Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Graeme Nattress on December 07, 2007, 08:43:39 am
-
I thought the Canon ISO1600 shot seemed better, whereas the Nikon high ISO shots all seem to have heavy noise reduction in them, less detail, a sort of painterly smudginess about them.
Graeme
-
Graeme,
The consensus view of 22 pairs of eyeballs at my gallery last week was that the D3 ISO 1600 files looked better. But, this just goes to show how subjective these evaluations can be.
Michael
-
Michael,
Thank you ever so much for this VERY IMPORTANT review. As you may have seen - if you've had the time - I started a thread on the subject of noise, and what you've written is so very topical to what I'm experimenting with just now - but without the luxury of a slew of cameras for comparisons. The comparisons however are important because they put the whole issue in perspective. Over the weekend I hope to be gaining insight into a question on my mind as to whether there is any variance of sensor performance from one camera to another within the same camera model. I would hope not - at this price point (D3, 1DsMK3) one must presume they are individually tested to meet a minimum standard that is also a very high standard.
Another important aspect I believe, based on the preliminary testing I've managed to complete over the past couple of days, is how one exposes and processes the images. For example, if you look at the crop of Jay's eye in the section of your report starting with "ISO 1600", from what I can see on my well-calibrated and profiled LaCie 321, your observations about these two images are correct. But I would go one step further and observe that the Nikon image is generally more contrasty - nothing wrong with that - just a fact which perhaps needs to be thrown into the list of explanatory variables. One can see this insofar as, like you say, there is more shadow clarity in the Canon shot (obversely Jay's eye is darker in the Nikon shot), the skin tone in the Canon shot is darker than in the Nikon and there is more eyebrow detail in the Nikon shot, because there is more aggressive tonal separation between the hairs having different shades of grey. Now - I want you to understand, please Michael - this is NOT *pixel peeping*, but it IS *splitting hairs* (literally) . The serious point about it is - one wonders whether the higher contrast of the Nikon image either suppresses noise or causes less visibility of noise than does the slightly lower contrast Canon image, especially if the causes of these contrast differences relate to any differing placement of identical subject along the histogram. I.E. if more of the skin tone in the Canon shot is further to the left on the histogram than happens in the Nikon shot, could this perhaps explain why there would be slightly more visble noise in the former compared with the latter? I'll have a bit more to say about this matter related to my own images in the thread I started. I had hoped to publish it last night but I fell asleep in front of the TV watching the news. (Yes, for our Canadian readers, the Mulroney-Schreiber hearing was good theatre, but it put me to sleep after a long day of shooting and pixel peeping.)
One other technical point - from what I saw of the images you printed at the gallery during the workshop, it is not only the amount of noise that has changed, but also how it looks. While I have not yet done the intended comparison with my 1Ds 11.1MP, I have a sense that the "look" of the noise isn't what it used to be. Except in the deep dark tones where the green/magenta blotches look familiar, the darkishness of other noise further up the tone curve is - well - less dirty-looking and more granular, which harking back to the film days many would consider more "acceptable".
The three bottom shots in your article are astounding in terms of the clarity, tone quality and resolution achieved at such a high ISO.
Cheers,
Mark
-
The bottom line from these tests -- 2008 is going to be a very excitimg year. Thanks Michael.
-
I must say...nice informal comparison. And good real world conclusions. I too belive the D3 has a slight edge now over Canon...(which I am sure Canon will answer) and if such a race ensues...we the users of each brand will only benifit.
I just sold my D2X to get the D300 and I cant be any more pleased. Yes...the D300 has more noise issues than the D3. But it is worlds of improvment over the D2X.
I would be very interested to know what you think of the new lenses also from Nikon (the 14-24 and the 24-70 that just came out) I have heard some good things even from Zeiss users. Would love to hear a more informed and trustworthy opinion.
Thanks Michael for your intersting read...and as always...your timely information.
Roman
-
Graeme,
The consensus view of 22 pairs of eyeballs at my gallery last week was that the D3 ISO 1600 files looked better. But, this just goes to show how subjective these evaluations can be.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, highly subjective! So let me rephrase my question:
Why do the images look the way they do?
As you know I'm more interested in this from the POV of sensor design and what is state-of-the-art given my current work, but I'm still interested as a photographer.
It's fairly quick and easy to take both the Canon and Nikon images into Photoshop, go into LAB mode and see what A and B, the chroma channels are doing. The Nikon here shows much less detail, which is indicative of noise reduction that's strongly aimed at chroma noise. Given how these sensors works, that makes sense. However, it also means we're not comparing like with like.
Does putting noise reduction algorithm A in camera, help or hinder you using noise reduction algorithm B on post? Is it better to do all NR in post, or is some split more effective?
