Canon sensors in 7D and 60D behind the curve?

TrojMacReady said:

They didn't waste it, they made up for the light loss of the translucent mirror on the fly aswell.

Click to expand...

Which can be anything between 1/3rd to 1/50th of a stop - nobody knows because Sony doesn't tell. What they produced though is a big problem in long term product reliability - as any dust or aerosol particles that settle on the mirror are there to stay (it can't be cleaned) and in due course will reduce the contrast and increase the risk of haze and flare of the images that are produced.

TrojMacReady said:

The A580 which has the same sensor as the A55 but without the light loss, is clearly ahead of the Canon APS-C equivalents.

Click to expand...

How can you postulate something like this? The true capability of the sensor is as of yet an unknown quantity and it hasn't even been tested by any reputable site!

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

mike_2008 said:

Alastair Norcross said:

You do realize that the comparisons you showed are measured in bits, not stops, right? For screen, the largest difference (at only 1 ISO measurement) was 1.5 bits, and for print, the largest difference (at 2 ISO measurements) was 1.2 bits. The difference between 19 bits and 20.5 (the largest measured difference, only occurring at ISO 200 screen) is literally impossible for the human eye to detect. You might want to get some basic education, before you talk about things you clearly have no clue how to understand.
--

Click to expand...

I mis-typed stops for bits, a simple mistake.

Click to expand...

Really? The 's' key on my keyboard is nowhere near the 'b' key.

mike_2008 said:

A 1.5 bit difference is noticeable according to the dxomark site, who claim that differences less than 1 bit are not significant.

Click to expand...

They are right that differences less than 1 bit are not significant. It doesn't follow that differences of 1.5 bits are significant (a simple error of logic). If you understood what it means to say that the color sensitivity is 19 bits as opposed to 20.5 bits, you would understand this. The difference between, say, 6 bits and 7.5 bits is noticeable to the human eye. The difference between 19 and 20.5 is not.

mike_2008 said:

This should be also combined with the almost 1 stop difference in DR between the two cameras

Click to expand...

That has already been explained to you to be an artifact of the measuring system.

mike_2008 said:

and we end up with very small, but real, measurable and significant differences between the cameras.

Click to expand...

No. As already demonstrated.

mike_2008 said:

No need for the personal attacks

Click to expand...

It wasn't a personal attack. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the very measurements that you are appealing to. Education is a good thing. I wish only good things for you.

--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Why not bring some Cognitive Scientists specializing in visual perception, some photographers and some imaging+electronics engineers on the same table and beat this drum of Scientific (il)literacy?

Fortunately for me, I have very good experience with the first and the third areas of education, from some solid graduate level courses and research. I do not see a point of people ignoring technical comparisons, specifications and then saying, oh that will not even be perceptible, why would you really care.

Why not refer to a good cognitive model/analysis while we are at the point when comparing some solid numbers from the likes of DxO labs?

As for me, I am going to move on, this goes on and on, and it is a very personal opinion which everyone has based on certain things they believe or value more than others.

Alastair Norcross said:

mike_2008 said:

Alastair Norcross said:

You do realize that the comparisons you showed are measured in bits, not stops, right? For screen, the largest difference (at only 1 ISO measurement) was 1.5 bits, and for print, the largest difference (at 2 ISO measurements) was 1.2 bits. The difference between 19 bits and 20.5 (the largest measured difference, only occurring at ISO 200 screen) is literally impossible for the human eye to detect. You might want to get some basic education, before you talk about things you clearly have no clue how to understand.
--

Click to expand...

I mis-typed stops for bits, a simple mistake.

Click to expand...

Really? The 's' key on my keyboard is nowhere near the 'b' key.

Alastair Norcross said:

A 1.5 bit difference is noticeable according to the dxomark site, who claim that differences less than 1 bit are not significant.

Click to expand...

They are right that differences less than 1 bit are not significant. It doesn't follow that differences of 1.5 bits are significant (a simple error of logic). If you understood what it means to say that the color sensitivity is 19 bits as opposed to 20.5 bits, you would understand this. The difference between, say, 6 bits and 7.5 bits is noticeable to the human eye. The difference between 19 and 20.5 is not.

Click to expand...

This may be extremely important when it comes to processing the image to jpeg from raw, if a particularly narrow range of colours needs to be enhanced and differences emphasised, not an uncommon situation. With a lower colour sensitivity such gradations may be lost.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

This should be also combined with the almost 1 stop difference in DR between the two cameras

Click to expand...

That has already been explained to you to be an artifact of the measuring system.

Click to expand...

It really hasn't actually. There is no dark clipping in the sony camera, and the DR of the 12 bit or 14 bit conversion is identical for the 40D, see here: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

and we end up with very small, but real, measurable and significant differences between the cameras.

