I think noise is more related with the size of the pixels.
The smaller the pixel the more noise a sensor has. Also,
who knows to what extent does Canon do the in-camera noise
post-processing, as there are some complains about "plastic-
look" pictures?
At the current time, the 4/3 system does have quite a lot of
noises at high ISO. But, as the way of electronics goes,
everything will become smaller and better. Eventually, I
expect the noise problems to be resolved in few years, maybe
2-3 years the most. Or Olympus may surprise us next year with
the E-1 replacement.
What would then be the future of the so-called full-frame
DSLR, like the 5D? Isn't the 1Ds Mk2 hitting the current lens
resolution already?
On a side note, noise is related to high ISO: 800 and above.
How many are actually shooting under these high ISO conditions,
all the times? And I am shooting ISO 100 or even 50 with my
om-f. Sigh!
On Tue, October 25, 2005 6:06 am, Wayne S wrote:
> I would suspect that lowering heat with more efficient electronics would
> be one way to decrease noise. One of the problems with the early Olympus
> digital cameras, and maybe why Canon, with CMOS sensor is able
> to do better, since CMOS circuits tend to be lower power, and as Chuck
> says, lower noise electronics in the backend system helps. I think the
> silicon
> noise sources dominate more over quantum efficiency, but I'm just
> guessing. CMOS analog sampled data circuits can do a lot of signal
> processing before being digitized that cannot be done easily in other
> silicon technologies, on the sensor chip. CCD's have to pump the charge
> out, while a CMOS pixel can have dedicated electronics per pixel. CCD's
> should be lower noise than CMOS, but the difference in the peripheral
> electronics probably makes the difference.
>
> All things being equal, though, the larger the sensor the lower the
> noise. Same as film with a given grain noise. I still think Olympus has
> boxed themselves in with the 4/3 system. So much so, I have now
> switched to the Borg 5D. Olympus still gets some things better though
> in terms of camera control and user interface. But just like no auto-focus
> technology in the OM days, no IS or VR today. Maybe with the 4/3 sensor
> they can do something like Konica-Minolta. A smaller sensor would help
> with that technology, and it would extend the really nice Olympus lenses.
>
> Wayne
>
> At 11:04 AM 10/24/2005, you wrote:
>>ScottGee1 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Following that line of logic, packing more pixel sites onto the same
>>> size sensor *should* result in lower quality and more noise even
>>> though the resolution is increased. But apparently that ain't true.
>>>
>>> I gotta lot to learn . . .
>>-----------------------------------
>>
>>That is true in some cases and would be true in all cases except that
>>technology marches on. A physically smaller pixel has less area with
>>which to capture photons and the fewer the photons the lesser the ratio
>>between signal (photons) and noise. Noise is generated within the
>>sensor's electronic circuits <snip>.
>>
>>I'm not sure if any sensor manufacturer has actually figured out how to
>>increase the quantum efficiency of a pixel but they have certainly made
>>advances in producing quieter circuitry and employing various tricks to
>>differentiate signal and noise and subtract the noise. <snip>
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
Best Regards.
Bao C. Ha
Hacom OpenBrick Distributor USA http://www.hacom.net
voice: (714) 530-8817 fax: (714) 530-8818
8D66 6672 7A9B 6879 85CD 42E0 9F6C 7908 ED95 6B38
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|