How did we let image quality = high ISO noise control?

[tkbslc]

Am I the only one that thinks we made a big mistake by placing so much emphasis on high ISO noise control? It seems that as we get cameras with better noise control at ISO 800+, that noise at less than ISO 400 seems to be increasing. Yet if a compact camera can do a usable ISO 800 it is lauded, even if ISO 100 looks worse than cameras from 5 years ago. Easy example for compacts is Canon's new ELPH 100/300/500 line. ISO 1600 is actually usable. It's amazing to see. But then step outside in daylight and take a simple base ISO landscape shot and you will see mushy leaves, blown highlights, and just a general "blah" to the photos. It is almost a reverse of the 2007-2008 era Canon compacts at 7/8 MP. Those had insane detail and crispness as well as just a great overall look at ISO 80, but pure garbage by ISO 400.

I've seen similar from the new Sony Exmor R compacts, as well as any of the other "high sensitivity" compact. They are obviously trading low ISO for high. Is that what we want? Is that image quality progress to trade outdoor photos for decent indoor ones? I'd rather go back to red-eye flash photos indoors if I can't even use my camera for outdoor stuff like I used to.

 

[hjulenissen]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

-h

 

[Bluetrain048]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

Both directions, really. Significantly increased DR / reduced shadow noise at base ISO, and significantly reduced noise at higher ISO. So you get improvements in both worlds.

D

 

[bobn2]

Am I the only one that thinks we made a big mistake by placing so much emphasis on high ISO noise control? It seems that as we get cameras with better noise control at ISO 800+, that noise at less than ISO 400 seems to be increasing. Yet if a compact camera can do a usable ISO 800 it is lauded, even if ISO 100 looks worse than cameras from 5 years ago. Easy example for compacts is Canon's new ELPH 100/300/500 line. ISO 1600 is actually usable. It's amazing to see. But then step outside in daylight and take a simple base ISO landscape shot and you will see mushy leaves, blown highlights, and just a general "blah" to the photos. It is almost a reverse of the 2007-2008 era Canon compacts at 7/8 MP. Those had insane detail and crispness as well as just a great overall look at ISO 80, but pure garbage by ISO 400.

Really, I'd like to see an example, both of 'blah' and 'insane'. What are you comparing with what? Are you comparing like size images or are you peering at 100% crops.

I've seen similar from the new Sony Exmor R compacts, as well as any of the other "high sensitivity" compact. They are obviously trading low ISO for high.

This isn't so 'obvious'. There is no 'high' or 'low' ISO to trade. Any sensor in any camera operates just the same at any light level, the difference is in the way the signal from the pixel is processed. There are two major factors that affect the way a pixel works, its quantum efficiency and its read noise. Improvements in either of these improve the low light capability of a sensor, and also improve bright light capability. There is one technological development which might be affecting this, the move from CCD to CMOS for compact cameras. My impression is that current CMOS sensors have lower quantum efficiency, but also lower read noise. Since read noise is mainly the shadow noise, this will give them visibly better low light performance, and perhaps not quite as good bright light performance. Difficult to say without some examples.

--
Bob

 

[Steen Bay]

Am I the only one that thinks we made a big mistake by placing so much emphasis on high ISO noise control? It seems that as we get cameras with better noise control at ISO 800+, that noise at less than ISO 400 seems to be increasing. Yet if a compact camera can do a usable ISO 800 it is lauded, even if ISO 100 looks worse than cameras from 5 years ago. Easy example for compacts is Canon's new ELPH 100/300/500 line. ISO 1600 is actually usable. It's amazing to see. But then step outside in daylight and take a simple base ISO landscape shot and you will see mushy leaves, blown highlights, and just a general "blah" to the photos. It is almost a reverse of the 2007-2008 era Canon compacts at 7/8 MP. Those had insane detail and crispness as well as just a great overall look at ISO 80, but pure garbage by ISO 400.

Really, I'd like to see an example, both of 'blah' and 'insane'. What are you comparing with what? Are you comparing like size images or are you peering at 100% crops.