Click to expand...

No. As already demonstrated.

Click to expand...

Not to my satisfaction

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

No need for the personal attacks

Click to expand...

It wasn't a personal attack. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the very measurements that you are appealing to. Education is a good thing. I wish only good things for you.

Click to expand...

And I for you... Improved sensors in the next generation of canon cameras, for instance.

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

TrojMacReady said:

They didn't waste it, they made up for the light loss of the translucent mirror on the fly aswell.

Click to expand...

Which can be anything between 1/3rd to 1/50th of a stop - nobody knows because Sony doesn't tell.

Click to expand...

That's not true, we do know. The NEX and A33 employ the very same sensor and the difference between those is half a stop in ever way (S/N curves, DR curves etc). Also, a Chinese website managed to take a shot with the mirror flipped up (normally not possible) and confirmed half a stop.

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

What they produced though is a big problem in long term product reliability - as any dust or aerosol particles that settle on the mirror are there to stay (it can't be cleaned) and in due course will reduce the contrast and increase the risk of haze and flare of the images that are produced.

Click to expand...

I have yet to see flare from dust particles on any rear element of any lens. I have yet to come across dust that sticks on any of my DSLR's after using a good rocket blower. And the mirror can be cleaned with a rocket blower too.

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

The A580 which has the same sensor as the A55 but without the light loss, is clearly ahead of the Canon APS-C equivalents.

Click to expand...

How can you postulate something like this? The true capability of the sensor is as of yet an unknown quantity and it hasn't even been tested by any reputable site!

Click to expand...

Because I have RAW files of both an A55 and an A580. I already knew the A55 was pretty much on par with the 7D long before DXO tested the A55, QED in these forums.

And since we already know the difference is half a stop and the A580 and A55 use the very same sensor, 1+1=2 anyway.

Karl Gnter Wnsch said:

TrojMacReady wrote:

The A580 which has the same sensor as the A55 but without the light loss, is clearly ahead of the Canon APS-C equivalents.

Click to expand...

This is true because you read it in the spec. sheet ?

Because there's zero evidence to support that claim anyhwere that I can see - even Sony's own press release studiously steers clear of making any particular claims about image quality.

It positively gushes about the gimmicks, though - surprise, surprise...

mike_2008 said:

There is no dark clipping in the sony camera,

Click to expand...

How would you know? Where is the corresponding analysis of the sensor output?

mike_2008 said:

and the DR of the 12 bit or 14 bit conversion is identical for the 40D,

Click to expand...

Now you are getting silly and only show that you haven't understood either the DxO measurements nor what has been said here. This is my last answer to you - you seem incapable of understanding anything said here and only hell bent on promoting the sensor in your choice of camera. The results in the dpreview test of the A55 show nothing out of the ordinary though, especially once you take the JPEG engine and in camera noise reduction out of the equation - then the A55 is in fact worse than the Canon 550D in terms of noise and virtually indistinguishable in terms of dynamic range. Unfortunately they don't test the tonality of the images.

By the way, dynamic range is not a function of the depth of the A/D conversion - tonality of the images though is.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

TrojMacReady said:

I already knew the A55 was pretty much on par with the 7D long before DXO tested the A55.

Click to expand...

The OP has already told us that - according to DxO Mark - the 7D is clearly behind the A55. The whole thread is about that nonsensical conclusion!

So you're basically agreeing with us that DxO Mark is drivel, then..?

There's hope for us all.

Keith Reeder said:

TrojMacReady said:

I already knew the A55 was pretty much on par with the 7D long before DXO tested the A55.

Click to expand...

The OP has already told us that - according to DxO Mark - the 7D is clearly behind the A55. The whole thread is about that nonsensical conclusion!

So you're basically agreeing with us that DxO Mark is drivel, then..?

There's hope for us all.

Click to expand...

Their overall scoring is a subjective weighing of the objective results they measured. The objective results show the A55 is pretty much on par (within margin of measuring error) in terms of S/N, that's what I was referring to above. In terms of maximum DR the A55 is clearly better. I never paid much attention to their overall points system, it's their graphs that tell the tale.

Keith Reeder said:

Keith Reeder said:

TrojMacReady wrote:

The A580 which has the same sensor as the A55 but without the light loss, is clearly ahead of the Canon APS-C equivalents.

Click to expand...

This is true because you read it in the spec. sheet ?

Because there's zero evidence to support that claim anyhwere that I can see - even Sony's own press release studiously steers clear of making any particular claims about image quality.

It positively gushes about the gimmicks, though - surprise, surprise...

Click to expand...

