This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
p.9 #1D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
snapsy wrote:
If you ever shoot ISO 6400 you are "underexposing" by the same 6 stops.
Post the comparison shots. Different.
carstenw wrote
If you are exposing for photography, there is no need to push by 6.5 stops. Put your zones where they belong and you will never need to know the behaviour demonstrated above. This is just extreme. 3 stops, yes, but 6.5 stops is just nuts.Post the comparison shots. Different.
Apr 26, 2012 at 01:07 AM
p.9 #2D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
carstenw wrote:
If you ever shoot ISO 6400 you are "underexposing" by the same 6 stops.Post the comparison shots. Different.
D7000, ISO6400, 1/30sec:
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1253/5151368381_f4a16da919_b.jpg
D7000, ISO100, 1/30sec (pushed 6EV in post):
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4008/5151368091_a879a7a753_b.jpg
Not a huge difference, IYAM.
snapsy wrote
carstenw wrote
If you are exposing for photography, there is no need to push by 6.5 stops. Put your zones where they belong and you will never need to know the behaviour demonstrated above. This is just extreme. 3 stops, yes, but 6.5 stops is just nuts.D7000, ISO6400, 1/30sec:
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1253/5151368381_f4a16da919_b.jpg
D7000, ISO100, 1/30sec (pushed 6EV in post):
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4008/5151368091_a879a7a753_b.jpg
Not a huge difference, IYAM.
Apr 26, 2012 at 07:57 AM
p.9 #3D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Not huge, but the 1st shot is exposed a bit more and has a warmer WB.
Apr 26, 2012 at 08:15 AM
p.9 #4D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
So all this begs the question...what happens differently with the Canon 5D Mark III? If shot at base ISO, it apparently shows terrible banding and noise with a push of the shadows (to the degree that would be equivalent to shooting at high ISO's) versus shooting it at a high ISO where the banding and noise is not an issue. Perhaps the difference in this case is down to very good, in camera (on sensor/chip) noise reduction which kicks in at higher ISO's, even with raws, and or better analog amplification?
Apr 26, 2012 at 08:42 AM
p.9 #5D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
AhamB wrote:
Really? I thought most DSLRs (esp. in the bracket of the D800) have analog gain up to ISO 1600. ISO 6400 would make for only 2 stops underexposure then.
Most non-EXMOR sensors (as in, e.g., all Canon's sensors) have analog gain up to somewhere around 1600. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Sony EXMOR sensors (D7000, D800) are different.
Really? I thought most DSLRs (esp. in the bracket of the D800) have analog gain up to ISO 1600. ISO 6400 would make for only 2 stops underexposure then.
Most non-EXMOR sensors (as in, e.g., all Canon's sensors) have analog gain up to somewhere around 1600. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Sony EXMOR sensors (D7000, D800) are different.
Apr 26, 2012 at 09:33 AM
p.9 #6D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
AhamB wrote:
Really? I thought most DSLRs (esp. in the bracket of the D800) have analog gain up to ISO 1600. ISO 6400 would make for only 2 stops underexposure then.
I'll show an example below but it's only tangential to my point. My point is ISO has never been a component of exposure. Exposure is the amount of light you allow to reach the sensor, which can only be controlled by the aperture and shutter speed. The fact that most sensors perform better for low exposures by using analog gain and its related ADC optimizations vs only pushing the exposure digitally is just a temporary technical limitation, one which forces most to use a Higher ISO at the time of shooting and accept its consequences such as lower DR, overexposure from too much gain applied, etc... As such, High nominal ISO has no more photographic legitimacy in terms of "proper exposure" than shooting at a lower ISO that is pushed digitally; it's simply done because present technical limitations require it. That changes with Exmor to a large extent. It's a paradigm shift but one that will require some to be "pushed" kicking and screaming
With that said, here is one of my D800 examples
ISO 3200
ISO 100 pushed
snapsy wrote
If you ever shoot ISO 6400 you are "underexposing" by the same 6 stops.I'll show an example below but it's only tangential to my point. My point is ISO has never been a component of exposure. Exposure is the amount of light you allow to reach the sensor, which can only be controlled by the aperture and shutter speed. The fact that most sensors perform better for low exposures by using analog gain and its related ADC optimizations vs only pushing the exposure digitally is just a temporary technical limitation, one which forces most to use a Higher ISO at the time of shooting and accept its consequences such as lower DR, overexposure from too much gain applied, etc... As such, High nominal ISO has no more photographic legitimacy in terms of "proper exposure" than shooting at a lower ISO that is pushed digitally; it's simply done because present technical limitations require it. That changes with Exmor to a large extent. It's a paradigm shift but one that will require some to be "pushed" kicking and screaming
With that said, here is one of my D800 examples
ISO 3200
ISO 100 pushed
Apr 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM
p.9 #7D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
^Thanks for the elaboration.
