70D Dynamic Range is actually great, despite what DXOMark says

Started Jan 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
rwbaron Forum Pro • Posts: 14,211
Re: 70D Dynamic Range is actually great, despite what DXOMark says

David Hull wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

David Hull wrote:

So here is a question for you: As you say, the effective system noise (camera noise, if you will) is higher at ISO 100, so tell me how Canon would fix it. in other words, based on the DxO data and the Sensorgen information based on it, what part of the Canon architecture needs to be improved?

I called that read noise, not system noise, and they should improve the readout circuit. It is trivial and not worth discussing.

When you measure it, you do not know where it is coming from (but we have additional info indicating what is going on). What Sensorgen does it to model it as additive noise and a multiplicative one, and fit a curve. Then they report the additive noise as "read noise".

He isn't really modeling anything, he is taking the DxO information and presenting it in a different perspective, one which makes it a bit easier to see what is really going on in the camera. It is certainly read noise but it is not coming from the sensor, it is not trivial and it IS worth discussing for those who want to understand what is really going on in the camera. If you want to understand that DxO DR curve and why it looks the way it does, you have to take the time to understand the camera's electrical implementation, the noise line up etc.

I think one of the things that Canon grapples with is that they do have a very good sensor technology (and have had it longer than anyone else). Their chosen implementation is sub par to the competition in two areas which manifest primarily at low gain settings. However, at the other end (where probably the bulk of people use the camera) they are fine.

Some of us want to know the why behind the what, for those it probably IS worth discussing. My point was simple, the sensor is just part of the imaging system, and in the case of Canon, it does not appear to be the root cause of the low ISO deficiencies that everyone like to point out in these threads.

David,

I wonder if Canon might implement a work around for this problem. From what I've seen of the early implementation of Magic Lantern's dual iso it looks very impressive.  I've not taken the time to fully understand Canon's 20 MP dual pixel sensor but possibly they could implement a better dual iso capability and still maintain full resolution but maybe I've missed something about that sensor's design.  I'd rather have the cleaner signal and extended DR at low ISO but if dual iso can be made to work as well or better for the same purpose and not sacrifice resolution then I'd be perfectly happy.  One forum member has ML's dual iso loaded in his 5D2 and has made some ISO 100 comparison's to his D600 and the 5D2/ML results look better IMO.  The downside is there's some loss of resolution but he isn't concerned because detail in shadow content isn't that obvious.

Bob

-- hide signature --
 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow