p.2 #2 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Nikon have only made a mistake if Canon don't release the high-MP version of however many 5DIII prototypes they've got around the world.
Best case scenario : they release the one (and I'd bet a lot that there is one) with the 1Dx sensor and (at least) 7D AF then they've at least saved me jumping ship, and I bet many others who have been waiting for Canon to acknowledge the D700!
Worst case scenario they release a 40MP beast with the same AF it currently has, and yet again Nikon win because they're still ticking more boxes.
Otherwise they could do a late 20s MP camera with decent AF and it's a zero-sum gain, Nikon loses nothing by choosing high MP.
Basically my point is that unless Canon make the 5DIII the long prophesised and legendary 3D, Nikon haven't actually lost anything yet.
p.2 #3 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
deepbluejh wrote:
All sarcasm and profanity aside, he does have a point. The 1Dx does look better at ISO 1600 than the D800 does at ISO 320.
Nikon folks didn't really think they would get all of those pixels for free did they? There is a VERY good reason why the native ISO stops at 6400 for the D800 and goes up to 51,200 for the 1Dx.
It looks like Canon and Nikon have ironically swapped places on the resolution/noise spectrum this time around. I'm sure the fanboys on both sides will adjust their opinions accordingly.
p.2 #4 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Lots of hyperbole or maybe massive opinion differences. I have downloaded the full samples and I think
they look great. The iso 6400, scaled down to screen viewing, looks great (from the russian site
Lots of people need to realize the nikon RAWs are processed to jepeg using NX2, which has horrible NR routine.
I think the real test comes when raw files are available and we can start manipulation of shadow details, etc.
Also I can't believe people compare 18MP to 36MP on screen and claim one way or another, especially looking and the small samples given by fake Chuck!
Feb 09, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.2 #5 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
cputeq wrote:
Also I can't believe people compare 18MP to 36MP on screen and claim one way or another, especially looking and the small samples given by fake Chuck!
To be fair, what other method of comparing them is on offer?
It's the ONLY way to compare 2 very hotly anticipated products that exists at present, until they're actually physically available to members of the great unwashed, it's the only comparison possible.
As long as you take everything with a couple of handfuls of salt it's pretty harmless.
Why does the EXIF data that shows up in FxIF not show the ISO for the ISO 25,600 photograph?
The ISO shows up in all the other shots.
Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D800
Image Date: 2012-02-07 15:03:37 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 50mm (35mm equivalent: 50mm)
Aperture: f/3.5
Exposure Time: 0.0001 s (1/8000)
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Photographer: VAP
Copyright: VAP
Software: Ver.1.00
Feb 09, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.2 #7 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Has anyone else noticed that they always give us high-ISO images taken with ridiculous shutter speeds too (1/2-8000) so basically the light is ACTUALLY ISO 200-400 good, and will therefore create much cleaner images anyway?
p.2 #10 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
deepbluejh wrote:
All sarcasm and profanity aside, he does have a point. The 1Dx does look better at ISO 1600 than the D800 does at ISO 320.
It doesn't. The "banding" he's crowing about is simply JPEG posterization.
deepbluejh wrote:
Nikon folks didn't really think they would get all of those pixels for free did they? There is a VERY good reason why the native ISO stops at 6400 for the D800 and goes up to 51,200 for the 1Dx.
The reason is marketing, JPEG noise-reduction, and a lower threshold for what is considered acceptable IQ at a Higher ISO. The ID IV has a "native" ISO of 12,800 but is a full-stop behind the D3s's ISO 12,800.
p.2 #11 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that they always give us high-ISO images taken with ridiculous shutter speeds too (1/2-8000) so basically the light is ACTUALLY ISO 200-400 good, and will therefore create much cleaner images anyway?
The amount of available light has no effect on image noise - only the exposure does (ie, how much of that light is allowed to enter the camera and reach the sensor). So a low-LV shot with a shutter speed of 1/60 will produce the same image noise as a high-LV shot with a shutter speed of 1/4000 if the exposure and color temperature is the same.
Yes, but I disagree with his perspective on the quality of images from the Nikon D800. I downloaded the 100MB samples from the Nikon site, opened them in Photoshop and viewed them at 100% magnification. FABULOUS regardless of what the guy says.