Apr 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM
p.9 #8D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
So all this begs the question...what happens differently with the Canon 5D Mark III? If shot at base ISO, it apparently shows terrible banding and noise with a push of the shadows (to the degree that would be equivalent to shooting at high ISO's) versus shooting it at a high ISO where the banding and noise is not an issue. Perhaps the difference in this case is down to very good, in camera (on sensor/chip) noise reduction which kicks in at higher ISO's, even with raws, and or better analog amplification?
Canon has been using the same basic CMOS sensor design for a while, whereas Sony introduced a very cutting edge design with EXMOR that uses column-parallel A/D conversion on the actual chip itself.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezn.gif
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezt.gif
So all this begs the question...what happens differently with the Canon 5D Mark III? If shot at base ISO, it apparently shows terrible banding and noise with a push of the shadows (to the degree that would be equivalent to shooting at high ISO's) versus shooting it at a high ISO where the banding and noise is not an issue. Perhaps the difference in this case is down to very good, in camera (on sensor/chip) noise reduction which kicks in at higher ISO's, even with raws, and or better analog amplification?
Canon has been using the same basic CMOS sensor design for a while, whereas Sony introduced a very cutting edge design with EXMOR that uses column-parallel A/D conversion on the actual chip itself.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezn.gif
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezt.gif
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM
p.9 #9D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
snapsy wrote:
Really? I thought most DSLRs (esp. in the bracket of the D800) have analog gain up to ISO 1600. ISO 6400 would make for only 2 stops underexposure then.I'll show an example below but it's only tangential to my point. My point is ISO has never been a component of exposure. Exposure is the amount of light you allow to reach the sensor, which can only be controlled by the aperture and shutter speed. The fact that most sensors perform better for low exposures by using analog gain and its related ADC optimizations vs only pushing the exposure digitally is just a temporary technical limitation, one which forces most to use a Higher ISO at the time of shooting and accept its consequences such as lower DR, overexposure...Show more →
Exactly. ISO in digital cameras is independent of exposure. Cranking ISO is just boosting the signal after exposure, whether it be analog or digital, just like upping exposure in the raw converter is boosting the signal after the fact, too. Of course, the best combination of analog in-camera gain, digital in-camera gain and digital raw converter gain depends on the camera being used and the raw converter being used.
AhamB wrote
snapsy wrote
If you ever shoot ISO 6400 you are "underexposing" by the same 6 stops.Exactly. ISO in digital cameras is independent of exposure. Cranking ISO is just boosting the signal after exposure, whether it be analog or digital, just like upping exposure in the raw converter is boosting the signal after the fact, too. Of course, the best combination of analog in-camera gain, digital in-camera gain and digital raw converter gain depends on the camera being used and the raw converter being used.
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM
p.9 #10D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
douglasf13 wrote:
Exactly. ISO in digital cameras is independent of exposure. Cranking ISO is just boosting the signal after exposure, whether it be analog or digital, just like upping exposure in the raw converter is boosting the signal after the fact, too. Of course, the best combination of analog in-camera gain, digital in-camera gain and digital raw converter gain depends on the camera being used and the raw converter being used.
But here you're talking Sony sensors only, right? Canons are digital too but not capable of ISO-less shooting.
While Canons deal pretty good with high ISO (eg comparing 5D2 to D700) theyre much more sensitive to a reasonably correct exposure while the Sonys (=newer Nikons here) are not.
Exactly. ISO in digital cameras is independent of exposure. Cranking ISO is just boosting the signal after exposure, whether it be analog or digital, just like upping exposure in the raw converter is boosting the signal after the fact, too. Of course, the best combination of analog in-camera gain, digital in-camera gain and digital raw converter gain depends on the camera being used and the raw converter being used.
But here you're talking Sony sensors only, right? Canons are digital too but not capable of ISO-less shooting.
While Canons deal pretty good with high ISO (eg comparing 5D2 to D700) theyre much more sensitive to a reasonably correct exposure while the Sonys (=newer Nikons here) are not.
