Daan B wrote:
1) I haven't seen the dramatically improved IQ alongside increases in MP's. If you compare output sizes the differences are minimal (if there are any at all).
Try shooting a 1D against a 1D3. Or a 5D2 against a 5D. Or a 500D against a 350D. I could go on, but it's probably enough to say that if you pick any two cameras of the same format from the same manufacturer which were released 5 years apart, the later will have more pixels, better image quality, and higher usable isos. The converse is never true. Never.
Daan B wrote:
2) In the meantime, we all have to upgrade our memory capacity and PC power to handle those large files.
In the future, when the resolution gets even higher, we will see true sRaw implementations.
With a 50MP camera, you can take a matrix of 4x4 sensels, and true pixel bin down to a matrix of 4 sensels. That gives a 12MP sRaw file without having do de-mosaic, downsample and re-mosaic.
Now, how about the AA-filter then? It can be implemented digitally too. Just include a few sensels surrounding the 4x4, weighted down a little. Actually, I strongly believe that's how Canon is going to solve the jagging problem in video with the coming Digic V processor.
Daan, please ask again if you don't understand what I mean, as that would be my fault, not yours
brainiac wrote:
Try shooting a 1D against a 1D3. Or a 5D2 against a 5D. Or a 500D against a 350D. I could go on, but it's probably enough to say that if you pick any two cameras of the same format from the same manufacturer which were released 5 years apart, the later will have more pixels, better image quality, and higher usable isos. The converse is never true. Never.
That is not my experience. If I compare a 5D file against a 5D2 file I see hardly any differences when printing up to 30x45cm. I see little differences if I print bigger. BUT, if I print bigger (and don't apply NR or other PP routines), the noise of the higher MP cam is magnified too.
Besides that, IQ isn't all about noise and MP's. I did like the 5D rendering of Caucasian skin tones much better than the 5D2's. So, IMO the converse can be true (depending on output and purpose).
alundeb wrote:
In the future, when the resolution gets even higher, we will see true sRaw implementations.
With a 50MP camera, you can take a matrix of 4x4 sensels, and true pixel bin down to a matrix of 4 sensels. That gives a 12MP sRaw file without having do de-mosaic, downsample and re-mosaic.
Now, how about the AA-filter then? It can be implemented digitally too. Just include a few sensels surrounding the 4x4, weighted down a little. Actually, I strongly believe that's how Canon is going to solve the jagging problem in video with the coming Digic V processor.
Daan, please ask again if you don't understand what I mean, as that would be my fault, not yours ...Show more →
Sensor Element, as opposed to pixel, Picture Element. In a Bayer type of sensor, one sensel records light from either the red, green or blue spectrum. But you knew that, I guess.
alundeb wrote:
In the future, when the resolution gets even higher, we will see true sRaw implementations.
With a 50MP camera, you can take a matrix of 4x4 sensels, and true pixel bin down to a matrix of 4 sensels. That gives a 12MP sRaw file without having do de-mosaic, downsample and re-mosaic.
Now, how about the AA-filter then? It can be implemented digitally too. Just include a few sensels surrounding the 4x4, weighted down a little. Actually, I strongly believe that's how Canon is going to solve the jagging problem in video with the coming Digic V processor.
Great plan, and I wonder how much light the AA filter stop. The problem of course is that the camera will be marketed as a 50 Mpixel camera. In those terms it will suffer from moire, and it will also require spectacular lenses. But as you say, if the goal is a 12 Mpixel file, it could be superb.
Daan B wrote:
Maybe you start a dedicated thread to give your article the attention it deserves?
I wrote the article as a standard response for dealing with that particular error. The error gets made over and over again, thread after thread, and as long as it does I don't see any harm in providing the link for those interested enough to follow it. Surely seeing the link is better than endlessly having to scroll through my long-winded posts on the topic.
brainiac wrote:
Great plan, and I wonder how much light the AA filter stop. The problem of course is that the camera will be marketed as a 50 Mpixel camera. In those terms it will suffer from moire, and it will also require spectacular lenses. But as you say, if the goal is a 12 Mpixel file, it could be superb.