That is the ONLY way to view images; not sure how he is viewing them.
p.2 #13 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
I am likewise impressed, worked with the image a bit in PS, if I dial levels up 2 stops, sure, some noise comes into the image, but same if I try to bring it up 2 full stops. I find the image very impressive.
p.2 #14 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Chris Beaumont wrote:
To be fair, what other method of comparing them is on offer?
It's the ONLY way to compare 2 very hotly anticipated products that exists at present, until they're actually physically available to members of the great unwashed, it's the only comparison possible.
As long as you take everything with a couple of handfuls of salt it's pretty harmless.
One would need to adjust the viewing distance to make it fair, or down-sample the D800, etc.
Making these types of comparisons is akin to looking at a Gameboy screen from 6" away and saying "wow this image is so crip and clean" then looking at a 70" television from the same 6" away and saying "Oh wow, this image is so blocky!"
Hyperbole on my part, but you get the drift.
Feb 09, 2012 at 01:25 PM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.2 #15 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
snapsy wrote:
The amount of available light has no effect on image noise - only the exposure does (ie, how much of that light is allowed to enter the camera and reach the sensor). So a low-LV shot with a shutter speed of 1/60 will produce the same image noise as a high-LV shot with a shutter speed of 1/4000 if the exposure and color temperature is the same.
I've no idea what an LV is, but I do know from experience that accidentally leaving ISO1600 set then going outdoors results in much much cleaner images than the ones I'd just been shooting indoors in very dim lighting.
Now I don't really care about whether that's amount of light, quality of light, temperature of light, my point is that showing us images taken in good light distorts the sample images anyway, unless you're shooting an incredibly fast moving sport where you NEED 1/8000, no-one uses ISO3200 in good light and sample images taken in such are totally unrepresentative of what images taken in the kind of dingy, shitty churches, halls etc where people are going to be shooting 3200/6400.
Feb 09, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.2 #16 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
cputeq wrote:
One would need to adjust the viewing distance to make it fair, or down-sample the D800, etc.
Making these types of comparisons is akin to looking at a Gameboy screen from 6" away and saying "wow this image is so crip and clean" then looking at a 70" television from the same 6" away and saying "Oh wow, this image is so blocky!"
Hyperbole on my part, but you get the drift.
I partly agree, but that skews the results in favour of the high MP camera unless you're going to print using every single one of those pixels.
Given that 90% of photographers don't print above 20" for 90% of the time, I think it's wholy fair for the D800 to be skewered on the altar of per-pixel noise, given that Nikon chose to worship on said altar.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
but I do know from experience that accidentally leaving ISO1600 set then going outdoors results in much much cleaner images than the ones I'd just been shooting indoors in very dim lighting.
Probably because the indoor scene had more shadows than the outdoor scene, thus the exposure was lower for most of the content.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Now I don't really care about whether that's amount of light, quality of light, temperature of light, my point is that showing us images taken in good light distorts the sample images anyway, unless you're shooting an incredibly fast moving sport where you NEED 1/8000, no-one uses ISO3200 in good light and sample images taken in such are totally unrepresentative of what images taken in the kind of dingy, shitty churches, halls etc where people are going to be shooting 3200/6400.
There's no such thing as "good light" except in terms of color temperature. The amount of available light has no effect on the resulting image. Only the exposure does. If I stand with a garden hose and spray you for 10 seconds you'll be just as wet as me spraying you with a fire hose for 2 seconds.
p.2 #18 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Snapsy, real world you're wrong, sorry. The quality of sunlight vs fluorescent or tungsten makes a huge difference to noise. To do with channel noise and colour temperatures, especially tungsten.
p.2 #19 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Beni wrote:
Snapsy, real world you're wrong, sorry. The quality of sunlight vs fluorescent or tungsten makes a huge difference to noise. To do with channel noise and colour temperatures, especially tungsten.
I said color temperature matters in my reply: "There's no such thing as good light except in terms of color temperature"
Feb 09, 2012 at 01:59 PM
Chris Beaumont Offline • • • • • [X]
p.2 #20 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
That was my next point Beni, that red channel noise is much more apparent isn't it?
Anyway, I appreciate that I used the wrong terms, as a physics geek I should have known that photons are photons are photons.
My point was just that the high-ISO samples we're being given are in low-ISO light conditions with all the advantages that entails.
