Why Canon need a new sensor with low read out noise

Started Apr 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
David Hull
David Hull Veteran Member • Posts: 6,023
Re: Why Canon need a new sensor with low read out noise

aftab wrote:

David Hull wrote:

aftab wrote:

aftab wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

lot of rubbish , there are a big difference between 14 stops of DR and no pattern noise and 11 with pattern noise, show me a cleaner camera from Canon  than d600, d800 at base iso and DR range and I pay you 100 dollars cash

100 dollars? Nah, I want 500.

I don't think you are a troll as many tend to believe. But I do sometimes feel that you are like a kid. You keep saying the same thing again and again, but never can come up with a good example where D800 or D600's shadow lifted areas are noise free and usable. You are not doing any justice to Nikon either. I have seen better examples.

BTW, I didn't say Canon cameras are cleaner than Nikon at base ISO. I don't think anybody ever did.

Keep up the crusade against all the noise. Never let people like me or others to distract you.

Here is a better example from D600. Exposed for the bright sun.


Shadow lifted, noise reduced

To be fair, one will have to admit that no Canon camera will come close. Image is noisy, but will be usable in a small size.

Usable for what?  What have you used this for, what challenges and contests have you won with it?  Do you think any stock sites would pick this up?  Would the owner of the boat pay you for this one?   Do you think that Nikon would buy it to use in one of their advertising campaigns?

None of the above. The result is suboptimal. This was a test shot, pushing the camera's limit. Did D600 pass the test? No (Well, I should have used iso100, still). With some more processing it can be used for a small print, but result will always be suboptimal. Using similar settings, Canon will produce worse results, most likely we won't be able to use it for even small print. So, yeah, I don't think any Canon camera will come close if we use the same settings and want to lift shadows.

Based on what I have seen (and continue to see) this shadow lifting thing is a colossal nonstarter. I have never seen a shot like the one you did turn out very well regardless of who did it.

To me the value that the Nikon/Sony architecture adds is that you can lift the shadows moderate amounts (2 to 3 stops) with impunity to improve a bad flash setup or some other similar thing.  But the flattened images like your example, the stuff Landmaks used to throw around, etc. just don't ever seem to succeed IMO.  I don’t mean to slam you or your photograph but I just don’t think that this particular application “works”.  I don’t think it works with any of these cameras yet that seems to be the only sort of example that people can put up.  At the end of the day, the argument is the same one I gave to Mikael earlier in the thread – you have pushed both systems way past the breaking point and are arguing which is more “broke”.  At that point I say, who cares it is not an image I can use anyway.

I used to think (being a southern California guy) that the ideal shot for the latest Nikon stuff would be the lone surfer against a sunset, but after looking at your boat and thinking about it for a bit, I feel that unless extreme care were taken in PP, that wouldn’t work either.

You say that someone couldn’t do this shot with a Canon camera.  I say you didn’t successfully pull off this shot with your Nikon camera either.  I am dead serious here, if this Sony/Nikon DR advantage is so bloody compelling, how come we never see any truly compelling art come out of


Was this the best way to take this shot? No. As Peter says above, there is a better way of taking this shot. I would say, that would be HDR in this situation and that can be done with any camera.

Yea... that is my feeling as well.  There is a reason that Nikon put the HDR modes in their firmware... it was born for situations like this one.

As I played with D600's more than two stop DR advantage and compared that with 5D3 and 6D, I realized that the distinction is not as clear cut as numbers would suggest. I struggled to find an advantage that was useful to me. It is like going from 21mp to 24mp, sounds great on pen an paper, but hardly useful in real life. Maybe we need something like 20 stops of DR, before that for best results we will have to use filters, HDR etc.

So, yeah, I agree with you.

There is probably more than a 2 stop advantage if you account for the pattern noise (which is much better in the 5D3 and 6D than it was in the 5D2). However, so far, IMO the this advantage does not appear to have had any dramatic effect on the artistic output based on the examples being kicked about.

To me the benefit would come when I am shooting events with flash. I could pull up some of the areas where the light fell off or touch up some fill (where I screwed up the settings perhaps). However, I can still do that with the 5DIII, I just wouldn't have to be as careful.

 David Hull's gear list:David Hull's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow