Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Canon Eos Mount DSLRs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 25th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Ron Morse Ron Morse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 753
Default 40D review by Phil Askey

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/
__________________
Somehow the more that I learn, the less I find that I know.

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 27th, 2007, 02:25 PM
Dawid Loubser Dawid Loubser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 585
Default

I find it interesting that the 40D does not appear to fare any better, noise-wise, than the (already excellent) 30D - again, Canon sacrifices advances in high-ISO sensitivity to resolution. Then again, I guess, they have 'improved' it since they kept noise constant despite an additional 2 Megapixels.

Am I correct in assuming that the 1D MkII / MkIIN still performs better at high ISO? (because of the larger photosites). I still do wish that, whatever Canon does with the replacement to the 5D, they'd keep resolution the same and improve the noise performance substantially (keep the niche as a great low-light camera). I'd hate to see a 16Mp model that has the same 'per-pixel' performance as the outgoing model - ala the 40D situation.

On the other hand, a 16MP or so model, with the same excellent performance as the 1D MKIII, and with a 8MP or so 'Small RAW' mode, should do the trick nicely for those of us that don't want higher resolution, but even better ISO3200! I imagine perceived noise in a SRAW image is very good, because one is effectively 'binning' pixels?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 27th, 2007, 06:02 PM
John Sheehy John Sheehy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 394
Default

This post was moved to its reply

Last edited by John Sheehy; October 27th, 2007 at 06:12 PM. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 27th, 2007, 06:11 PM
John Sheehy John Sheehy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sheehy View Post
Pixel noise actually increases a little bit at ISO 1600 at the pixel level.
I am sorry, I posted my original reply when it was mal-formatted and had some errors in it, and I have tried to edit it but it looks like the forum's edit function is inoperable at this time. The edits never send.

So, let me put the body again here, and I will get rid of the body of the other post when I can edit again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawid Loubser View Post
I find it interesting that the 40D does not appear to fare any better, noise-wise, than the (already excellent) 30D - again, Canon sacrifices advances in high-ISO sensitivity to resolution. Then again, I guess, they have 'improved' it since they kept noise constant despite an additional 2 Megapixels.
Pixel noise actually increases a little bit at ISO 1600 at the pixel level, but not little enough to be cancelled by the extra pixels. Banding seems to be a bit weaker though, so in some ways you might say the noise isthe same or a little less for the 40D. ISO 100 noise is much lower, though, relative to the RAW clipping point; down to near-1D* levels. There should be about 1/2 stop more RAW DR at ISO 100.

Quote:
Am I correct in assuming that the 1D MkII / MkIIN still performs better at high ISO?
They have the same RAW pixel noise levels as the 20D/30D at ISO 1600, and 1/2 stop less at ISO 100, so they are about similar for image noise at 1600, and slightly inferior to the 40D at ISO 100, electrically. Optically, however, they have a weaker AA filter and have a higher pixel pitch, so they are generally sharpened less and therefore have their noise sharpened less as well. Lots of factors here; no simple answers.

Quote:
(because of the larger photosites).
The larger photosites gave no photon advantage to the 1D cameras at any ISO as opposed to the 20D and 30D, because their quantum efficiency is rather low. With the newer series, however, it looks like Canon is starting to hit a wall with their multiple-transistors-at-each-photosite technology. The mk3 had room left for improvement, the 40D did not. The mk3 maintained full well capacity per pixel over the mk2; the 40D does not, over the 20D/40D. The 40D seems to drop full well capacity inversely proportional to megapixel increase (pixels increased 1.25x, photons per pixel divided by 1.25).

Quote:
I still do wish that, whatever Canon does with the replacement to the 5D, they'd keep resolution the same and improve the noise performance substantially (keep the niche as a great low-light camera). I'd hate to see a 16Mp model that has the same 'per-pixel' performance as the outgoing model - ala the 40D situation.
Well, it would take 26 MP to fill a 36x24mm frame with 40D pixels. I really don't think that a 26MP fullframe with 40D pixel quality would be something bad. Those extra pixels result in less image noise than the pixel noise would suggest. Look at my Panny FZ50, looking at it at 100% zoom, with minimum noise reduction in the JPEGs, I can see chromatic noise in the midtones at ISO 100. Downsample properly (NO NEAREST NEIGHBOR OR HYBRIDS!) to fill the 1600*1050 LCD screen, however, the noise completely disappears, as far as can be seen. The same thing happens when you print or view a 26MP image at the same size you'd view a 12MP; the extra noise of those pixels is probably so much less that the increase in pixels results in lower *image* noise.

Try it yourself; take a 40D high-ISO image, downsample it properly to display it, or print it at 39% the area that you'd normally display a full print. The noise at the viewing level will be less than it is when viewing most other cameras' images at the fuller size. Or stitch together enough pixels from 40D images to make a 26MP.