I didn't even think of removing the AA filter completely, just using a rather weak one. But hey, lets remove it as you say, and market the camera as 12MP with user configurable AA filter strength. That would please many users, I think.
brainiac wrote:
I wrote the article as a standard response for dealing with that particular error. The error gets made over and over again, thread after thread, and as long as it does I don't see any harm in providing the link for those interested enough to follow it. Surely seeing the link is better than endlessly having to scroll through my long-winded posts on the topic.
OK, do what you think is necessary... To me it comes across as a repetitive scream for attention. Which it probably is... in a certain way
If you would give your article a dedicated stage, people would probably feel more invited to discuss it... and point out things they don't or do agree with. Unless of course this is your final statement on the matter and no discussion based on the article is desired...
Daan B wrote:
I wrote the article as a standard response for dealing with that particular error. The error gets made over and over again, thread after thread, and as long as it does I don't see any harm in providing the link for those interested enough to follow it. Surely seeing the link is better than endlessly having to scroll through my long-winded posts on the topic.
OK, do what you think is necessary... To me it comes across as a repetitive scream for attention. Which it probably is... in a certain way
If you would give your article a dedicated stage, people would probably feel more invited to discuss it... and point out things they don't or do agree with. Unless of course this is your final statement on the matter and no discussion based on the article is desired......Show more →
Feel free to start a discussion about it in another thread if you like. I'll be very happy to discuss everything I wrote.
brainiac wrote:
Feel free to start a discussion about it in another thread if you like. I'll be very happy to discuss everything I wrote.
Hey, if you don't feel the need to start another thread...
From your article:
Why don't cameras like the 1Ds Mk III and D3x have very high ISO settings?
Presumably because the manufacturers realise that photographers, or, more likely, reviewers, don't understand this issue and will immediately zoom to 100% and deride the performance, perfectly good though it may be. Here are a couple of images taken at 12800 ISO on a Canon 1Ds Mk III even though it doesn't have that setting (these shots were deliberately underexposed and then push processed):
This answer makes little sense to me.
How about:
1) Marketing decisions (market segmentation between 1D3/1Ds3 and D3x/D3)
2) They were designed as a studio cam, where high ISO's are hardly relevant.
3) Maybe hardware/technical issues: for example - 1Ds3 amp glow noise at ISO3200 - how would that look at ISO6400 or higher?
4) Other reasons...
I don't think that photogs/reviewers zooming in to 100% on their monitor has anything to do with Canon/Nikon leaving very high ISO settings out of these cams. After all, Canon did put ISO12800 in the 5D2 and will probably put similair ISO values in the 1Ds4.
Daan B wrote:
Hey, if you don't feel the need to start another thread...
From your article:
This answer makes little sense to me.
How about:
1) Marketing decisions (market segmentation between 1D3/1Ds3 and D3x/D3)
2) They were designed as a studio cam, where high ISO's are hardly relevant.
3) Maybe hardware/technical issues: for example - 1Ds3 amp glow noise at ISO3200 - how would that look at ISO6400 or higher?
4) Other reasons...
I don't think that photogs/reviewers zooming in to 100% on their monitor has anything to do with Canon/Nikon leaving very high ISO settings out of these cams. After all, Canon did put ISO12800 in the 5D2 and will probably put similair ISO values in the 1Ds4.
OK - I grant you then, I haven't the faintest idea which of these answers affected the decision to leave very high isos out of those cameras, and I agree that many of your suggestions look plausible. As regards the 1Ds3/5D2 question, the 5D2 has a Digic 4 whereas the 1Ds3 has two Digic 3's, and I have heard it said that the Digic 4 facilitates high iso NR in a way that the Digic 3 doesn't. That might explain why the 5D2 has iso 12800 while the 1Ds3 doesn't. Certainly, from using both cameras extensively I don't see much if any difference in their raw files shot at that speed.
I will duly change the page to reflect your comments. Do you mind if I quote the reasons you have suggested as possible alternatives?
