EOS 20D Low Noise

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by des, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. des

    des Guest

    According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
     
    des, Aug 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. des

    Steve Guest

    Hwere did you see this, if so great.

    ..
    "des" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    > are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    > at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
     
    Steve, Aug 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Steve" <> wrote:

    > Where did you see this, if so great.


    I think Imaging Resource is saying the higher ISOs look amazing, but
    Luminous Landscape has them being essentially identical. The latter sounds
    more likely<g>.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan

    > "des" <> wrote in message
    > > According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    > > are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    > > at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 20, 2004
    #3
  4. des

    des Guest

    In article <m_bVc.2530$9d6.2186@attbi_s54>, says...
    > Hwere did you see this, if so great.
    >
    > .
    > "des" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    > > are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    > > at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

    >
    >
    >


    http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html
     
    des, Aug 20, 2004
    #4
  5. des

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Aug 20, 2004
    #5
  6. des

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:

    > des <> wrote:
    >
    >>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    >>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    >>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

    >
    >
    > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    > pixel count) ?


    o New CMOS imager
    o New processing firmware.

    How can we think improvements have topped out with the 10D/300D?

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Aug 20, 2004
    #6
  7. des

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that Alfred Molon <> stated
    that:

    >des <> wrote:
    >>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    >>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    >>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

    >
    >How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    >pixel count) ?


    Better processing on the analog side, presumably, as with the 1DMkII.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 20, 2004
    #7
  8. des

    PlaneGuy Guest

    Easy - two years newer technology, which means larger micro-lenses, and also
    less transistors in the pixels. The first means less light is lost between
    the pixels, the second means the physical size of the pixels can be larger,
    despite the pixel pitch being closer together.
     
    PlaneGuy, Aug 20, 2004
    #8
  9. des

    Rob Davison Guest

    wrote:
    > Kibo informs me that Alfred Molon <> stated
    > that:
    >
    >
    >>des <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    >>>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    >>>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

    >>
    >>How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    >>pixel count) ?

    >
    >
    > Better processing on the analog side, presumably, as with the 1DMkII.


    I'm doubtful. If it were true I'd be really tempted. The 1D-II has a
    much larger sensor and the same imaging chip as the 20D. At ISO 1600
    is it as good as the 10D at 400?

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page18.asp

    The different size and layout of the crops makes it a bit hard to judge
    from these pages but I'd say not. I think the 1D-II at 1600 might be
    fairly close to the 10D at 800, but not 400.


    Rob.
    --
     
    Rob Davison, Aug 20, 2004
    #9
  10. des

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that Rob Davison <> stated
    that:

    > wrote:
    >> Kibo informs me that Alfred Molon <> stated
    >> that:
    >>
    >>
    >>>des <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    >>>>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    >>>>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
    >>>
    >>>How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    >>>pixel count) ?

    >>
    >>
    >> Better processing on the analog side, presumably, as with the 1DMkII.

    >
    >I'm doubtful. If it were true I'd be really tempted. The 1D-II has a
    >much larger sensor and the same imaging chip as the 20D.


    No, it's a different sensor. The 20D is a 1.6x crop, vs the 1DMkII 1.3x
    crop. The on-sensor processing system is different as well.

    > At ISO 1600
    >is it as good as the 10D at 400?


    According to Canon & Rob Galbraith, yes:
    <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153-7154>
    "Canon is promising that, because of the newly-developed noise
    processing and other sensor design changes that 20D noise levels at ISO
    1600 will roughly match the 10D at ISO 400"
    If that's true, I'm very impressed, because I use my 10D a *lot* at ISO
    400-1600, & ISO 1600 on the 10D is quite usable for my photography, &
    ISO 400 is very good indeed.
    The single 'gotcha' I can find on the 20D so far is that it's buffer in
    RAW mode is about the same as on the 10D, which I suspect is an
    artifical limitation to prevent it from competing with the 1DMkII.

    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp
    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page18.asp
    >
    >The different size and layout of the crops makes it a bit hard to judge
    >from these pages but I'd say not. I think the 1D-II at 1600 might be
    >fairly close to the 10D at 800, but not 400.


