photo.net interview with Pentax USA president Ned Bunnell

[miserere_mei]

<p>Sorry Laurentiu, but I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe you'll have to take my word for it? :-)</p>

<p>While per pixel S/N is important, so is the total amount of light detected by the sensor. Like Milan said, you have to look at the IQ of a given <em>image</em> area. If per pixel noise is the same, but a FF sensor covers that image of the area with 230 pixels instead of 100 for the APS-C sensor, then there will be more signal than noise in the FF sample and IQ will be better.</p>

<p>Likewise, if both sensors have the same number of pixels, then a given area of an image will be covered by the same, say, 100 pixels. In this case there will still be more signal in the FF sensor because each pixel is 2.3 times the area of the APS-C sensor, so again the better IQ goes to the FF sensor.</p>

<p>I want to make clear that the above is assuming high ISOs.</p>

[laur1]

<p>Milan, for my point, you can assume that we're examining images 100% on the same screen - that will make the issue of pixel size go away. I expect that FF will always have an advantage when it comes to printing, same way that MF will have an advantage over FF. But having the same noise but finer is not the same thing as having less noise. I argue that today we're seeing more noise in APS sensors and that that noise could be less if the sensor technology would match that in FF sensors.<br>

Mis, I think we might be arguing different scenarios. Let me define the rules of comparison and then see if we get to agree:<br>

Take two cameras - APS and FF. Take one lens - say 50mm. Place yourself at same distance to subject (framing will be different, yes). Take image of subject at, say, ISO 1600 (we're doing this under low light conditions, of course). The physical size of the subject image that is formed on the sensor will be the same, but the FF camera will capture more of the surrounding area as well, due to having a larger sensor. Now, examine these photos for noise at 100%.<br>

My point is that if the sensor technology and processing algorithms are the same, there should be no difference between the FF and APS images of the subject in terms of noise. On the other hand, I expect that today, if you do this experiment, an APS image will usually show more noise than the FF one. My point is: if APS images fare worse in this experiment, it is not because of a limitation in the APS factor, but because the APS sensors are built with different technology/photosite characteristics than FF ones.<br>

Please don't argue if my experiment reflects real use scenarios, etc. I defined it this way so we can focus on noise comparison rather than getting distracted by other aspects. When it comes to printing, I expect FF will keep the same advantage over APS as MF has over FF. That is to be expected and is not something that is of concern to me (it is an argument, however, for Pentax to focus on MF instead of FF).</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Here's kinda related thread elsewhere if handy link posts.</p>

<p>Fair warning is a guy comparing his newly issued Canon 7D to his Canon 5D classic. Some 4+ years separate the two cameras. 7D is 18.1mp 1.6x aps-c from Fall 2009 and 5D Classic is 12.8mp full frame from August 2005. Both sensors are manufactured by Canon:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707</a></p>

<p>I remember like it was yesterday the grief I'd get when considering buying old tech consumer grade 5D Classic full frame instead of yet another crop format pentax dslr. But as I had to have full frame platform for my f2.8 ultrawide captures & desires and Pentax and then Hoya refused to comply with full frame offers I added Canon 5D Classics before they dropped off the system in 2008. Still 4 years later 5D classic image quality holds up real well.</p>

<p>Thats the way these sensors are, annual improvements are slight if at all.</p>

<p>It's the newest wave the bells and whistles camera makers offer to get people to purchase again and again...</p>

<p> </p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Lindy, I assume you've read through that thread, and I've had the chance to use a 5D. At below ISO 800, I'd take the K20D most of the time. Noise for both is similar and it really comes down to metering and the way each renders an image. But like the comparisons the shooters who have 5D's and 7D's * have stated, the 5D is superior at 1600 or 3200 over the crop sensor.<br>

<em>*why did they use 7D as a model number? The 5D is a 24x36 sensor vs the (1.6) 7D 22x15 sensor. It seems illogical that a crop camera and FF camera would share such similar model numbers.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>This comment is what I was sayng earlier (Ff vs Crop): <strong>CarpeyBiggs wrote</strong> :<br /> i own both, and have shot both under the exact same situations, with the same lens. the 5d still produces better high iso images, at both 1600, and 3200.<br /> <br /> the 5d is also much sharper at the pixel level. but that said, it's close, and in print, i'm not sure you'd notice much? haven't compared that though.<br /> <br /> but the 5d still wins in the noise department. </p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Indeed Peter I read it. Opinions & some pretty pix. One mans unscientific approach with images. No 100% consensus. I shoot far more landscapes versus people so the outdoor images appeal to me. 5D iso 1600 is way too much fun at dusk, at least for me. Its nice to be able to capture images in near darkness. I don't own a flash, don't do weddings or hunt people in street scenes. I'll experiment with the low settings 5D versus K20D and post a thread soon... with pixs</p>

