One upmanship and Canon's claim

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:10:22 -0700, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:16:46 -0700, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
: number wrote:
: Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
: It's not advisable to use canned air to clear dust out of a DSLR,
: especially on the sensor.
:
: The only problem with canned air is when you tip the can ...
:
: And so Mark passes up another opportunity to tell us how he made out
: with his 1D3 at Canon's Irvine shop last week. I'm encouraged by
: that. Mark wasn't at all reticent to say what he thought of the 1D3's
: autofocus problem and Canon's initially passive reaction to it. His
: silence now suggests to me that the folks at Irvine found a way to
: ensure that the AF problem won't spoil his Africa trip. They would
: almost certainly have asked him not to advertise it widely, lest all
: 1D3 owners start beating down their door.
:
: Bob
:
: You'e good. -Except that there are still problems. I've wanted to type it
: all out, but it will take some doing... Long story. Very interesting,
: though. I'll try to do it today...though I'm REALLY struggling to be ready
: in time for my flght tomorrow...

Keep your priorities in order. We'll wait 'til you get back.

Bob

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Mark² mjmorgan@cox wrote:

Carrying a handgun would drop me right into an ex-soviet prison...

Be secure. Beware of other drivers. Invest into passive security.
Never have to worry about bad streets or mud holes or finding
no parking space. Never worry about the occasional firefight
in the neighbourhood again. Make sure noone will steal your
vehicle and escape unnoticed. Sleep asured, knowing that only
very professional thieves can enter your vehicle --- and that
the police will notice in time. Crush your competition completely.
Drive a tank.
APDS-ammo optional.

-Wolfgang

No worries... -This piece of camera gear will protect me...
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79464112/original

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:10:22 -0700, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 23:16:46 -0700, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
It's not advisable to use canned air to clear dust out of a DSLR,
especially on the sensor.

The only problem with canned air is when you tip the can ...

And so Mark passes up another opportunity to tell us how he made out
with his 1D3 at Canon's Irvine shop last week. I'm encouraged by
that. Mark wasn't at all reticent to say what he thought of the
1D3's autofocus problem and Canon's initially passive reaction to
it. His silence now suggests to me that the folks at Irvine found a
way to ensure that the AF problem won't spoil his Africa trip. They
would almost certainly have asked him not to advertise it widely,
lest all 1D3 owners start beating down their door.

Bob

You'e good. -Except that there are still problems. I've wanted to
type it all out, but it will take some doing... Long story. Very
interesting, though. I'll try to do it today...though I'm REALLY
struggling to be ready in time for my flght tomorrow...

Keep your priorities in order. We'll wait 'til you get back.

Bob

Thanks. A good reminder, as I get far too carried away fiddling with
doo-dads, etc., while my basics (clothes, etc.) remain un-packed...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

(and our cameras will be imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make
read and thermal noise zero.


Boltzman says no-can-do. You could always add heat removal but it's
unlikely that you can cool an entire portable camera sensor to milli-K
levels.


It need not violate any physics,

I didn't say "violate" just that you need very low temps...

and I should have said
effectively zero, not absolutely. Read noise in the
best consumer cameras is already under 4 electrons
at room temperature and reports are reportedly even lower
in the 1D Mark III. With more accurate 18-bit converters
and on-pixel electronics, 1 electron read noise is possible.

I was under the impression that absent very cold temps, that noise
(thermal at least) is simply unavoidable. If 18 bits/channel is
achieved and you throw away a couple/3 bits per channel for noise, then
whatever is left should be quite clean indeed.

Thermal noise keeps getting better with each generation
sensor. Cooled CCDs reached the level of one electron/hour thermal
dark current a long time ago, and DSLR CMOS dark currents are
less than a thousand electrons/hour already at ambient temperatures
(and noise is square root dark current). These are great values
already, even without any improvements!
Line and pixel uniformity is improving too with each generation,
but is already outstanding. Most digital camera imaging
has noise limited by photon noise, not other sources, so even
with improvements, most images will see little difference.


--
-- 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.

In article ,
Robert Coe wrote:

The only problem with canned air is when you tip the can ...

No, that is one problem, the others are numerous. They include the fact
that canned air can "spit" propellent at any time. Especially as the
pressure in the can drops. Other problems include the fact that it is
pressurized that is why some countries, like the USA, prohibit shipping
it by air. Ground shipping only. Of course TSA does not want
pressurized, sometimes flammable, gases on aircraft either. And then
you, or others, can inhale the fumes - there have been recorded deaths
among kids who do inhale the gas for a high.

A good air blower like the Giottos has no pressurized gas in it, work at
any angle, never run out of air, can't explode, can be shipped by air,
do not proscribe any TSA regulations, have no flammable contents and put
out as much pressure on average as a can of air over the can's usable
life.

And it is far less expensive in the long run since it does not run out
of air and need replacement - unless you lose it.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Alan Browne wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

(and our cameras will be imaging spectrometers too). Oh, and make
read and thermal noise zero.


Boltzman says no-can-do. You could always add heat removal but it's
unlikely that you can cool an entire portable camera sensor to
milli-K levels.