I've seen similar from the new Sony Exmor R compacts, as well as any of the other "high sensitivity" compact. They are obviously trading low ISO for high.

This isn't so 'obvious'. There is no 'high' or 'low' ISO to trade. Any sensor in any camera operates just the same at any light level, the difference is in the way the signal from the pixel is processed. There are two major factors that affect the way a pixel works, its quantum efficiency and its read noise. Improvements in either of these improve the low light capability of a sensor, and also improve bright light capability. There is one technological development which might be affecting this, the move from CCD to CMOS for compact cameras. My impression is that current CMOS sensors have lower quantum efficiency, but also lower read noise. Since read noise is mainly the shadow noise, this will give them visibly better low light performance, and perhaps not quite as good bright light performance. Difficult to say without some examples.

Could it be that the new small BSI CMOS sensors have relatively high read noise at base ISO, but low read noise at high ISOs? (like e.g. Canons bigger DSLR sensors have)

 

[Wheatfield]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5
--
Brian Schneider

 

[John Sheehy]

Could it be that the new small BSI CMOS sensors have relatively high read noise at base ISO, but low read noise at high ISOs? (like e.g. Canons bigger DSLR sensors have)

I have one Casio superzoom with a Sony 10.1MP 1/2.3" BSI sensor. It has RAW only at ISOs 100 and 200, but the read noise at 200 is almost a full 2x what it is at 100, nothing like Canon DSLR sensors.

It has lower read noise than any compact with RAW I have ever owned, about half as much as my G9 or Z50. At ISO 100, it has about the same pixel-level read noise, relative to saturation, as the better Canon DSLRs. Some of this noise is clearly unequal readout bias of lines, and if I decimate the RAW to a periodic subsampling, the read noise can drop even more, suggesting that the sensor is not being used fully to its potential.

I think you've already seen my comparison of it to my Canon 5D2 at high ISO, with the same area of sensor and exposure, and (real) focal length:



The 5D2's big pixels have no benefit here; you need the whole, big sensor to get its full benefit.

--
John

 

[John Sheehy]

I've seen similar from the new Sony Exmor R compacts, as well as any of the other "high sensitivity" compact. They are obviously trading low ISO for high. Is that what we want? Is that image quality progress to trade outdoor photos for decent indoor ones? I'd rather go back to red-eye flash photos indoors if I can't even use my camera for outdoor stuff like I used to.

The only systems that are designed for high ISOs are ones like Canon CMOS DSLRs and Nikon D3/D700 and D3s. Most other cameras have nearly exactly 16x the read noise at ISO 1600, compared to at ISO 100, including all compact sensors that I am aware of. Any benefits for most system go equally across the ISO range.

You're imagining things, or judging by high order abstractions like camera JPEGs.

--
John

 

[rsn48]

If you shot a lot of low light photos you'd understand the love for higher ISO. I do all my street photography at night and routinely shoot at IS0 3200.

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.

 

[bobn2]

Am I the only one that thinks we made a big mistake by placing so much emphasis on high ISO noise control? It seems that as we get cameras with better noise control at ISO 800+, that noise at less than ISO 400 seems to be increasing. Yet if a compact camera can do a usable ISO 800 it is lauded, even if ISO 100 looks worse than cameras from 5 years ago. Easy example for compacts is Canon's new ELPH 100/300/500 line. ISO 1600 is actually usable. It's amazing to see. But then step outside in daylight and take a simple base ISO landscape shot and you will see mushy leaves, blown highlights, and just a general "blah" to the photos. It is almost a reverse of the 2007-2008 era Canon compacts at 7/8 MP. Those had insane detail and crispness as well as just a great overall look at ISO 80, but pure garbage by ISO 400.

Really, I'd like to see an example, both of 'blah' and 'insane'. What are you comparing with what? Are you comparing like size images or are you peering at 100% crops.

I've seen similar from the new Sony Exmor R compacts, as well as any of the other "high sensitivity" compact. They are obviously trading low ISO for high.