    Bear in mind that DPreview used their newer testing method on the
    1DMkII, so you can't compare the 10D & 1DMkII results directly. If you
    look at the top of the first link you quoted, you'll find that they have
    a notice there pointing that out. ;)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 20, 2004
    #10
  11. des

    Rob Davison Guest

    wrote:

    > Kibo informs me that Rob Davison <> stated
    > that:
    >
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Kibo informs me that Alfred Molon <> stated
    >>>that:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>des <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    >>>>>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    >>>>>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
    >>>>
    >>>>How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    >>>>pixel count) ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Better processing on the analog side, presumably, as with the 1DMkII.

    >>
    >>I'm doubtful. If it were true I'd be really tempted. The 1D-II has a
    >>much larger sensor and the same imaging chip as the 20D.

    >
    >
    > No, it's a different sensor.


    I was talking about DIGIC-II. Somehow 'image processing' got turned
    into 'Imaging'. Sorry.

    I do realise the sensors are different. The 1D-II sensor being larger
    should make for cleaner pixels was the gist of my argument.

    >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page18.asp
    >>
    >>The different size and layout of the crops makes it a bit hard to judge

    >
    >>from these pages but I'd say not. I think the 1D-II at 1600 might be

    >
    >>fairly close to the 10D at 800, but not 400.

    >
    >
    > Bear in mind that DPreview used their newer testing method on the
    > 1DMkII, so you can't compare the 10D & 1DMkII results directly. If you
    > look at the top of the first link you quoted, you'll find that they have
    > a notice there pointing that out. ;)


    :)

    Scrolling down I see the 10D is included in the luminance noise graph
    on that page.

    I'll be keen to see the test results for a production 20D but at the
    moment I'm still just a bit doubtful about this claim.

    My credit card hopes its all hyperbole for a start... :)


    Rob.
    --
     
    Rob Davison, Aug 20, 2004
    #11
  12. des

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <IZiVc.15612$>,
    Rob Davison <> wrote:
    >> No, it's a different sensor.

    >
    >I was talking about DIGIC-II. Somehow 'image processing' got turned
    >into 'Imaging'. Sorry.
    >
    >I do realise the sensors are different. The 1D-II sensor being larger
    >should make for cleaner pixels was the gist of my argument.


    There's some mutterings about new microlenses, so perhaps that has something
    to do with it. Also, some of the 10D noise was due to the electronics in the
    camera, and better shielding could reduce that.

    The point is that there's no reason to assume that thne 10D and 300D had the
    lowest noise possible for their pixel size. If Canon have managed to improve
    their technology by a greater extent than the increase in noise inherrent in
    using smaller pixels (and therefore capturing fewer photons for a given
    exposure), then there can still be a net benefit.

    Now what would be interesting is a full-frame camera with this pixel pitch.
    It would weigh in at 20.5 megapixels.
     
    Chris Brown, Aug 20, 2004
    #12
  13. des

    Marli Guest

    Easy. Its called better technology


    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > des <> wrote:
    > >According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    > >are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    > >at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

    >
    > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    > pixel count) ?
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    > Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    > Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Marli, Aug 20, 2004
    #13
  14. des

    Mitch Alsup Guest

    Phil Wheeler <> wrote in message news:<fCfVc.8688$>...
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    > > des <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    > >>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    > >>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..

    > >
    > >
    > > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    > > pixel count) ?

    >
    > o New CMOS imager
    > o New processing firmware.
    >
    > How can we think improvements have topped out with the 10D/300D?
    >
    > Phil


    Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
    with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
    where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
    as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
    using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
    transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
    from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
    as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
    has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.

    If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
    technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
    years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.

    Mitch
     
    Mitch Alsup, Aug 20, 2004
    #14
  15. des

    des Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Phil Wheeler <> wrote in message news:<fCfVc.8688$>...
    > > Alfred Molon wrote:
    > >
    > > > des <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>According to Canon press release images taken at ISO 1600 with the 20D
    > > >>are approximately equal in noise to those taken with the EOS 10D model
    > > >>at ISO 400. Pretty impressive if true..
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    > > > pixel count) ?

