theSuede wrote:
YES!
- the noise scales slower than the area increase - due to electronic noise and losses! But it does scale - with a \"reasonably\" linear effect!
The \"losses\" compared to a perfectly linear scaling is not even close to the effect that most 4/3-users would want it to. Of the pictures above, which is D700@ISO1600 and which is 4/3@ISO400? They\'re developed EAXCTLY the same - except for the colour correction I applied as mentioned. I\'ve also increased colour saturation to be able to see \"blotchiness\" better (at the loss of blowing channels at places), and contrast to slightly amplify noise. Same (very low effect) sharpening. Equal for both pictures.
I can\'t really say that one is \"more noisy\" than the other. I can see other differences, due to the \"personalities\" of the equipment used, but no difference in noise.
I\'d have to say the first image is likely the 4/3rds, based on the lower dynamic range and lower resolution (this is assuming that you haven\'t mucked too much with the tone curves and that the softer first image is not due to other factors).
Of course, using an E-520 means that you\'re also using a sensor that\'s nearly 2 generations behind the D700 sensor and lower resolution to boot (although the latter is not as large a factor given the small resolution difference, nominally 2MP but larger in actual resolution as the E-520 is fairly low resolution for a 10MP camera while the D700 is fairly high resolution for a 12MP camera, mostly a result of differing AA filters).
Newer, lower-noise sensors would perform better in this comparison, providing a cleaner image at ISO 400. You\'d see much the same comparison if you compared say a 1Ds or a DCS14 at ISO 400 to the D700 at ISO1600 despite all 3 cameras being FX.
Jun 06, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Previous versions of mawz's message #7159658 « Leica D Summilux 25 mm f/1.4 review »