They are both announced at the same time with the same new sensor, their executives commented that they both have the same sensor, the spec sheet lists the very same technical details for both and lo and behold, they are both from Sony in a Sony camera from the same level.

When you're done assuming yourself, you can place bets on me being wrong.

Howzit said:

mike_2008 said:

Now it's clear that this stuff is getting very technical and applies only to raw etc., but perhaps in some situations it's starting to be a large enough difference so as to be noticeable. The next generation of canon sensors have got a little bit of catching up to do

Click to expand...

It's pretty meaningless if the Sony algorythms cannot covert their "superior" DXO results into a better image. But id DXO makes you feel good about your purchase...

What is apparent is that even with a lower DXO score Cannon has manged to convert the "inferior" DXO data from their 18mp sensor into a fantastic image. So much so that the "old" 550D outrates the new A55 in dpreview reviews.

77% April 2010 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/

76% Aug 2010 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

...my first 35mm was a Minolta, my first digital camera a Sony but I highly doubt my first DSLR will be a Sony.

Click to expand...

Um, 76% when compared to the T2i is a very good score. 77% with no competition at all, even though they really should have compared it to the D90 which they didn't because they used the D5000 instead is pretty much par for the course.

I am not saying the T2i isn't better than the A55 to some reviewers, I am just saying the reviews can't be directly compared especially if the reviewer is different, in this case it isn't I believe, but the time of the review score definitely plays a huge role. The A55 is rated against the T2i. The T2i was rated against nothing basically. The D5000 I guess but since that was being compared to the T1i, of course the T2i smokes it.

Howzit said:

Howzit said:

cameralabs just finished their review of the Nikon D3100 - it has the same sensor as the A55? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Sorry, different sensor 14.2mp Sony A33 sensor in the D1300 vs 16.2mp Sony A55 sensor. (the D3100/A33 is more in line with the 500D/T1i 15mp).

Click to expand...

The D3100 doesn't use the same sensor as the A33. Completely different structure, different size, different output. Supposedly Nikon's first complete own design. The main issue with it sofar: rolling shutter. Far worse than anything else out there (old 14MP Sony sensor that was first introduced in the A550 included).

DxO Mark has showed that Canon (all) and Nikon (D3/D700/D3s/D3100) designed sensors behave in some systematically ways differently from CMOS Sony designs (D3x/D300s/D90/D7000/A55): alwyas more DR at base ISO. This has to do with the sensor read/ADC structure, already discussed extensively in the Nikon forums.

Re Color depth, the other point, DxO Mark has also consistently hsowed Canon sensors to have a RED channle with less selectivity, this was discussed by them here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000



It suggests Canon may use, compared to Nikon at least, a slightly weaker CFA for more light transmission, but could be something else. This seem to be the case for all recent models.

High ISO score for 60D is same as for 7D or A55 and all these cameras perform similarly. Notice that high ISO score is a cutpoint for noise/DR/color in the ISO range, not how camera perform in the whole range. Some may show a lower cut point but have better high ISO peformance for a higher value comapred to anoterh sensor. That happens for 60D compared to D90, for example.

People should realize all these data won't translate into visible effects, especially DR, since one has to be very very good in exposure and PP'ing to even get close to these figures. And, since most only look at jpegs (8bits) onmonitors, likely the differences will never be perceived anyway, even if they are there.

I have checked RAW files from D7000 and 60D from IR, all ISOs, and couldn't find a significant difference between these cameras, even at 100% crops.

Despite the various problems with DxO Mark, it's still a good set of measurements, the only RAW data we have available in a systematic way, for all cameras, in the internet.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Patman888 said:

Um, 76% when compared to the T2i is a very good score. 77% with no competition at all, even though they really should have compared it to the D90...

I am not saying the T2i isn't better than the A55 to some reviewers, I am just saying the reviews can't be directly compared especially if the reviewer is different, in this case it isn't I believe, but the time of the review score definitely plays a huge role. The A55 is rated against the T2i. The T2i was rated against nothing basically...

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that the 550D set the benchmark and A55 was unable to better it. It also sounds like that if the T2i may have scored even higher if it had any real competition - D90, really? A mid-level camera vs upper entry-level sure makes the 550D sound even better!

...you sure made the case in favor of the 550D

dpreview: 550D "All in all, the EOS 550D is the most compelling DSLR of its class that we've ever tested. It is hard to imagine how much more we might realistically expect from a product of this type, and although the improvements that Canon has made over the EOS 500D aren't revolutionary, the 550D is a better camera than its predecessor. In terms of both still and video capture, the 550D is currently the best camera of its type on the market."

dpreview: A55 "The Sony SLT-A55 is an excellent all-rounder with a comprehensive feature set. The translucent mirror technology gives it an innovative touch and the best live view AF on the market. Continuous shooting performance is the best in its class - just don't plan on shooting the Olympics with it."