It need not violate any physics,

I didn't say "violate" just that you need very low temps...

and I should have said
effectively zero, not absolutely. Read noise in the
best consumer cameras is already under 4 electrons
at room temperature and reports are reportedly even lower
in the 1D Mark III. With more accurate 18-bit converters
and on-pixel electronics, 1 electron read noise is possible.

I was under the impression that absent very cold temps, that noise
(thermal at least) is simply unavoidable. If 18 bits/channel is
achieved and you throw away a couple/3 bits per channel for noise, then
whatever is left should be quite clean indeed.

The noise is dependent on temperature, as well as capacitance
and resistance. So instead of reducing temperature, for
example, one could reduce one of the other parameters
that determine noise. A good explanation with
equations is he

Concepts in Digital Imaging Technology
CCD Noise Sources and Signal-to-Noise Ratio
http://learn.hamamatsu.com/articles/ccdsnr.html

(Hamamatsu is a sensor manufacturer.)

Of course none of this is easy, as designs are quite mature.
But that doesn't mean a new design won't come along that
improves things. But since most images have noise dominated
by photon noise, most people will see little difference.
The main performance factors in digital cameras a
pixel size, quantum efficiency (pretty much the same across
current digital cameras). So we are down to pixel size as the
major factor in performance at present. Of course the camera
manufacturers don't want you to hear that. ;-)

Roger

RichA wrote:
"Someone" posted that Canon said the new 1DMkIII has the finest images
of an DSLR, even better than their current FF models. I do not know
if this is true. But if it is, does it matter much? By Sept or so, a
new 5D (7D) will be out and it will likely be the number one imager at
that time. Then a new 1Ds will come out, and so on. Is there a point
in stating something is "the best" only to have it usurped of it's
title 4-6 months later? Why not just say that anything beyond 1.5 is
going to produce exceptional images and it is the other features of
the camera that should determine which one you buy, at least until
something really exceptional comes along?

So if that's the case why has Canon recalled the product?

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:11:10 -0400, Spam THis dev/null wrote:
: RichA wrote:
: "Someone" posted that Canon said the new 1DMkIII has the finest images
: of an DSLR, even better than their current FF models. I do not know
: if this is true. But if it is, does it matter much? By Sept or so, a
: new 5D (7D) will be out and it will likely be the number one imager at
: that time. Then a new 1Ds will come out, and so on. Is there a point
: in stating something is "the best" only to have it usurped of it's
: title 4-6 months later? Why not just say that anything beyond 1.5 is
: going to produce exceptional images and it is the other features of
: the camera that should determine which one you buy, at least until
: something really exceptional comes along?
:
: So if that's the case why has Canon recalled the product?

Have they? I don't see it mentioned on their Web site. There's a "product
advisory" for the 1D3, but it has nothing to do with the autofocus problem.

Bob

On Jul 8, 10:17 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
I agree. I got my 1D Mark II in summer 2004, sometime after
it was first introduced. It still works great, and at the moment
better then 1D3's, and still has over half its original value,
over 3 years later. The market has matured.

Roger

This is a good news bad news kind of thing. We bought a 20D 2 1/2 years
ago and it is still a very capable camera and holds up very well to the
30D. So it is nice that the camera is not totally obsolete. The down
side is that I can't buy a FF digital for $1500. In the early years the
resolution of the cameras I bought went like this, 0.3 MP 1.2 MP 3.2MP
and 8MP. Each time going up by a factor of well over 2, that trend
ended in 2004, if it had not I would be shooting with a 24MP full frame
camera right now and I would have paid about $1000 for it.

I agree. I think there are two things limiting full frame
prices: 1)no competition (Canon is it), and 2) cost of a wafer
run is still very high. I remember seeing a figure that a
12-inch wafer run costs about $10,000 (if someone knows a better
number, please let me know). So how many full-frame sensors fit
on a 12-diameter disk (not many). Thus cost per sensor remains high.
From one news report I saw, Canon refined the process to get
far fewer defects per wafer, thus increasing yield. That allowed
the 5D price to be so low.


I can believe this, because a really good FF sensor (few flaws) would
cost more than a 1DsMkII.
As they do in industrial CCD cameras. That Canon is able to churn
out working sensors in good numbers is lucky for users.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:56:18 -0700, RichA wrote:

I agree. I think there are two things limiting full frame
prices: 1)no competition (Canon is it), and 2) cost of a wafer
run is still very high. I remember seeing a figure that a
12-inch wafer run costs about $10,000 (if someone knows a better
number, please let me know). So how many full-frame sensors fit
on a 12-diameter disk (not many). Thus cost per sensor remains high.
From one news report I saw, Canon refined the process to get
far fewer defects per wafer, thus increasing yield. That allowed
the 5D price to be so low.

I can believe this, because a really good FF sensor (few flaws) would
cost more than a 1DsMkII.

Then you'll believe anything, but we already know that.
Roger's $10,000 estimate is probably ball park accurate, as is
Allen's estimate of somewhat less than 50 FF sensors per 12" wafer.
If the final yield is only 40 FF sensors per wafer, the cost would
be $10,000 / 40, or $250 per sensor. even if you quadruple the cost
to take into account additional manufacturing costs and desired
profits, you're not going to come close to the cost of a 1DsMkII.
Or are you saying that the FF sensors that Canon puts into their
cameras are the cheaper ones that have many flaws and that they
really aren't very good?