<p> I'd assume K20D should have the edge, but then again crop vs full frame, head to head, who knows? Lenses won't be the same, my canon glass should be better than my old pentax lenses. Ideas & Thoughts appreciated.</p>

<p>As far as why they called it "7D" ? Here's the official response from Chuck Westfall, Canon's own camera tech guru from September 2009 Q&A :</p>

<p>>>"</p>

 

<p ><a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1787">http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1787</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Q: Has anyone figured out why Canon named the EOS 7D as they did? I thought they had a theme going with the 1000D, then the 450D/500D, then the 40D/50D and then 5D and lastly the pro level 1D series? I'm not sure I understand why they named it 7D (and didn't Minolta once had a camera called 7D and then some other brand too?). Why not 60D? </strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >A: There actually is some sense of continuity in the naming of the 7D if you look at the 22-year history of the EOS system. However, the reasoning might not be obvious at first glance.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the film era, the basic idea for EOS model numbers was clear enough: the lower the number, the higher the ranking. The EOS-1 series ranked higher than the EOS 3, which in turn ranked higher than the EOS 5 (or A2E in North America), which in turn ranked higher than the EOS 7 series, etc.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the digital era, after some initial models were named for their sensor resolution (as in D30 for 3 megapixel and D60 for 6 megapixel), Canon changed the model numbering scheme for consumer-grade digital SLRs to a chronological base, as seen in the xxD series, the xxxD series and the xxxxD series, with an initial model in each. For example, 10D through 50D are chronological, 300D through 500D are chronological, and 1000D is most likely the first of a series of entry-level models slotted a bit lower than the xxxD series.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But above the xxD series, EOS model numbers appear to honor the original film-based sequence where lower numbers signify higher rank. In this context, the 1D series ranks higher than the 5D series for obvious reasons, while the 5D series ranks above the 7D because of its use of full-frame sensors. It remains to be seen whether this numbering scheme (or feature differentiations) will continue in future models, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Why wasn’t the new camera named 60D? Because the 7D is considered to be the start of a new series in the EOS line-up. It ranks higher than xxD models like the 50D, just as the 50D ranks higher than the 500D even though both have APS-C sensors with the same resolution.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks for reading <em>Tech Tips</em>! That's it for now. See you in October!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You are invited to submit questions about photo equipment, imaging technology, or photo industry trends that may have a bearing on your work or interests. I cannot promise to answer everything, but I pledge to do my best to address the issues that concern you. (Please use the e-mail link provided at the end of this article.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >P.S.: The purpose of the Comments section is to allow readers to respond to the content of each month's edition of <em>Tech Tips</em>. New topics or questions should be submitted by e-mail (using the link at the end of each column) in order to support the development of future monthly editions. I appreciate your kind support and cooperation. Thanks!</p>

<p > </p>

<p align="left"> </p>

© Chuck Westfall

<<"

[lance_blackburn1]

<p>In response to your question below, Lindy:<br>

<strong>Q: Has anyone figured out why Canon named the EOS 7D as they did? I thought they had a theme going with the 1000D, then the 450D/500D, then the 40D/50D and then 5D and lastly the pro level 1D series? I'm not sure I understand why they named it 7D (and didn't Minolta once had a camera called 7D and then some other brand too?). Why not 60D?</strong><br>

One could be cynical and say that the reason Canon named the 7D the 7D was because people go into purchase the "new" camera called the "7" or something, the salesperson says here's the 7D and the potential purchaser says this must be that new one I heard about. The K-7 has had such good press from many quarters, that Canon possibly thought that they would latch on to all that good publicity and use the 7 nomencalture as well. I mean, really, why else upset their normal numbering system, like you have correctly pointed out, to name it the 7D rather than a 60D or even a 70D? Call me a cynic, but...</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Lance, I don't think Canon even know who Pentax is :-)</p>

<p>But seriously, the name for the 7D was likely chosen waaaay before the K-7 came to market. Canon have started a new camera line: The "pro" APS-C 7D line. Nikon did it with the D100/200/300, but Canon's 20/30/40/50Ds were never at that high level. The Canon 7D is now a direct competitor of Nikon's D300s.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Sorry to hijack the thread with the talk of model numbers. But I thought this was telling: <strong>and then some other brand too?</strong></p>

