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. Advertisements

  2. des

    Steve Guest

    Hwere did you see this, if so great.

    Steve, Aug 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 20, 2004
  4. des

    des Guest

    des, Aug 20, 2004
  5. des

    Alfred Molon Guest

    How can that be since pixels are smaller (same CCD size with a higher
    pixel count) ?
    Alfred Molon, Aug 20, 2004
  6. des

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    o New CMOS imager
    o New processing firmware.

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

    Phil Wheeler, Aug 20, 2004
  7. des

    usenet Guest

    Better processing on the analog side, presumably, as with the 1DMkII.
    usenet, Aug 20, 2004
  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
  9. des

    Rob Davison Guest

    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?


    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 Davison, Aug 20, 2004
  10. des

    usenet Guest

    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.
    According to Canon & Rob Galbraith, yes:
    "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.
    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. ;)
    usenet, Aug 20, 2004
  11. des

    Rob Davison Guest

    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.

    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 Davison, Aug 20, 2004
  12. des

    Chris Brown Guest

    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
  13. des

    Marli Guest

    Easy. Its called better technology

    Marli, Aug 20, 2004
  14. des

    Mitch Alsup 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.

    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 Alsup, Aug 20, 2004
  15. des

    des Guest

    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
  16. Because Canon kicks noise's ass?
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
  17. des

    Alfred Molon Guest

    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, Aug 20, 2004
  18. des

    leo Guest

    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
  19. des

    jpc Guest

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

    jpc, Aug 21, 2004
  20. des

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    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.

    Bruce Murphy, Aug 21, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.