Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Lotusm50 wrote:
Exactly. It's just a attempt to rationalize limitations.
I'm sorry...I find this kind of funny, considering what followed here:
Lotusm50 wrote:
That's easily as good as the original 5D and it has 3 times the number of pixels, and really not much worse than the 5Dll with over 50% more pixels -- downsampled to the 5Dll's pixel count and you might not see a noise difference at all.
See, I look at those crops and I think: Really? That's what it's got? Now, obviously, with that many pixels, ISO 6400 will look great in good size prints...that noise will be drastically reduced unless printing large...drastically better than a 16MP or 12MP image with the same pixel level noise. I am NOT saying that it is not going to produce good images at high ISO...I'd imagine ISO 12,800 will be eminently usable for 8x12 and 10x15 prints just due to the huge resolution and decent noise here.
But, frankly, I am not impressed with the pixel level noise out of this, at least in the JPEGs. I know the RAW files are likely to be better, but frankly, I expected a lot more out of an absolutely brand new full frame sensor from the same people who made the D3 with its crazy good high ISO.
Why do I say that? Because frankly, a converted RAW file at ISO 6400 from my Panasonic GX1 looks better than that at the pixel level.
YES, it's RAW vs JPEG, which isn't fair, and YES, the D800 in an actual print or reduced web output will show much less noise than the GX1 due to its higher resolution, but I find it odd that it is similar at the pixel level, especially with the image quality police out in full force in this thread touting how awesome it is (and are often the same people who will completely discount micro 4/3 as horribly inferior...which, well, it is inferior...it's got a sensor 4 times as small, but it still can produce really good images).
I saw that and said to myself...wow, that's not very good...and I was headed to the Ohio Statehouse, so I took a few pictures to try and somewhat get a similar type of shot at ISO 6400. Here's the shot (it's not an artistic effort, but I wasn't going for that.) Obviously, you can see it doesn't look as good as the reduced D800 shot, but it shouldn't...it's got less than half the resolution.
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/6400test.jpg
But look at the pixel level. These are 100% crops, the ones posted earlier in the thread for the D800, and the converted RAW file from my GX1.
Detail:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/6400crops.jpg
Shadow/bokeh:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/6400crop_shadow.jpg
Now, the RAW converter in Lightroom does a great job eliminating chroma noise and can reduce luminance noise a bit without harming detail too, but most JPEG engines in cameras reduce chroma and luminance noise a bit too...and this doesn't do it that well (though you can tell it'd done some, as there's pixel smearing). It'll be interesting to see the RAW files, which I'm sure will be much better, but I just found it interesting that people were fawning over those 100% crops at 6400 given the reaction to lesser cameras elsewhere in this thread (and elsewhere on the forum).
|
This gives it an almost film grain quality to it, wow, this makes me want sRAW all the more, I just really don't need to deal with 75MB RAW files 
Would love to see how this compares to the D4...