One of the things that it's very hard to do is actually visualize raw camera data. Without seeing that, you're not seeing what noise is the sensor and what noise is the processing. You're not using like for like demosaicing algorithms (which can do noise reduction as part of their action). All you can do is compare the end result, which is what matters for photographers - it doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you like where you're going, but doesn't always elucidate the optimum route in terms of time, effort and money.
Adrian's comment about contrast is a good one, as shadow noise can be somewhat changed in appearance by cropping off the noise in the near blacks, giving an elevated black level, but having it effectively noise free, and increase contrast, but reduced dynamic range. You can also loose some detail doing this.
So to me, the other question is, not what is the comparison of noise, but what is the dynamic range of each camera, and to measure that, you need a controlled test with a backlit wedge test. I'm sure this information will come out, but I'm keen to know if the D3 sensor is revolutionary or have Nikon just got good NR in there.
Graeme
-
...............
Adrian's comment about contrast is a good one, as shadow noise can be somewhat changed in appearance by cropping off the noise in the near blacks, giving an elevated black level, but having it effectively noise free, and increase contrast, but reduced dynamic range. You can also loose some detail doing this.
So to me, the other question is, not what is the comparison of noise, but what is the dynamic range of each camera, and to measure that, you need a controlled test with a backlit wedge test. I'm sure this information will come out, but I'm keen to know if the D3 sensor is revolutionary or have Nikon just got good NR in there.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graeme, the point about contrast was mine, not Adrian's. I was thinking more in terms of the initial exposure, implicitly suggesting that if the same material ends-up on different spots of the histogram between the two cameras this can contribute to different noise levels without differing sensor quality being the determinative cause. Are we saying the same thing in different words, or are you adding another dimension to the concept?
Higher DR suggests to me more space between white and black - but how would this impact noise?
-
Indeed, highly subjective! So let me rephrase my question:
It's fairly quick and easy to take both the Canon and Nikon images into Photoshop, go into LAB mode and see what A and B, the chroma channels are doing.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graeme,
For this to make sense it would have to be done with the raw file, not a JPG off the web. Also, one needs to consider what inherent noise reduction has been performed by the raw processor, which all do some even with settings at zero.
Finally, while looking at the file in LAB is interesting, it does not always correlate well with how the image actually looks in a print, which for me is where the rubber meets the road.
Michael
-
Thank you for another informative comparison. I am a Canon shooter and have never been a Nikon shooter, but it is exciting to see real competition. The end result can only be better tools for us.
I understand your comments about DPP and Capture NX, but I look forward to seeing (somewhere, if not here) comparisons of these proprietary developers along with Lightroom.
DPP is terrible for workflow, but to my eye often gets cleaner output than LR/ACR.
Jay has great eyebrows.
-
Graeme,
The consensus view of 22 pairs of eyeballs at my gallery last week was that the D3 ISO 1600 files looked better. But, this just goes to show how subjective these evaluations can be.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
A very informative comparison showing how the cameras stack up in real world shooting conditons. As to noise, the quants will be interested in standard deviations at defined areas in the shadows, perhaps with un-demosaiced data to avoid the variables introduced by the raw converter. Other things being equal, the camera with the larger pixels will have a lower standard deviation. However, the noise spectra will be different for the two cameras. The camera with the higher resolution may have a larger standard deviation, but the noise will be finer grained and perhaps perceived as less bothersome.
Did you actually make 16 by 14 inch prints to compare these subjective differences?
Bill
-
I thought the Canon ISO1600 shot seemed better, whereas the Nikon high ISO shots all seem to have heavy noise reduction in them, less detail, a sort of painterly smudginess about them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158913\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, the D300 only has slightly less read noise than the D200, and about the same image shot noise and greater pixel shot noise than the D200. It is nothing revolutionary. It should not be included in the class of low-noise performance in the D3 or 1DSmk3.
For the D3, the JPEGs look like Nikon is so used to having higher noise that they forgot to use less NR on the D3.
-
And the good news is, both Canon and Nikon users have reason to be happy! Merry Christmas & Happy Hanukka!
-
I will have to say both cameras is impressing. I would be happy to have any off them. As a Nikon shooter I am very pleased with Nikons better noise performance. Myself doesnt choice cameras from the noise the most important factor.
I am very impressed with the Canon 1ds MKIII. Even with the almost the double pixel count it holds up very good. I dont think it is night and day. I can understand that noise is important for some people for their style off photography. But it isnt such a "big deal" like some self-chosen forumguru experts made a point off.The evolution off camera sensor technology is nothing about fantastic on both brands.
I thought my puny amateur Nikon D80 got good noise . But I came from another world today some people would claim such noise level render the camera to disposable camera.
If you are pro working hard lighting conditions I understand the obsession with low iso noise. But I almost irritated today as it is hard to read anything about image quality that dont concern high ISO image quality.
