Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DDirector View Post
    lol nope. Still here.

    Interesting input. I will look into it more.
    I think I did notice those test numbers before. They seem very tiny differences, so I didn't think it would really noticable.

    Will do more digging into this.

    Curious to know how/if the test results change if sitting in crop mode on a FF camera.
    At the rate this thread is going, just stick with FF35.


    The only time full frame is better, is when all things are equal.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    532
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Yes I think so, but the net effect is that it has less noise (due to larger light-gathering area for the equivalent shot?) and it also has a half-stop more dynamic range (possibly also due to lower noise? I'm not sure of the physics on that).
    I think it's more to do with more specialised and updated internals. The A65 is also a small run highly specialised camera. I'd guess there's less than 60 of them in the world. In order to make one they have to find 3 regular sensors that match very closely already and then stitch them together and then a lot of them still don't work out.

    So you're getting this kind of best of the best binning effect where the individual best sensors are chosen and then the best groups of three of those sensors get to make into a camera that has more couture finished updated boards and electronics.

    I have a friend that's behind the scenes at Arri and she told me they go to an awful lot of trouble to join those three sensors together and they reject a lot more than they keep. And it's not like they can then recycle those sensors. Once they're mounted and joined that's it. They're throwing a bunch of sensors away that would have been "above average" on a normal Alexa...

    I think any effect of the actual sensor size on DR and certainly on colour gamut is insignificant in real terms. The improvements are more to do with other factors as described...

    JB
    Cinematographer
    Sydney Australia
    www.johnbrawley.com
    I also have a blog


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    400
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    I think it's more to do with more specialised and updated internals. The A65 is also a small run highly specialised camera. I'd guess there's less than 60 of them in the world. In order to make one they have to find 3 regular sensors that match very closely already and then stitch them together and then a lot of them still don't work out.

    So you're getting this kind of best of the best binning effect where the individual best sensors are chosen and then the best groups of three of those sensors get to make into a camera that has more couture finished updated boards and electronics.

    I have a friend that's behind the scenes at Arri and she told me they go to an awful lot of trouble to join those three sensors together and they reject a lot more than they keep. And it's not like they can then recycle those sensors. Once they're mounted and joined that's it. They're throwing a bunch of sensors away that would have been "above average" on a normal Alexa...

    I think any effect of the actual sensor size on DR and certainly on colour gamut is insignificant in real terms. The improvements are more to do with other factors as described...

    JB
    That's very interesting about the A65 manufacture.

    Yes, it seems that I was wrong about inherent advantages of larger sensors, although they do have qualified advantages. At the same resolution and thus larger pixel pitch, the larger sensor should have better low-light performance and thus more DR at least at higher ISOs (although yes, the Alexa LF has the same pixel pitch).

    My experience with larger sensors from the same manufacturer has always been better low-light and DR performance, but that may be strictly due to the pixel pitch and, as you mentioned, manufacturing quality.

    Here are 2 graphs from dxomark showing that sensors with larger pixel pitch have better low-light performance regardless of design year, but that sensors with more recent design years have more DR regardless of pixel pitch. The pixel pitch (eg 8.4) is notes for some data points:

    ISO performance:
    high-ISO.jpg

    Dynamic range:
    Dynamicrange.jpg

    So, the moral of the story is that you can't make good shots unless you're shooting on an A65.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    That's very interesting about the A65 manufacture.

    Yes, it seems that I was wrong about inherent advantages of larger sensors, although they do have qualified advantages. At the same resolution and thus larger pixel pitch, the larger sensor should have better low-light performance and thus more DR at least at higher ISOs (although yes, the Alexa LF has the same pixel pitch).

    My experience with larger sensors from the same manufacturer has always been better low-light and DR performance, but that may be strictly due to the pixel pitch and, as you mentioned, manufacturing quality.

    Here are 2 graphs from dxomark showing that sensors with larger pixel pitch have better low-light performance regardless of design year, but that sensors with more recent design years have more DR regardless of pixel pitch. The pixel pitch (eg 8.4) is notes for some data points:

    ISO performance:
    high-ISO.jpg

    Dynamic range:
    Dynamicrange.jpg

    So, the moral of the story is that you can't make good shots unless you're shooting on an A65.
    Larger sensors tend to have worse rolling shutter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    400
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    Larger sensors tend to have worse rolling shutter.
    True, but I think that as long as the RS is fast enough, no one minds. Alexa mini was 3ms, C300mk2 was 6ms, and C300mk3 in DGO mode is 15.3ms (all according to cinema5D) but I don't hear anyone complaining about it. (Although I do think the fast RS is part of why people like the Alexa's motion cadence.)

    Also - I did some research on CMOS dynamic range. It does seem that well capacity and therefore pixel pitch corresponds to higher potential dynamic range. But all the various types of noise reduce dynamic range, and since most types of noise scale up with pixel pitch, the dynamic range of a larger pixel is basically equivalent.

    And therefore the gains in dynamic range come from reducing noise in various ways, which is why newer and more refined and expensive engineering techniques can yield better results.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member DDirector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,660
    Default
    A lot of mention and comparisons to other video/cine cameras.
    I was merely looking for photo only and not video. So, not sure if that changes things in what you're saying when comparing it to video.
    Michael Frymus
    Travel and Commercial Photographer & Videographer

    Instagram: @michaelfrymus
    Website: mfvisuals.ca



    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,926
    Default
    Maybe consider a different perspective if the DXO testing on page 1 isn't enough; almost every single professional photographer on the planet uses a full-frame or medium-format camera for stills photography.

    (Yes, someone can run a successful business and make millions with a 1" sensor stills camera, but just saying.)


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,814
    Default
    I hae a D600 its no different for stills from the 5d2.

    One has good reviews the other does not.

    It only makes a difference when you do high end sport or top fashion.

    If its just billboards and glossy mags they are all good enough if not 10 years old.

    But yep FF35 is the norm.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    400
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DDirector View Post
    A lot of mention and comparisons to other video/cine cameras.
    I was merely looking for photo only and not video. So, not sure if that changes things in what you're saying when comparing it to video.
    I would take a look at the evaluations at dxomark because they are evaluating the cameras' stills abilities. And they are measuring their performance in practice, not in theory, which is all that matters for us.

    That being said, the physical properties of the sensor/pixels etc as they relate to DR and color depth are the same for stills and for video. What differs is the image processing because video requires a higher framerate than these cameras can shoot for maximum quality stills. So, typically, video performance is inferior in regard to bit depth, dynamic range, sharpness, codec, etc.

    And regarding rolling shutter - if you are using the mechanical shutter to take stills, AFAIK the rolling shutter speed does not matter. If you are using the silent shooting mode electronic shutter, you are relying on the rolling shutter and its speed is a factor. But I've only heard photographers complain about rolling shutter in specific circumstances like fluorescent lighting maybe.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •