snapsy wrote:
I really wish I could give an impression but knowing how different JPEG engines can change detail/noise formulas it's very hard to compare with other bodies. I think I can give a more realistic prediction based on the progression of sensor tech. Based on history I'm guessing the D500 likely has little or no improvement in shot noise (midtones/highlights) and maybe 1/2 stop improvement in read noise (ie, deep shadows) at the most - the D7200 already has barely 1 e- of read noise at High ISO, by far the best performing APS-C sensor in that regard and better than even the D750. So compared to the D750/D3s I'm guessing the D500 will be about 1EV behind in total High ISO performance. The D500 will also "appear" a little cleaner than the D7200 based on its lower MP count....Show more →
Wait.. are you saying that high iso noise is better on the D7200 than on the D750? I just got a D7200 a couple of months ago and not even tried it on concert shooting. I only bought it to shoot birds..
Also, I am only talking about RAW files. I don't ever shoot JPEG.
blutch wrote:
Wait.. are you saying that high iso noise is better on the D7200 than on the D750? I just got a D7200 a couple of months ago and not even tried it on concert shooting. I only bought it to shoot birds..
Also, I am only talking about RAW files. I don't ever shoot JPEG.
Thanks
B
The noise on the D7200 is better than the D750 only at the very deepest shadows, just above clipping, and specifically only for the electronic read noise generated by the sensor itself vs general shot noise that all sensors exhibit.
All that and nobody asked how auto AF fine tune works haha.
Cool document, but not really any new info there unfortunately, most of the things people really want to know got the "that's confidential" reply. Mostly just canned responses derived from the existing marketing materials, tech PDFs, etc. They must have handed this out at a conference or something. It also looks like they wrote some of the questions themselves haha "What are the primary features of the D500?"
I have the impression that it's the expeed 5 processor that is delivering the low noise results from the D5/500 rather than the sensor, which if true may suggest that a software product could do the same?
What you think?
"The D500's new EXPEED 5 image-processing engine, as used in the D5, delivers standard ISO sensitivity from 100 to 51200, expandable down to Lo 1 (ISO 50 equivalent) and up to Hi 5 (ISO 1640000 equivalent). It can capture exceptionally high-definition images, while effectively reducing noise even at high ISO settings."
Forgot the quotes on "stellar", sorry, I was being ironic.
The new cameras may have 1 to 2 stops better ISO than the previous ones in their respective categories, but c'mon, 1.640.000 ISO is not a marketing gimmick? Can you really use an image taken with anything more than 102.400 ISO?
TimMunsey wrote:
I have the impression that it's the expeed 5 processor that is delivering the low noise results from the D5/500 rather than the sensor, which if true may suggest that a software product could do the same?
What you think?
"The D500's new EXPEED 5 image-processing engine, as used in the D5, delivers standard ISO sensitivity from 100 to 51200, expandable down to Lo 1 (ISO 50 equivalent) and up to Hi 5 (ISO 1640000 equivalent). It can capture exceptionally high-definition images, while effectively reducing noise even at high ISO settings."
I agree.
The processor plays a large role in image quality and that's where Nikon has an advantage.
DMZamora wrote:
Forgot the quotes on "stellar", sorry, I was being ironic.
The new cameras may have 1 to 2 stops better ISO than the previous ones in their respective categories, but c'mon, 1.640.000 ISO is not a marketing gimmick? Can you really use an image taken with anything more than 102.400 ISO?
One could derive that higher 'rated' ISOs from the manufacturer imply higher usable ISOs, though certainly we can't expect that relationship to be linear .
.