<p>I guess Mis was right, Pentawhat? Never heard of it.</p>

 

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>If Pentax or Hoya made more than one camera format then it would be easy from some Pentaxians to compare sensor size output with same lenses from same sensor manufacturer. Well assuming Pentax would have same maker of their crop sensor and full frame sensor. Thesedays Pentax picks Sony for their budget dslr sensors and Samsung for the K-7, K20D. Even with 645D, isn't that supposed to be Kodak made?</p>

<p>The full frame versus crop format debate rages on across brands. The nice thing with canon is they make their own sensors so I'd guess it makes for a valid test? I find most 5D Classic owners say their old camera topps the image quality from newer aps-c canon cameras. They also say the $6,999 canon full frame has much better image quality. Well those who own and chitchat about thier observations across different models from same maker.</p>

<p>What I found interesting from Canon's Westfall is it appears theres four camera model lines now. 7D isn't ending the 50D to 60D roadmap. 7D was made to finally answer Nikon D300 and D300s and its priced accordingly.</p>

<p>Oh yeah heres an interesting kinda related tidbit that popped up today that may cast a cloud over full frame or 645D or ...</p>

<p>I wonder who Hoya's CEO would be willing to sell off his Pentax cameras division to? <br />A Japan only company or any buyer from outside of Japan?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/75653-hoya-ceo-thinking-sell-off-pentax-after-being-profitable.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/75653-hoya-ceo-thinking-sell-off-pentax-after-being-profitable.html</a></p>

[laur1]

<p>I appreciate Nikon for sticking to 12.1MP in their D3/D700 cameras, instead of going higher. Given the surface of the FF sensor, that pixel pitch would correspond to pretty much a little over 5MP on APS - how many people asking for low noise would accept that low a resolution to get it? No wonder that the 14.6MP sensor of the K20D/K-7 cannot keep up with the noise in FF Nikons. And this also makes irrelevant the argument that if the pixels are smaller, then somehow the noise gets to look finer and better - it should look better on the Pentax in that case.</p>

[zamazal]

<p>Laurentiu, if the image pixels correspond to the sensor pixels of smaller size (we talked about the same size previously), you can't expect "finer looking" noise. So K-7 can't compete to any of the common FF cameras in this respect.<br>

As for sensors of different physical sizes and the same pixel amount, I think it's more difficult. Indeed, you get more light and more noise from *some* noise sources. But one can't expect that a smaller sensor can be just a smaller copy of the larger sensor providing the same image quality. Imagine a small model of a house made of the same materials, its physical properties are clearly different than those of the original building. One would expect that making a smaller sensor is trickier, there may be both technical (e.g. ability to make smaller circuitry) and physical (e.g. increasing influence of quantum effects) limits. The relative physical properties may also be different (not necessarily to the advantage of the larger sensor), e.g. I don't have any idea how voltage, heating, etc. relates to the sensor/pixel size and resulting image quality.<br>

It's also questionable to compare noise of a FF and an APS-C at the same ISO level. You can use larger aperture on an APS-C camera to get the same depth of field as on a FF camera. So you can use lower ISO on the APS-C camera and then the difference in the image quality is not that big as it seems. But again, there are practical limits. Can you buy an equivalent APS-C lens to a 50/1.4 FF lens, i.e. something like a 35/1 lens (not 35/1.4!)? No. And does a DA lens provide the same image quality at aperture 2.8 as a comparable FA lens at aperture 4? Perhaps not. This is were the more important differences may be.<br>

Maybe building a *very* good FF *system* is just easier.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>But one can't expect that a smaller sensor can be just a smaller copy of the larger sensor providing the same image quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point was actually contrary to what you're stating here - I was arguing that making the circuitry similar to FF would keep the noise at similar levels (but would also keep the resolution lower because you'd fit fewer photosites on the APS sensor area). You don't need miniaturization for this. In fact, the attempt for miniaturization by trying to cram more photosites on the smaller APS sensor area is what leads to the noisier performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can use larger aperture on an APS-C camera to get the same depth of field as on a FF camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've described my comparison scenario exactly so that we would avoid such points - they are irrelevant to noise evaluation. In the scenario I mentioned, you can just crop the FF image to APS size, then compare images pixel-per-pixel and figure out which has lower signal to noise ratio. Lens, DOF, print size, distance for evaluating the print - all these are irrelevant for such an experiment.</p>