AJ Nadershahi wrote:
What happened to civility around here? Nikon forum was known for having intelligent and friendly dialog even if it involved Canon folks visiting to ask questions or debate hardware issues. Just the civility and unity of the forum was powerful enough to quench trolls, but looks like the bar has been dropping.
If you can't make your point without getting abusive, then what are you really proving?
90 5.0 wrote:
My post was in a joking manner if you were talking to me and didn't notice the which is used to indicate sticking your tongue out at someone letting them know you are joking on the internet.....
I was referring to the numerous comments spread through out the 4+ pages in this thread. I recognized your comment as having the intent to be humorous.
It's also important to remind oneself that she can only get these results from the Canon camera by shooting raw, deliberately underexposing, and pushing and noise reducing the raw file. The full frame Nikons allow you to see your exposure on the back of the camera, and output jpegs with very good noise reduction done in-camera, just in time for the deadline.
The point is that you can just about match the Nikons' high ISO performance with a 1Ds3, but the results will be a bit more streaky, and there is more work and messing around in getting there. I really hope that the 5D2 or whatever it may be called catches up with Nikon in terms of the convenience of shooting at these speeds.
But one thing that this test has made clear to me: sites like DPReview and Luminous Landscape have failed to fairly assess high ISO performance of these cameras, and the main culprit is the error of comparing 100% crops, instead of crops at equal magnification. I urge anyone who visits those sites to email them whenever they make blunders of this kind, as we are in danger of developing false expectations about the (dis)advantages of high density sensors which could skew the market towards a less good but more marketable product. What I mean to say is, the more people believe, wrongly, that high densities mean poor high ISO, the less pressure there will be on each company to make the best all-round sensor.
focus ain't the same??
look at the area under the handset i think the left one looks better.
light changed??
look at the blue area (near the red label), looks like the blue thing is in the shadow on the left. the spring in the blue stuff look very different too.
ytwong wrote:
focus ain't the same??
look at the area under the handset i think the left one looks better.
This is a noises/dynamic range test. Ignore sharpness.
>light changed??
look at the blue area (near the red label), looks like the blue thing is in the shadow on the left. the spring in the blue stuff look very different too.
left one have better shadow detail to my eyes
As I have already explained, a brochure obscures the stapler in the left crop. Ignore the stapler.
You know this is silly right? Lenses are not the same so how can any of this be fair. I saw work done by the D3 blown up to 4ft and it was amazing, that is all I need to know.
ruddyroye wrote:
You know this is silly right? Lenses are not the same so how can any of this be fair.
I used the very same lens on each camera, at the same aperture setting (f5.6). I took the shot from the same place of the same subject in constant light. I used the same shutter speed on both cameras. How can it be unfair?
>I saw work done by the D3 blown up to 4ft and it was amazing, that is all I need to know.
We all know that. All these cameras are better than our wildest dreams of ten years ago. This test was an effort to compare two excellent performers, and see what the difference between them is at very high ISOs. The answer is that the D700 wins, but by a fairly small margin. That's useful to know, as for many people it's an unexpected result. It also has implications for people's (in my view fallacious) attitudes towards higher density sensors.
...and by the way, there is no substitute for large numbers of pixels. That's why I hope the 24 megapixel D3x arrives soon. More pixels mean more detail, but not necessarily poor high iso performance. At very high speeds it is unlikely that you will see 24 megapixels of detail, but at lower ISOs you will. It's a versatile camera that acts like medium format at iso 100 and like 400 iso 135 film at 12800 iso. I'm looking forward to the 38 megapixel iso 25600 era. Competition is good.
Two nikon photographers are at music festival, and they both happen to have identical printers on hand as well. One has a D3 the other has a 24mp D3x. They both take photos at ISO 12800.
At the end of the show, the D3 owner prints out a 24"x16" print and proudly shows it to the other photographer. "See how low the noise is!"
The D3x owner then proceeds to print one of his shots; also at 24"x16". The noise is the same (perhaps even better).
"Not fair!" screams the D3 owner, "You have more mega pixels, you HAVE to print that at 36x24!"
Coolmac wrote:
In a theoretical not so distant future:
Two nikon photographers are at music festival, and they both happen to have identical printers on hand as well. One has a D3 the other has a 24mp D3x. They both take photos at ISO 12800.
At the end of the show, the D3 owner prints out a 24"x16" print and proudly shows it to the other photographer. "See how low the noise is!"
The D3x owner then proceeds to print one of his shots; also at 24"x16". The noise is the same (perhaps even better).
"Not fair!" screams the D3 owner, "You have more mega pixels, you HAVE to print that at 36x24!"...Show more →
I remember when i shot with iso 25,50 and 100 if some one had said one day you will be able to shoot iso 6400 relatively noise free I would have laughed in their face. Technology has change the way we shoot so much....
90 5.0 wrote:
I remember when i shot with iso 25,50 and 100 if some one had said one day you will be able to shoot iso 6400 relatively noise free I would have laughed in their face. Technology has change the way we shoot so much....
imagine 10 years from now, or even 5. ISO 58960943942039. Hehe
Moleman wrote:
imagine 10 years from now, or even 5. ISO 58960943942039. Hehe
There is a hard physical limit somewhere, due to photon noise and the Heisenberg Uncertaint Principle, but the coming D3x and 50D, and the existing compact sensors, with their much higher densities, show that we haven't reached that limit yet. Lens diffraction is a more pressing problem to solve.