Hey Mike, do you know how to take any real-life pictures? Who gives a $hit about specs....what is your background?? Can you make use of a Canon 10D sensor let alone a 7D??

Actually I think the new Sony cameras are pretty cool but your post is just inflammatory, stupid and basically Troll fodder.

It really just seems that they are trying to show us what is produced from the camera. There is no way they could just simply test the sensor alone and have it mean anything worthwhile to anyone at all. None of the manufacturers produce a RAW file that is unmolested on some level, and thus what they should show us is the RAW file that is presented to end users and nothing else. Any other test would be pointless and no one would bother looking at it at all...at least no users would look at it as there is no point.

It really just sounds like you are complaining for the sake of complaining. What, exactly, would the end user (a photographer, not an engineer) reap as a reward from them liberating the sensor from the body and then shooting through a standardized set of hardware and producing an "uncooked" or "equally cooked" file. No one in the user end of the market would ever be able to reproduce these results or reap any benefit from the testing that I can think of.

--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-

Clint Dunn said:

Actually I think the new Sony cameras are pretty cool but your post is just inflammatory, stupid and basically Troll fodder.

Click to expand...

I think the A55 is a great attempt by Sony but it has not surpassed the "Super Rebel" even with a superior DXO mark.

It's the Op's attempt to validate his purchase and an obvious troll in the Canon forum (which would have substance if dpreview had rated the A55 higher than the 550D but it did not).

...Mark, go enjoy your A55, it's a great camera, and stop worrying about when Canon will upgrade - Only worry when they do.

Aside from the fact that I have no faith in DxO's tests or their relevance to the real world, Canon's 18 MP sensor has been out for a year now.

If Sony tweaked a bit more performance out of their newer sensor, that's par for the course in chip fabrication. But in the world of sensors 1 year generally does not result in a real world visible difference.

How will Canon respond? With a > 20 MP APS-C sensor with even better noise/DR for their 7D mkII. Until them I'm happily shooting my 7D mkI, and I couldn't care less what Sony or Nikon are doing (though I'm happy for them that they now have newer cameras).

Howzit said:

Patman888 said:

Um, 76% when compared to the T2i is a very good score. 77% with no competition at all, even though they really should have compared it to the D90...

I am not saying the T2i isn't better than the A55 to some reviewers, I am just saying the reviews can't be directly compared especially if the reviewer is different, in this case it isn't I believe, but the time of the review score definitely plays a huge role. The A55 is rated against the T2i. The T2i was rated against nothing basically...

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that the 550D set the benchmark and A55 was unable to better it. It also sounds like that if the T2i may have scored even higher if it had any real competition - D90, really? A mid-level camera vs upper entry-level sure makes the 550D sound even better!

...you sure made the case in favor of the 550D

dpreview: 550D "All in all, the EOS 550D is the most compelling DSLR of its class that we've ever tested. It is hard to imagine how much more we might realistically expect from a product of this type, and although the improvements that Canon has made over the EOS 500D aren't revolutionary, the 550D is a better camera than its predecessor. In terms of both still and video capture, the 550D is currently the best camera of its type on the market."

dpreview: A55 "The Sony SLT-A55 is an excellent all-rounder with a comprehensive feature set. The translucent mirror technology gives it an innovative touch and the best live view AF on the market. Continuous shooting performance is the best in its class - just don't plan on shooting the Olympics with it."

Click to expand...

No. What kind of assbackwards logic is that? It means that when you are at the top of the class with no peers it means it is easier to get a good score when you have nothing to compare yourself too. You are easily the head of the class because you are the only one in the class.

It also means that the more competition you have, the harder to get a good score because you have to try harder. In the A55's case, it is being directly compared to the excellent T2i and still manages to achieve almost the same score in a much tougher and competitive field. That speaks for itself.

Jeez Canon Trolls using conclusions that are written before the rest of the competition showed up. Try to be more objective, really.

I'll make it clear for you. Just because Super Mario Brothers 1 on the NES scored a 10, it doesn't mean any of the newer games today that score less than a 10 are worse. They are better in many many many many many ways. Of course you can make the argument that Super Mario Bros 1 is still the best game ever, it doesn't mean Super Mario Galaxy which only scores a 9.5 is worse.

The A55 scoring a 76% while being directly compared to the T2i is impressive. If the A55 came out first who knows how the scores would have been like. Could have been the same or the scores could have been reversed. We'll never know.

How would the T2i score higher with real competition? That is ....LOL. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyways. Camera Labs review

T2i 88%
60D 87%

T2i > > > > > > > > > 60D confirmed! To the Canon trolls or fanboys at least.