"The appeal of full-frame CMOS sensors, " Canon's PR pages

Discussion in 'Canon' started by ThomasH, Sep 10, 2005.

  1. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Canon has launched a very interesting web site devoted to
    explaining their sensor technology. One series of articles
    might cause many controversies:

    http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/fullframe-e/index.html

    I will not try to rebut anything what they write, but
    they clearly focused on the wide angle aspect of APS
    and 35mm sized sensors and "forgot" to mention the
    positive on the APS sized sensors: The reduction in lens
    size, using 35mm lenses in their middle, where they are
    at their best, and the "longer long lenses..." The
    example with the shift lens it downright naive.

    Anyway, this site is cool, not only to Canon aficionados.
    I liked the explanations of their noise reduction technique.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Sep 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. When I said Canon were engaging in software noise reduction and their
    sensors were just as noisy as any other, I got howled down. "No proof"
    was the cry from the nerds... What more proof do you need than Canon's
    own description?
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ThomasH

    Skip M Guest

    That the noise is eliminated "on chip?"
     
    Skip M, Sep 10, 2005
    #3
  4. SNIP
    If I recall correctly, you were challenged on your assumption that
    random noise suppression
    (http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/noise_reduction.html)
    causes loss of detail.
    Read Canon's description more closely. I've examined the noise
    spectrum of Canon CR2 files, and can only find a gradual reduction of
    noise amplitude towards the Nyquist frequency, which is quite normal
    for any discrete sampling device since there is no resolution (and
    thus noise) beyond that point.

    What Canon describes is how they reset the photodiode while keeping
    the noise part as input to the read-out logic, thus improving S/N
    ratio (which is quite the opposite of losing detail).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Sep 10, 2005
    #4
  5. ThomasH

    Paul Furman Guest

    I'm usually not a stickler but this is way off topic in this group.
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Agreed. I was thinking the same thing...

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Sep 11, 2005
    #6
  7. ThomasH

    ian lincoln Guest

    You'd rather discuss george bush's foreign policy some more? Or perhaps gun
    control laws.
     
    ian lincoln, Sep 11, 2005
    #7
  8. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

     
    ThomasH, Sep 11, 2005
    #8
  9. It would have been more useful to post it in one of the digital groups
    ....

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Sep 11, 2005
    #9
  10. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Maybe, but the rec.digital is very crowded and receives sometimes
    thousands of messages a day, mostly about point-and-shots.

    Talking about 35mm sensors for 35mm cameras with 35mm lenses
    in a 35mm equipment group is *very customary*.

    The overlapping topics regarding DSLR's are very common,
    many aspects cannot be really kept apart. Diverse issues
    regarding point-and-shot digitals should better stay in the
    digital group, as should countless other, such as for example
    ink printer issues, politics etc. Well, even the shootin is not
    about *equipment*. But its news, the group develops dynamically,
    has regulars and regular threads, such as the shootin, what is
    a great group and a tradition here at rec.photo.eq.35mm.
    We all help each other with information and opinion exchange.

    This request by Paul is completely stunning and misplaced.
    The generic suggestion is as always: If you do not have anything
    to contribute, just do not reply and talk about issues of
    your interest. This explains my position, I will not contribute
    to this discussion anymore.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Sep 11, 2005
    #10
  11. In a totally pedantic way, you have demonstrated why this group is
    falling into the regions of little interest without attracting any posts
    of any interest to anyone accept pedantic posters with nothing to offer
    but stupid comments.

    The only difference between a Canon 5D and a Canon EOS1 is the
    electronics of the camera and the method of recording an image.

    If we are to follow your condemnation of discussing cameras and their
    components which are more identical than different, we might as well all
    go back to owning spotmatics!

    Get a life man, Full frame Digital SLRs are in every way, shape and
    form, identical to 35mm SLRs because they are 35mm "D" slr's!

    The name of this group is rec.photo.equipment.35mm. The exact
    description of a Canon 5D camera and it's accessories. Made for
    enthusiasts, uses a 35mm sensor and is a single lens reflex camera. How
    much closer do you want to get to being ON TOPIC?

    If you don't agree with discussing cameras that meet the group's
    charter, go and start a 35mm "FILM" group. Otherwise join in or butt
    out, it matters little if this is all you have to say.
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 11, 2005
    #11
  12. ThomasH

    Robert C. Guest

    Here, Here!
     
    Robert C., Sep 12, 2005
    #12
  13. ThomasH

    Brian Baird Guest

    Canon is describing hardware noise reduction, per-pixel.

    If you weren't insane, you'd understand that.
     
    Brian Baird, Sep 12, 2005
    #13
  14. "...some more?" Some more what? WTF are you talking about? I do not now,
    and have not ever before, discussed politics - or guns - on this NG.

    I realize that a bell curve can only be a curve when *someone* is on the far
    left side. I know where I fall. And I'm very glad you're here to provide
    the required mathematical symmetry in that regard.

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Sep 12, 2005
    #14
  15. ThomasH

    Mark² Guest

    Bah...Humbug!

    ....and no, it's not off topic.
    Any and ALL EF Canon 35mm **equipment** other than bodies discussed on this
    forum are usable on the FF DSLRs. It is very much on topic, as it refers to
    a 35mm equipment-specific body.
     
    Mark², Sep 12, 2005
    #15
  16. ThomasH

    Mark² Guest

    I have about 19 or 20 hardware parts that make up my 35mm kit.
    Only three of those parts are camera bodies (2 film, one digital).
    ALL OF THE REST of that very kit (that gets discussed here by any Canon
    user) also works on the FF 5D body and other FFs. This compatibility makes
    these 35mm equipment DSLRs of particular interest to members of this
    forum...arguably even of GREATER interest here than on the "digital" forum,
    due the the great number of Canon users here.

    If you are not interested, then I suggest you skip over the topics--just as
    you skip over threads regarding manufacturers which are incompatible with
    your particular kit.

    It is head-in-the-sand posts like yours that are causing the literal DEATH
    of this newsgroup.
    Did you happen to notice that there was all of **three** new threads on
    September 9th...

    ....and *****ZERO***** new threads posted here on the 10th??? That's on a
    weekend!
    This forum is dying in no small degree because people who continue to use
    their 35mm **equipment** get shouted down by folks like you--just because
    they may use their 35mm gear in connection with a partiucular body you think
    is somehow out of bounds.

    Are all my 35mm lenses, flashes, cables, radios, extenders, etc. somehow
    transformed into a different existence as soon as I disconnect them from a
    film body...and onto a digital capture device????

    Of course not.

    Open your mind, or kiss this NG on it's way to an ever hastening death.
    -Mark
     
    Mark², Sep 12, 2005
    #16
  17. ThomasH

    Chris Brown Guest

    It's a fair point - 24*36mm digital output is better compared to medium
    format, after all...

    <fx: ducks>
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 12, 2005
    #17
  18. Oh Brian...
    You are such a tease!
    There is no such thing as hardware noise reduction. Either hardware is
    noisy or it is not. To alter the characteristics of the output from
    hardware, you must use software. I would have thought even you would
    understand that, Brian. but alas... I was wrong about you yet again.
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 12, 2005
    #18
  19. ThomasH

    Chris Brown Guest

    Strange how people were doing so (e.g. with radio, or TV) long before the
    electronic computers capable of running such software were invented, isn't
    it?
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 12, 2005
    #19
  20. Why? I don't see "film" as a requirement based upon the newsgroup name.
    Anybody care to pull up the newsgroup charter and settle this once and
    for all?

    This article IS talking about full frame 35mm photography, it just
    happens that the medium is digital in nature.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Sep 12, 2005
    #20
    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.