Digital Camera Sensor Performance

I've updated my digital sensor performance summary web page,
adding new sensor data (Canon 50D, 5D Mark II) to the figures and
more models to predict trends. For many parameters, like full
well capacity, signal-to-noise ratio, sensor unity gain, newer
camera sensors are following a close trend line, indicating a
maturing of the technology. For example, note how the Canon 1D Mark III,
5D Mark II, 40D, 50D, and Nikon D300 plot closely along trend lines
indicated by models. There are still significant differences in
read noise with the newest sensors reaching the 2.5 electron level.
The models are closely predicting performance with the major
factor still being the size of pixels (and corresponding size of
the sensor. The data also indicate that good 16-bit A/D converters
are needed in order to cover the high dynamic range of large pixel
sized sensors.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Pixel size matters, but other things, like low read noise are
important too.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
I've updated my digital sensor performance summary web page,

Thanks for your time and effort.

Definately a good news/bad news story for 5DII owners: cool that it has low
read noise, but there's lots of room for improvement at low ISOs.

For many parameters, like full
well capacity, signal-to-noise ratio, sensor unity gain, newer
camera sensors are following a close trend line, indicating a
maturing of the technology.

Yep. Except for read noise at low ISO, the current cameras are seriously
amazing.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Question: did you get a 5DII for your own use?

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

Question: did you get a 5DII for your own use?

David,
Yes. It's stunning. The test results are from my camera.
I've had it less than a week.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Question: did you get a 5DII for your own use?

David,
Yes. It's stunning. The test results are from my camera.
I've had it less than a week.

I've been agonizing over lenses so much that I haven't even made a print
from my 5DII yet. On the 5D, any old coke bottle would cough up lovely sharp
images (and I was amused at getting sharp images from cheap lenses), but the
5DII really notices the lens. Sigh. I'll go pick up a 70-200/4.0 IS this
weekend, and work with a 24TSE, 50/1.4, and 70-200 kit out in the
countryside next week.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:25:06 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

Question: did you get a 5DII for your own use?

David,
Yes. It's stunning. The test results are from my camera.
I've had it less than a week.

I've been agonizing over lenses so much that I haven't even made a print
from my 5DII yet. On the 5D, any old coke bottle would cough up lovely sharp
images (and I was amused at getting sharp images from cheap lenses), but the
5DII really notices the lens. Sigh. I'll go pick up a 70-200/4.0 IS this
weekend, and work with a 24TSE, 50/1.4, and 70-200 kit out in the
countryside next week.

Hmm. Several months ago when I said that the new high. res. FF
sensors might require better lenses, you immediately dismissed that
notion. Even Nikon's non-coke bottle 70-200mm lens could benefit
from an upgrade.

"ASAAR" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:25:06 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
I've been agonizing over lenses so much that I haven't even made a print
from my 5DII yet. On the 5D, any old coke bottle would cough up lovely
sharp
images (and I was amused at getting sharp images from cheap lenses), but
the
5DII really notices the lens. Sigh. I'll go pick up a 70-200/4.0 IS this
weekend, and work with a 24TSE, 50/1.4, and 70-200 kit out in the
countryside next week.

Hmm. Several months ago when I said that the new high. res. FF
sensors might require better lenses, you immediately dismissed that
notion.

I reserve the right to change my mind backg. Everyone disparages the Canon
24TSE, but mine seems to be doing fine on the 5DII. Sure, at 300% there's a
bit of CA, but LR's CA sliders clean it up nicely (even for shifted images),
and it's sharp out to the corners with 10mm of shift in landscape or 7mm in
portrait. (More than that and the CA gets really grody, though). And that's
at f/11.

But I also reserve the right to get even more fussy. Especially if Zeiss
releases the 21/2.8 and 35/2.0 in Canon mount versions.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
I've updated my digital sensor performance summary web page,
[]

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Pixel size matters, but other things, like low read noise are
important too.

Roger

Thanks for that, Roger, and for all the work which has gone into it.

Happy New Year!

David

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:21:41 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

Hmm. Several months ago when I said that the new high. res. FF
sensors might require better lenses, you immediately dismissed that
notion.

I reserve the right to change my mind backg.

Don't we all. Well, many of us if not all. At one time I thought
that only the smallest and lightest of DSLRs would have a spot in my
future. Now I have a D300 and use it more often than my D50 and P&S
cams. No large lenses though, but if I eat my Wheaties and Nikon
improves some of its longer lenses or adds f/4 versions . . .

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
I've updated my digital sensor performance summary web page,
adding new sensor data (Canon 50D, 5D Mark II) to the figures and
more models to predict trends. For many parameters, like full
well capacity, signal-to-noise ratio, sensor unity gain, newer
camera sensors are following a close trend line, indicating a
maturing of the technology. For example, note how the Canon 1D Mark III,
5D Mark II, 40D, 50D, and Nikon D300 plot closely along trend lines
indicated by models. There are still significant differences in
read noise with the newest sensors reaching the 2.5 electron level.
The models are closely predicting performance with the major
factor still being the size of pixels (and corresponding size of
the sensor. The data also indicate that good 16-bit A/D converters
are needed in order to cover the high dynamic range of large pixel
sized sensors.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Pixel size matters, but other things, like low read noise are
important too.

I've got to make some data sets for the a900 for you.

This week probably.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:

Yep. Except for read noise at low ISO, the current cameras are
seriously amazing.

The total read noise at ISO 100 isn't that bad (relatively speaking, of
course) on the 5D2, it's about 6 ADU (14-bit) as opposed to about 5 ADU
on the D3 and the 1D3. Then, when considering the influence of all the
extra pixels, the 5D2 has a lower image-integrated read noise. The real
problem, however, is the level of banding. In the ISO 100 blackframe I
have been playing with today, total blackframe noise is 6.18 ADU,
horizontal banding, isolated, is 0.83 ADU, and vertical banding is 1.18
ADU. When I subtract the two sets of banding masks from the original, I
am left with 6.04 ADU, which is only a 2.3% reduction in standard
deviation, but the visual difference is quite dramatic, especially when
you view the blackframe image at a very reduced size.

My diagnosis is that Canon is a totally braindead company, ruining
otherwise beautiful RAW output by gross negligence. Even if it is
difficult to avoid banding in the RAW capture, they could still put more
blind photosites, and on all 4 sides of the image, and set the
(converter) precedent of using that information on a line-by-line basis
to remove banding, which other 3rd-party converters would feel obliged
to match.

I am not so sure if I want a 5D2 anymore. I accepted some overtime at
work in the last few weeks to justify the camera as "free", and I know
it will outperform my 50D when I get to fill the frame, but between the
black dots, and the higher-than-expected banding (as well as a worthless
implementation of auto-ISO with flash and manual exposure), I feel like
a sucker buying one.