    > >
    > > o New CMOS imager
    > > o New processing firmware.
    > >
    > > How can we think improvements have topped out with the 10D/300D?
    > >
    > > Phil

    >
    > Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
    > with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
    > where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
    > as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
    > using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
    > transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
    > from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
    > as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
    > has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
    >
    > If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
    > technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
    > years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.
    >
    > Mitch
    >


    I agree. Everyone seems to assume that progress in quality means bigger
    sensor. Of coarse when it comes to digital that isn't the case. Kind
    of like thinking that the old computer which took a warehouse to fit in
    had to get bigger to be better. Now a better computer sits in my lap.
    Canon is releasing new EF-S lenses probably knowing that 1.6x will be
    plenty large for the future.
     
    des, Aug 20, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    says...
    > How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    > pixel count) ?


    Because Canon kicks noise's ass?
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
    #16
  17. des

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Mitch Alsup <> wrote:

    >Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
    >with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
    >where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
    >as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
    >using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
    >transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
    >from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
    >as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
    >has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
    >
    >If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
    >technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
    >years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.


    That's all fine, but then why doesn't the more advanced 2/3" CCD of the
    8MP prosumer cameras have less noise than the 1/1.8" CCD of 5MP prosumer
    cameras ?

    Cell size is almost the same (2.8 micrometer for the 5MP CCD, 2.7 for
    the 8MP one). But a test shows that the 8MP CCD has slightly higher
    noise levels - the 8MP CCD has at ISO 50 the same noise as the 5MP CCD
    at ISO 64. Or do you suggest that there has been only progress in the
    CMOS area, but none in the CCD area ?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 20, 2004
    #17
  18. des

    leo Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mitch Alsup <> wrote:
    >
    >>Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
    >>with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
    >>where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
    >>as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
    >>using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
    >>transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
    >>from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
    >>as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
    >>has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
    >>
    >>If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
    >>technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
    >>years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.

    >
    > That's all fine, but then why doesn't the more advanced 2/3" CCD of the
    > 8MP prosumer cameras have less noise than the 1/1.8" CCD of 5MP prosumer
    > cameras ?
    >
    > Cell size is almost the same (2.8 micrometer for the 5MP CCD, 2.7 for
    > the 8MP one). But a test shows that the 8MP CCD has slightly higher
    > noise levels - the 8MP CCD has at ISO 50 the same noise as the 5MP CCD
    > at ISO 64. Or do you suggest that there has been only progress in the
    > CMOS area, but none in the CCD area ?
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    > Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    > Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html



    The CMOS has circuitry next to each sensor cell so there are room to improve
    in this regard, shrinking the size of the electronic components, using
    better micromirror etc. Still, there's a limit. Let's see what's the optimal
    pitch size for CMOS sensors.
     
    leo, Aug 20, 2004
    #18
  19. des

    jpc Guest


    >
    >Technology moves forward. For example, is the 2 years since the 6.3 MP
    >with 1.6 crop was introduced, CMOS technology has advance to the point
    >where the transistors associated with each cell are now only 1/2 as big
    >as they used to be. In addition a resent Canon patent application shows
    >using 3 transistors for 2 cells whereas the previous sensor cell had two
    >transistors per sensor. Other advancements in semiconductors (borrowed
    >from DRAMs) allow a cell to retains its high 'full well capacity' even
    >as the footprint of the cell is reduced. Then outside the sensor, there
    >has been progress in lower noise amplifiers and A/Ds.
    >

    Do you have a patent number and a site where I could download a copy
    of the patent application. TIA

    jpc
     
    jpc, Aug 21, 2004
    #19
  20. des

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    (Mitch Alsup) writes:

    > If camera senseor technology moves forward at the same rate semiconductor
    > technology moves forward, one can expect 10 MP at 1.6 crop in 2 to 2.5
    > years, and 14 MP at 1.6 crop by the end of the decade.


    But it's not going to. What people fail to grasp is that the rate of
    development you can get out of near-analogue sensors with many many
    levels is not going to follow the rate of development of digital
    on/off memory devices.

    Physical limits are looming a lot larger right now for imaging sensors
    than they are for binary processing devices. Don't forget, also, that
    the development in process technology that you've seen improve other
    electronic devices over the last two decades has already been applied
    to current sensors.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Aug 21, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    522
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  2. Jason Sommers
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    527
    Jason Sommers
    Jan 19, 2005
  3. Stacey

    Noise about noise...

    Stacey, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    397
    Stacey
    Feb 18, 2005
  4. Ivan

    EOS 20D vs. EOS Rebel XT?

    Ivan, Aug 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    489
    Go-dot
    Aug 23, 2005
  5. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    537
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page