This isn't so 'obvious'. There is no 'high' or 'low' ISO to trade. Any sensor in any camera operates just the same at any light level, the difference is in the way the signal from the pixel is processed. There are two major factors that affect the way a pixel works, its quantum efficiency and its read noise. Improvements in either of these improve the low light capability of a sensor, and also improve bright light capability. There is one technological development which might be affecting this, the move from CCD to CMOS for compact cameras. My impression is that current CMOS sensors have lower quantum efficiency, but also lower read noise. Since read noise is mainly the shadow noise, this will give them visibly better low light performance, and perhaps not quite as good bright light performance. Difficult to say without some examples.

Could it be that the new small BSI CMOS sensors have relatively high read noise at base ISO, but low read noise at high ISOs? (like e.g. Canons bigger DSLR sensors have)

Not the Sony ones, they use Sony Exmor column converters. If the sensors in the new Canons are Canons (I don't know) it's very possible, and also unlikely they're using BSI, Not sure again, but I don't think that Canon has BSI.

--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5

Yeah, but shooting anything other than rings, the K-5 is a pretty sweet camera.

--
Bob

 

[amicus70]

I'm sorry, but I think this discussion about noise is mainly irrelevant.

Sure it's important and in no way arguable that you don't want any noise at iso 800.

But remember the times you used these metal tubes with a film inside... ;-) You could see the grain in high iso-films. There is no difference to the noise in digital photography. So you used a flash or took a low-iso-film and a long exposure and a tripod and ... Why don't you just use this old-school-equipment to avoid the noise?

You see, I'm no fan of high-iso. My Pentax K7 is limited to iso 800, my Digilux 2 is limited to iso 200 and all my other cameras are although limitied to iso 400 or 800. And they work perfectly.

 

[Wheatfield]

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5

That would mean using those crappy Canon lenses. You should switch back to Pentax and start using good glass again.

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5

Yeah, but shooting anything other than rings, the K-5 is a pretty sweet camera.

--
Bob

Yes it is, Wheat is a pal of mine, we tease each other all the time.
--
Brian Schneider

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5

That would mean using those crappy Canon lenses. You should switch back to Pentax and start using good glass again.

Let me think about that...........umm no.
--
Brian Schneider

 

[bobn2]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5

Yeah, but shooting anything other than rings, the K-5 is a pretty sweet camera.

--
Bob

Yes it is, Wheat is a pal of mine, we tease each other all the time.

Sorry, hadn't realised I was intruding on a private joke.
--
Bob

 

[commiebiker]

I'm sorry, but I think this discussion about noise is mainly irrelevant.

Sure it's important and in no way arguable that you don't want any noise at iso 800.

But remember the times you used these metal tubes with a film inside... ;-) You could see the grain in high iso-films. There is no difference to the noise in digital photography. So you used a flash or took a low-iso-film and a long exposure and a tripod and ... Why don't you just use this old-school-equipment to avoid the noise?

You see, I'm no fan of high-iso. My Pentax K7 is limited to iso 800, my Digilux 2 is limited to iso 200 and all my other cameras are although limitied to iso 400 or 800. And they work perfectly.

You might be more of a fan if you had an opportunity to try it.

 

[Great Bustard]

Yes it is, Wheat is a pal of mine, we tease each other all the time.

Sorry, hadn't realised I was intruding on a private joke.

Make him a sandwich and call it even.

 

[Brian D. Schneider]

The Sony sensor used in e.g. the Nikon D7000 seems to be going in the other direction.

+1. Nikon is doing really well with that sensor, and Pentax is actually getting better performance off of the similar sensor in the K5.

Hey Wheatfield you should change to Canon. My 7D can shoot rings around that clunky K5

Yeah, but shooting anything other than rings, the K-5 is a pretty sweet camera.

--
Bob

Yes it is, Wheat is a pal of mine, we tease each other all the time.

Sorry, hadn't realised I was intruding on a private joke.
--
Bob

Seriously, if all my canon stuff weas stolen I would look quite sreiously at the K5 & a few of those limeted primes as replacement. (shh, don't tell Wheatfield I said that)
--
Brian Schneider