Whoa what happened to that guy? He used to poke fun at Canon and now he seems to be 100% Canon fan boy and a raving Nikon-hater. (Maybe Canon got a hold of him, held him, and re-programmed him . He has gone from one extreme to the other extreme).
p.3 #2 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
snapsy wrote:
It doesn't. The "banding" he's crowing about is simply JPEG posterization.
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.
I'm talking about overall image clarity - mainly noise. I was ignoring the "banding" issue. On a pixel level the 1Dx ISO1600 is vastly clearer than the D800's ISO320. Even when reduced to the same size it would still be superior.
And I'm not talking about the 1DIV at all, so why even bring it up? The 1Dx is a different beast entirely.
p.3 #3 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
caisheng wrote:
and this
[url=http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg
Yes]http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg
Yes[/url] banding like 5dII.
where? I did 100% shadows raise on it. Granted without the RAW it's harder to tell since shadows raise on a pre-cooked jpg only lets you see what they did not pull up new depth from the RAW image. But I don't see it.
I see some posterization banding from 8bit jpg most likely but that is something else entirely.
p.3 #4 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
deepbluejh wrote:
I'm talking about overall image clarity - mainly noise. I was ignoring the "banding" issue. On a pixel level the 1Dx ISO1600 is vastly clearer than the D800's ISO320. Even when reduced to the same size it would still be superior.
"Pixel level" comparisons are irrelevant because photos are rendered as images, not pixels, and that rendering almost always involves a resampling down to a lower resolution, esp now for 36MP images. And it is impossible for the 1DX (or D3s/D4) to outperform by the D800 by 2.3 stops as you indicated, even at the pixel level.
deepbluejh wrote:
And I'm not talking about the 1DIV at all, so why even bring it up? The 1Dx is a different beast entirely.
Because you were wondering out loud why the 1DX would have a "native" ISO of 51k if not for higher IQ relative to the D800 and I gave you an alternate explanation (marketing) with an example proving that alternative (1DIV's ISO 12,800).
p.3 #5 · 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.
The Canon ISO1600 image also has waxworks going on, lots of NR and low in cam jpg sharpening, different lighting levels AND types, what can you really tell from these?
p.3 #7 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
skibum5 wrote:
The Canon ISO1600 image also has waxworks going on, lots of NR and low in cam jpg sharpening, different lighting levels AND types, what can you really tell from these?
If by "waxworks" you mean, standard SOOC jpeg, then yes. What I can actually tell is that the 1Dx is going to be an exceptionally low noise camera while the D800 won't be. They're not the "same", but nothing will ever be the "same" and if you try hard enough you can shoot holes in anything. This leaves the door open for people to justify most anything they'd like to believe.
I'm not bashing the D800, I think it's an amazing camera and I'm excited to see what Canon will do to counter it. Let's be very clear though, the D800 won't duplicate the D700's high ISO superiority relative to it's competition. You just don't get something for nothing when you triple the pixel count of your sensor. You've got the pay the piper in the form of increased noise. Nothing new here, we've always known this.
From my eyes, the ISO 3200 samples from the D800 look like an enlarged version of what I get from my 5D Mark II at ISO 3200. In absolute terms it's quite good, but certainly nothing groundbreaking and nowhere close to the D3s or 1Dx.
p.3 #8 · 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.
not entirely, for instance well lit scenes tend to have lots of the image in the bright zone though and images shot in dark conditions often have large chunks of the image in near shadow zone
shot your yard after a snow storm under noon sun at ISO1600 and a 20D looks almost like ISO100, shoot outside a night at ISO1600 someone lit by a street lamp and there is lots of noise in much of the photo, very little of it, other than some hot spots is near the bright end of the histogram
p.3 #9 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
also lighting often found in dark scenes is not well balanced and tends to make a lot more noise too since it hits some channels so much less than others
although I admit this one does seem to have a lot of noise for ISO320, not that it's easy to judge from a random photo, but it does seem a bit curiously noisy
p.3 #13 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Fake Chuckwestfall is brilliant.
But Sony are the god's of the sensor universe so how could this be. D7000 already has the greatest sensor since well forever and D800 is just FF version. I wonder if ANONYMOUS hacked into the Sony production line and somehow farked up the sensors as payback for the Playstation debacle?
p.3 #14 · 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!
Do what I did: scale the Canon files up to D800 size and then scale the D800 files down to 1DX size - you'll still see that ISO320 on the D800 appears to be about the same as the ISO1600 on the 1DX.
The resolution difference, which sounds high when you say "18MP" and "36MP" isn't as high as you'd think...
p.3 #15 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
It is clear to me that this blogger is very worried when he saw those images from D800. He needed to drink heavily to produce the post, otherwise he wouldn't have it in him.
My point is to you guys, if Canon does not release a high MP camera in the next 3 months, they will lose a significant market share to Nikon. This blogger can only hold you back temporarily from jumping ship.
p.3 #18 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
Can someone please explain how all of a sudden Nikon have re-written he laws of physics?
When the 1DsMk3 arrived everyone complained it was a massive 21mp and it would be full of diffraction in every shot.
Now the D800 arrives and all these landscape shooters come out of the woodwork praising 36mp?
What they are going to shoot landscape at 2.8?
Guess Nikon must have friends in hi places to have the laws that define normal optics and lens design adjusted for there new body.
Well done!
p.3 #19 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
The big change is that computers have progressed to the point that focus stacking can be done within a regular workflow with very little (~sub 20 seconds) extra time per image.
All this debate and we don't even have raws. Judging from the D7000's performance, I'd venture the D800 will outdo the 1Dx on resolution, high ISO, DR, and color depth. Willing to be proven wrong, but I'd be more than surprised if Canon is able to compete with half the resolution.
p.3 #20 · Nikon D800 Vs Canon 1Dx image quality [ very funny ]
@ snapsy: "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."
Except for this. To the extent that noise is a result of random fluctuations in the sensor circuitry, those will have a temporal component. Longer exposures equal more time, equal more fluctuations per circuit, equal more noise.
It would be fun if I actually knew that. Alas, I don't. But I think it is plausible. Surely there has to be some explanation for the fact that, as others have observed, more light means shorter exposures, means less high ISO noise. If you want to compare high ISO photography for noise, you have to shoot in low light to get apples to apples comparisons that mean anything. That's real world experience, and it is not a small or marginal point.
. He has gone from one extreme to the other extreme).
?