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM
p.9 #11D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
douglasf13 wrote:
Canon has been using the same basic CMOS sensor design for a while, whereas Sony introduced a very cutting edge design with EXMOR that uses column-parallel A/D conversion on the actual chip itself.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezn.gif
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezt.gif
Yes, with parallel column ADC's they can read the sensor out quicker with a slower frequency for the ADC's which reduces the read noise and noise contaminating the analog sections. This also allows them to reduce the area in each pixel devoted to analog noise reduction which increases the light gathering of each pixel, better low-light sensitivity. They also mention in some literature that with the fast readout they can expand DR by doing shorter exposure read followed by the normal exposure read to and doing combining. Not sure if this is done in their current DSLR camera EXMOR sensors or just video sensors.
What I don't understand is the Nikon implementation of LiveView for the D800 and why they had to resort to interpolating lines and with the slight lag when they have a sensor with fast parallel columns ADC's?
Also, what is keeping Canon from going to this basic new arch/paradigm for sensors.
Tariq Gibran wrote
So all this begs the question...what happens differently with the Canon 5D Mark III? If shot at base ISO, it apparently shows terrible banding and noise with a push of the shadows (to the degree that would be equivalent to shooting at high ISO's) versus shooting it at a high ISO where the banding and noise is not an issue. Perhaps the difference in this case is down to very good, in camera (on sensor/chip) noise reduction which kicks in at higher ISO's, even with raws, and or better analog amplification?http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezn.gif
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/8ido18000001peqt-img/8ido18000001pezt.gif
Yes, with parallel column ADC's they can read the sensor out quicker with a slower frequency for the ADC's which reduces the read noise and noise contaminating the analog sections. This also allows them to reduce the area in each pixel devoted to analog noise reduction which increases the light gathering of each pixel, better low-light sensitivity. They also mention in some literature that with the fast readout they can expand DR by doing shorter exposure read followed by the normal exposure read to and doing combining. Not sure if this is done in their current DSLR camera EXMOR sensors or just video sensors.
What I don't understand is the Nikon implementation of LiveView for the D800 and why they had to resort to interpolating lines and with the slight lag when they have a sensor with fast parallel columns ADC's?
Also, what is keeping Canon from going to this basic new arch/paradigm for sensors.
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM
p.9 #12D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
wayne seltzer wrote:
Also, what is keeping Canon from going to this basic new arch/paradigm for sensors.
Maybe a patent or licensing fee?
Also, what is keeping Canon from going to this basic new arch/paradigm for sensors.
Maybe a patent or licensing fee?
Apr 26, 2012 at 01:03 PM
p.9 #13D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
wfrank wrote:
But here you're talking Sony sensors only, right? Canons are digital too but not capable of ISO-less shooting.
While Canons deal pretty good with high ISO (eg comparing 5D2 to D700) theyre much more sensitive to a reasonably correct exposure while the Sonys (=newer Nikons here) are not.
Exposure is independent of ISO with any digital camera, but, yes, the method of boosting exposure after the fact, whether it be with the camera ISOs or the raw converter exposure slider, depends on the camera.
douglasf13 wrote
Exactly. ISO in digital cameras is independent of exposure. Cranking ISO is just boosting the signal after exposure, whether it be analog or digital, just like upping exposure in the raw converter is boosting the signal after the fact, too. Of course, the best combination of analog in-camera gain, digital in-camera gain and digital raw converter gain depends on the camera being used and the raw converter being used.While Canons deal pretty good with high ISO (eg comparing 5D2 to D700) theyre much more sensitive to a reasonably correct exposure while the Sonys (=newer Nikons here) are not.
Exposure is independent of ISO with any digital camera, but, yes, the method of boosting exposure after the fact, whether it be with the camera ISOs or the raw converter exposure slider, depends on the camera.
Apr 26, 2012 at 01:35 PM
p.9 #14D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
Anybody, know why the D800 LiveView is implemented the way it is with the interpolating every other line with lag? Is it because of not enough pixel processing pipeline throughput?
Apr 26, 2012 at 03:55 PM
p.9 #15D800 spanked the 5DIII in every DXO category!
wayne seltzer wrote:
Anybody, know why the D800 LiveView is implemented the way it is with the interpolating every other line with lag? Is it because of not enough pixel processing pipeline throughput?
I touched on this here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106755/0#10564283
Anybody, know why the D800 LiveView is implemented the way it is with the interpolating every other line with lag? Is it because of not enough pixel processing pipeline throughput?
I touched on this here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1106755/0#10564283
Apr 26, 2012 at 04:00 PM