Actually, as I consider your reasons more, they don't make much sense to me. I haven't seen any trace of amp glow on the D3x, and it is visible at iso 3200 on the 1Ds3, as long as light is low in that corner.
As regards studio use of the cameras, I find it hard to believe that either manufacturer, but especially Nikon, is trying to limit sales by narrowing the appeal of the camera. These are working tools for pros, not luxury status symbols. Do they really want a pro to _only_ buy a D3 instead of a D3x because he has been misled into thinking that the D3 will be better at iso 12800? Surely not. I am sure the false notion that the D3 is better than the D3x at iso 12800 has lost Nikon profit.
As for unknown technical issues, that could mean anything, and meanwhile Canon and Nikon are happily introducing very high isos in cameras like the D700, 50D, and 7D.
In the case of the 1Ds3 I suppose you could argue that the absence of the Digic 4 and the amp glow between them set the limit, but in the D3x it's much harder to argue. Perhaps Nikon felt no need to push it since the D3x only has to compete with the 1Ds3. Personally I think it much likelier that Canon and Nikon can't be bothered to explain to reviewers and users alike that printing or downrezzing the files makes them competitive with everyone's high iso favourite, the D700.
brainiac wrote:
Personally I think it much likelier that Canon and Nikon can't be bothered to explain to reviewers and users alike that printing or downrezzing the files makes them competitive with everyone's high iso favourite, the D700.
You can't make me believe that this is the reason for Canon/Nikon for leaving out the higher ISO's out of these cams.
But hey, your assumptions are as good as mine... To be clear: I was making assumptions, since I wasn't there when Nikon/Canon CEO's made these decisions.
It is just that your argument seems conveniently chosen to prove your point on the megapixel myth. Which is fine... But since it lacks any "real" foundation (as in based in reality), it doesn't make your case any stronger. The way I read it, it does quite the opposite.
Daan B wrote:
You can't make me believe that this is the reason for Canon/Nikon for leaving out the higher ISO's out of these cams.
But hey, your assumptions are as good as mine... To be clear: I was making assumptions, since I wasn't there when Nikon/Canon CEO's made these decisions.
It is just that your argument seems conveniently chosen to prove your point on the megapixel myth. Which is fine... But since it lacks any "real" foundation (as in based in reality), it doesn't make your case any stronger. The way I read it, it does quite the opposite.
OK - look at it another way: do you think the engineers at Nikon aren't aware that the D3x is about as good a camera at iso 6400 as a D700?
brainiac wrote:
OK - look at it another way: do you think the engineers at Nikon aren't aware that the D3x is about as good a camera at iso 6400 as a D700?
Just for clarity on the discussion...
The 1Ds3 goes to ISO3200... do you agree that a possible explanation for Canon not having included ISO6400-12800 in the 1Ds3, is because of the amp noise "issue" and DIGIC3 limitations? I mean, you should see how the 1Ds3 is slowed down by activating the in-camera NR. I think in this particular case it is more about "technical" limitations than anything else. And maybe also to make the 1D3 stand out more from the 1Ds3. Probably the same reason why Canon didn't include a 10MP sRAW function in the 1Ds3.
The D3x goes to ISO6400 and was released later than the 1Ds3. Still, you speak of the D3x and 1Ds3 as similair type of cameras that have been deprived of higher ISO's (in your article). I also think a clear distinction should be made here. So, am I correct to assume you want to narrow this discussion down to the D3x?
Now to your question, I do believe that the Nikon engineers are aware that the D3x is comparable to the D700 at ISO6400. But I fail to see how this "proves" that the reason why the D3x didn't get >ISO6400, is because Nikon "can't be bothered to explain anybody that printing or downrezzing the files makes them competitive with everyone's high iso favourite, the D700". No, I think it has more to do with Nikon engineers (and probably mostly marketeers) keeping a close eye on their direct competition... and concluding that ISO6400 is enough since the 1Ds3 "only" goes to ISO3200. Engineers only make cameras that Marketing wants them to make.