On the other hand, a 16MP or so model, with the same excellent performance as the 1D MKIII, and with an 8MP or so 'Small RAW' mode, should do the trick nicely for those of us that don't want higher resolution, but even better ISO3200! I imagine perceived noise in a SRAW image is very good, because one is effectively 'binning' pixels?[/QUOTE]

Keeping the pixel pitch coarse does still have benefits for ISO 1600, 3200, etc, because it gives Canon more room to place high-gain transistors and better quality traces. The trade-off is that there seems to be a very hard limit with current technology concerning how low you can get read noise at ISO 100. A full-frame sensor filled with pixels and circuitry from an FZ50 would have more image DR than a 16MP 5D2 at ISO 100, if you compensated for the extra pixel readout with parallelization (to keep the pixel read noise as low as it is on the FZ50, which is actually quite low). Lacking optimization for high ISO, however, the FF filled with FZ50 pixels would have about a stop higher *image* read noise than what the 1Dmk3 is doing now at ISO 1600 and 3200.

I just want to make it clear that when I speak of image-level DR, I totally reject the idea as popularized by Roger Clark that pixel noise relative to pixel capacity directly determines RAW image DR. Pixel DR has to be scaled by the displayed pixel pitch to describe image DR properly. The only problem with a lot more pixels with slightly more read noise each (shot noise has no relevance here, as shot noise never results in photon captures less than zero photons, while read noise results in negative "photons") is that if you clip the RAW data at the blackpoint (and most brands of DSLR do this before they give you the RAW file - not Canon, though), there will be a non-linearity in the mean luminance as you approach optical black. This, however, can be profiled for cameras based on their read noise level and compensated, and negative noise can actually be fabricated (by making a certain percentage of pixels with a RAW value of zero a negative number) to keep the mean closer to linearity near black, allowing converters to generate color at a lower resolution without biases due to white balancing.

As you can see, I have a lot of thoughts on these subjects, but they're probably hard to follow. I've simulated or tested everything I've said here, however, and found it all to be true, even if sometimes subtle in effect.

In summary, my main point is that ISO 100 image quality can improve with more and smaller pixels (even when each has more noise relative to saturation), while Canon-style high ISO may already be hitting a noise wall.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 28th, 2007, 05:20 AM
John_Nevill John_Nevill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 581
Default

It's interesting to note that the 40D's DR is up by almost a stop, at ~9.1EV, with the bulk of the gain being in shadow regions.
I bet it wont be long before we see dSLR's approaching ~11EV pushing DR to 2000:1.
Things are looking promising.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 31st, 2007, 09:53 AM
Emil Martinec Emil Martinec is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Nevill View Post
It's interesting to note that the 40D's DR is up by almost a stop, at ~9.1EV, with the bulk of the gain being in shadow regions.
I bet it wont be long before we see dSLR's approaching ~11EV pushing DR to 2000:1.
Things are looking promising.
The 9.1EV figure quoted for jpegs has more to do with the jpeg engine than the native DR of the sensor, which actually *is* 11 stops. The jpegs deliver less because the Digic 3 chooses to clip the whites and blacks substantially below the clipping point and above the noise floor, respectively. You can already get 11 stops by shooting raw, it has been the case with the 1 series for a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 28th, 2007, 08:29 AM
Dawid Loubser Dawid Loubser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sheehy View Post
As you can see, I have a lot of thoughts on these subjects, but they're probably hard to follow. I've simulated or tested everything I've said here, however, and found it all to be true, even if sometimes subtle in effect.
Thank you for your very detailed response, John. Not difficult to follow at all, and very much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 28th, 2007, 08:03 PM
John Sheehy John Sheehy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawid Loubser View Post
Thank you for your very detailed response, John. Not difficult to follow at all, and very much appreciated.
Looks like the "edit" problem was partly on my end. I was hitting "save". I had to hit "edit" to effect the change ... strange to use the same word to effect an edit as to initiate it.

Still, I left the second post malformed, leaving one of your paragraphs as if it were mine, and I never replied to it:

Quote:
On the other hand, a 16MP or so model, with the same excellent performance as the 1D MKIII, and with an 8MP or so 'Small RAW' mode, should do the trick nicely for those of us that don't want higher resolution, but even better ISO3200! I imagine perceived noise in a SRAW image is very good, because one is effectively 'binning' pixels?
After a lot of experimentation with post-capture binning, I have come to the conclusion that it really doesn't decrease noise at all, *image*-wise. It only decreases the noise if you display it at the same pixel magnification as the original. The binned image is just as noisy, and clearly less detailed, at the same size. Binning is a good storage solution, and is fine if you don't want the full resolution (or the capture isn't worthy of it), but doesn't really reduce image noise. When done on the sensor, before readout, it reduces full image read noise, but does not reduce full image shot noise at all.

To demonstrate the effects of binning without changing the image or subject size, you can load a noisy image into phtoshop (or equivalent) and use filter|pixelate|mosaic, which is basically the same thing as binning, and upsizing, except that the image is pixelated and the bit depth does not increase, but if the image looks noisy, bit depth is not a major issue for that image.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!