Not only that, I have posted a sample that shows pretty much the contrary. Additionally, the 1D MarkII/N collects about 80K photons at ISO75-80, which is about 0.30EV below ISO100 on the 30D (not counting 30D's extra +0.25EV of "sensitivity" over ISO100), which collects around 51K. And
it shows: our 1D MarkII-N keeps going where our 30D ends.
You are one of the few people I've seen raving about Canon's ISO 50 on the DSLRs. Most claim that DR is limited.
The read noise on recent Canon DSLRs drops significantly going from ISO 1600 to 800 to 400, and then level off at a minimum (possibly dictated by the ADC circuitry). The ISO 50 should have the same read-noise limit to shadow quality, plus it doesn't collect enough photons to get a full range of highlights. ISO 50 should only work much better than 100 for low-contrast or high-key subjects, and then you have to work to avoid clipping.
The camera really should have been ISO 64 as a base ISO; a real ISO at the non-standard value would create a minimum ISO without compromise. Just one of many bad decisions made by Canon.
Well, fact is they are not wasted. I already demonstrated it.
Nonsense, you just admitted that the 1DmkII collects about the same number of photons at the same ISO as the 20D, with a pixel coverage area 1.69x as large. This means that the 20D is 1.69x as efficient. Photons are turning into heat or reflecting back out through the lens in 1dMKII. That is inefficient. Canon is misrepresenting the facts about why the 1-series and 5D cameras can give bigger images than their APS DSLRs. The benefit is purely the sheer number of pixels for the 1DsmkII (and the 5d), and the lower demand made on the lenses by both 1-series cameras and the 5D. And, of course, lower read noise on the 1-series at ISOs 100and 200 (which is due to electronics, mainly).
John, the problem is that you have not been able to clearly and fully support your arguments with the necessary evidence, other than a general description of the issue. I chose, on the other hand, to resort to universally available sources that are, indeed, far better references than a simple personal opinion (including mine).
Did you even look closely at the cat pictures? The 10D, with its larger pixels and lower noise at the pixel level, is just as noisy in the real world with the same ratio of displayed size to sensor crop size. This illustrates that noise as determined by standard deviations, is only relevant for viewing pixels at a certain size in display. Standard deviation is only one parameter in *image* noise (even at the same pixel display size, visible noise is not directly related to standard deviation - there are different shapes and spectrums of noise). Take a 12x8 pixel crop of blue sky at a low ISO on your mkII, and upsample it to 1200x800 - all of a sudden, 100x100 tiles appear, with slight differences in color. You only failed to see the noise at normal size because the noise was small - the standard deviation hasn't changed.
Did you do what I suggested with Bart's water-tower images? Downsample a copy to 33%,and give it 1/3 the noise of the original, and then bring it back up to size?
The larger pixel does not win, not even in visible noise. Open your mind and open your eyes! This pixel-centric noise obsession is a disease, leading people to all kinds of false conclusions.
That, I believe, has little or nothing to do with "hiding" or anything like that. You are encouraged, as well, to give more consistency or validity to your points. That is all.
Well, you go off on a tangent with experiments that compare large sensors to small ones. How did you think that Roger's comparison of the 1DmkII and the S70 had anything to do with what I was talking about?
He is right, because when you work in Astro-imaging, *every single* pixel counts for anything you do, for anything you see. That is where Roger is coming from, which, by the way, is an application that pretty much challenges any sensor and technology out-there.
There are no cameras out there that have 47MP APS sensors or 120MP 36x24mm sensors; none that regular people can buy, anyway. That's why I have to do a simulation, and it really isn't much of a stretch: we just can't see the whole image.
It is, by far, a much more compelling background and show-case for what today sensors can or can not do, especially when compared to the image of a puppet that does not allow to draw any conclusion other than more pixel density means more resolution.
No, the most important point is that the larger-pixel camera has just as much noise, when the actual focal plane crops are magnified the same amount. Most analyses are concentrating on the Z-axis, and *TOTALLY* ignoring the X and Y factors of noise.
Again, please feel free to expand our view with a similarly compelling case or application, so I can see your points in motion, more clearly.
At this time, the results are clear and evident to me. And Canon seems to be working in the exact same direction.
What is "clear and evident"? How many experiments like mine have you seen? Most everyone, Roger included, is testing the wrong things if you would like to know what it would be like to have 9 pixels in the space of today's DSLR's one. Comparing similar FOVs from an S70 and a 1DmkII will never help with that.