But look at how far we've come since the advent of digital cameras. Who knows what's on the horizon?

-- hide signature --

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” -- Sherlock Holmes

I am not sure why you are bringing in MF sensors into this discussion. The first MF sensor which seems to be outperforming the FF sensor when it comes to SNR or high ISO performance is the new Sony CMOS MF sensor. Before this there were only CCD MF sensors and their low light performance was appalling in comparison to modern CMOS FF sensors.

The only place where MF CCD sensors have excelled over FF CMOS sensors have been colour bit depth and tonal range, and then of course bucket loads of resolution especially the 60-80 mpix sensors.

So, can you show us this "MF look" when it comes to SNR where it beats the best FF CMOS sensors? to my knowledge only the new Sony MF CMOS sensor seems to have handsomely beaten the FF counterparts  and hence introduced a new "MF look" when it comes to SNRl, but this sensor is new, and the MF scene is still dominated by way inferior lowlight CCD sensors.

The performance of the sensor is comprised of many factors. Such as chip technology and the signal processing, and not at all only the size of the pixels. It is only matter of time until we will see a new chip tech generation coming along. Perhaps next disruption will be based on organic light sensitive diodes.

No offence, but if you are in any case involved in the A7S review on behalf of DPreview, then I really hope you have your facts under control and won't make fluffy assumptions such as "MF look" etc.

To thread starter, no the A7S low light performance is not overhyped in my opinion. Especially at super high ISOs (>6400) it is significantly better than anything else on the market (we are talking <2 stops better than most popular FF sensors on the market), a little revolution I'd say. Photographers and film makers can now use candle lights and moon light as creative lighting now, which was not really realistic earlier. DXOMark scores indicates this as well. Maybe only the new Sony CMOS MF (medium format) sensor can beat it. It seems it both focusses and performs like a champ in almost total darkness

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