Sep 05, 2008 at 05:53 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
brainiac wrote:
There is a hard physical limit somewhere, due to photon noise and the Heisenberg Uncertaint Principle, but the coming D3x and 50D, and the existing compact sensors, with their much higher densities, show that we haven't reached that limit yet. Lens diffraction is a more pressing problem to solve.
HMMMM ... considering that at our current resolutions, you need to print at 24"x36" or larger to see the lens diffraction, is it really a problem? Also, diffraction limited optics = theoretically perfect optics ... so it's not likely we will "solve" that issue.
Andre Labonte wrote:
HMMMM ... considering that at our current resolutions, you need to print at 24"x36" or larger to see the lens diffraction, is it really a problem? Also, diffraction limited optics = theoretically perfect optics ... so it's not likely we will "solve" that issue.
It's a problem in the sense that although sensors may feasibly reach 240 megapixels (e.g. a full frame sized sensor using the pitch of the Canon G9), there is no point saving all those pixels if the lens makes the files indistinguishable from a 25 or 50 megapixel file. The 1Ds3 is already fairly fussy about lenses and apertures, that is, if you want its detail to exceed that of a 12 megapixel file significantly. As the sensor gets denser, fewer lenses and apertures are going to enable it to deliver full sharpness. The only problem is that all those pixels are wasting disc space and processing resources, if you switch them all on. It may well be possible, though, to use them to extend dynamic range in exchange for lesser detail.
Edited on Sep 05, 2008 at 06:39 AM
Sep 05, 2008 at 06:38 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
brainiac wrote:
It's a problem in the sense that although sensors may feasibly reach 240 megapixels (e.g. a full frame sized sensor using the pitch of the Canon G9), there is no point saving all those pixels if the lens makes the files indistinguishable from a 25 or 50 megapixel file. The 1Ds3 is already fairly fussy about lenses and apertures, that is, if you want its detail to exceed that of a 12 megapixel file significantly. As the sensor gets denser, fewer lenses and apertures are going to enable it to deliver full sharpness. The only problem is that all those pixels are wasting disc space and processing resources, if you switch them all on. It may well be possible, though, to use them to extend dynamic range in exchange for lesser detail. ...Show more →
Ah, I see your point and I agree. Fundamental optical laws say that diffraction limited optics = theoretically perfect optics from a resolution standpoint. Therefore, the max MP value of your sensor should be set by the diffraction limit of "perfect lenses" set to the minimum aperature setting where you want max resolution. This is the point of best compromise between resolution and ISO / DR performance. For a 12MP FX sensor, you have to print at ~24x36" to see diffraction effects. 24MP only has 41% more resolution but at a one-stop loss in ISO / DR performance (given current technology) and a 2X cost in storage space.
Personally, I'll take 12MP and the improved ISO performance.
Coolmac wrote:
In a theoretical not so distant future:
Two nikon photographers are at music festival, and they both happen to have identical printers on hand as well. One has a D3 the other has a 24mp D3x. They both take photos at ISO 12800.
At the end of the show, the D3 owner prints out a 24"x16" print and proudly shows it to the other photographer. "See how low the noise is!"
The D3x owner then proceeds to print one of his shots; also at 24"x16". The noise is the same (perhaps even better).
"Not fair!" screams the D3 owner, "You have more mega pixels, you HAVE to print that at 36x24!"...Show more →
That pretty much sums it up doesn't it. No matter the gear the artwork remains the same and no more or less desirable or valuable.
Andre Labonte wrote:
... Fundamental optical laws say that diffraction limited optics = theoretically perfect optics from a resolution standpoint. Therefore, the max MP value of your sensor should be set by the diffraction limit of "perfect lenses" set to the minimum aperature setting where you want max resolution. This is the point of best compromise between resolution and ISO / DR performance. For a 12MP FX sensor, you have to print at ~24x36" to see diffraction effects. 24MP only has 41% more resolution but at a one-stop loss in ISO / DR performance (given current technology) and a 2X cost in storage space.
Personally, I'll take 12MP and the improved ISO performance.
...Show more →
But a 24 MP sensor would come nowhere near the diffraction limited performance of a lens at f/2.8. There are a few lenses out there now that can resolve more than any current full frame digital sensor can fully utilize, and the total resolution of the system is a product of both factors, so more pixels can only help. Increasing pixel density can also eliminate moire issues and reduce Bayer demosaicing artifacts without an anti-aliasing filter.
From a practical standpoint, it can certainly be argued that the output from a current top of the line 12 MP camera might give the overall best results for high ISO shooting, but I see no reason to decide a priori that a higher MP camera will be at a disadvantage. Whatever Nikon does with its next FF body series, I would expect a higher pixel count and similar or even lower noise levels taking the image as a whole. It's a win-win situation.
which is used to indicate sticking your tongue out at someone letting them know you are joking on the internet.....
, seems like the way things are doesn't it...