I think most people are obsessed with no good reason as most people dont print large, maybe this forum is exception with many landscape guys. ISO noise is often very forgiving in large prints when cram in alot off pixels in alot smaller area than a computer screen. 72 dpi is very low resolution and off course you can even see a dead pixel. I challenge someone to see a dead pixel in print, maybe you can. But then you see alot better than me.
Nothing to write down the effort off the comparison between the cameras. But I want shake some sense into people that both cameras are probaly renders great prints.
I want to read about renderings, low iso, color, AA filter and other stuff that is relevant for my kinda slown down tempo shootings. I am just as egoistic like the other guy.
Quite a long post, but wanted share my view. This forum is also grown up enough so I took my time share my view. Thanks if you read this far
Cheers,
Daniel
-
While I'm not arguing with the way the "tests" were performed as to the question of image size vs. pixel size, my experience in this has given me some reasons for going with the image size crowd.
I was a partner in a commercial photo lab here in New york for many years, and have seen mucho photo's come through, in addition to my own early work in fashion and advertising. The one thing I've seen time and again, is that the final image size is the thing. Whether using film or digital, it must be sized to the final purpose.
In regards to that, and the medium used, we see the differences in format, and sensor size, and rez. The same for film. ISO, obviously plays a very big part.
An 11 x 17 two page mag spread will remain the same regardless of the original medium used. The same of a gallery print.
Assuming the lenses are capable of resolving close to the limit of the film or sensor, the rez of the medium will be a determining factor. This, I have seen, affects noise as well. What I have found is that, talking about digital (though film is similar), a sensor with significantly higher rez, assuming equal noise at equal final pixel size, shows less apparent noise on the image. The reason is simple, the pixels are much smaller, and the noise is therefore finer, and less observable. Since we purpose our images for a specific image size, that's what really matters in the real world.
Of course, if one is a "cropper" things may come out differently.
But, otherwise, it's like printing a 16 x 20 of an ISO 100 film vs printing it from a 400 ISO film. If the 100 film grain is enlarged to equal that of the 400 film, the "noise" may be about the same, but for the same image size, the 100 film will have the lower noise, and greater sharpness.
I realize there are various ways of looking at this question, but I've never seen anyone print to the grain size for any normal work. The medium chosen is usually that which will give the required quality at the needed image size.
-
Thanks for this comparison; these cameras are amazing. ISO 25600!!
I would like to natter about comparing noise characteristics of cameras with different resolutions, and will try to be grown-up and polite:
As you allude to in the article, in general the "problem" with high-resolution cameras as that each photosite/pixel is smaller, so it collects less light, and therefore needs to be amplified more for a given ISO level than a photosite on a lower-resolution camera with the same size sensor. This higher amplification, of course, causes noise. Now, in reality this isn't much of a problem, hence the quotes around "problem," because you can "get it back" by lowering the resolution of the picture. If you use a good algorithm for lowering the resolution, the noise will be reduced, yielding a picture of similar resolution and quality as from the lower resolution camera. I'm assuming PS will use a good algorithm, but I don't own it or use it so I'm not sure.
So - I think the best way to compare the noise characteristics of a full-frame 21mp camera and a full-frame 12mp camera is instead of showing two 100% crops, show a 100% crop of the 12mp camera and a ~75% crop of the 21mp camera. This should result in two crops that are the same size on screen and show the same crop of the picture. Notice the two 100% crops in the article are of different sizes, since the Canon sample has more pixels for the same composition.
I suspect this will eliminate some of the "one stop noise advantage to the new Nikon" that you see, and this is a very meaningful comparison, since the real question is: "For a print of a given size of such-and-such scene, which camera will be less noisy?"
thanks,
Erik Haugen
-
This higher amplification, of course, causes noise. Now, in reality this isn't much of a problem, hence the quotes around "problem," because you can "get it back" by lowering the resolution of the picture. If you use a good algorithm for lowering the resolution, the noise will be reduced, yielding a picture of similar resolution and quality as from the lower resolution camera. I'm assuming PS will use a good algorithm, but I don't own it or use it so I'm not sure.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=158963\")
Sceintific sensors, which are nearly always CCDs rather than CMOS, allow pixel [a href=\"http://www.photomet.com/library/library_encyclopedia/library_enc_binning.php]binning[/url] to achieve the advantages you mention. As explained in the link, binning reduces read noise, since the binned pixels are read out with about the same noise as the individual pixels. When reading individual pixels, the same read noise in inserted with each read. After the fact binning will reduce noise (shot noise), but will have no effect on read noise.
Bill
-
Assuming the lenses are capable of resolving close to the limit of the film or sensor, the rez of the medium will be a determining factor. This, I have seen, affects noise as well. What I have found is that, talking about digital (though film is similar), a sensor with significantly higher rez, assuming equal noise at equal final pixel size, shows less apparent noise on the image. The reason is simple, the pixels are much smaller, and the noise is therefore finer, and less observable. Since we purpose our images for a specific image size, that's what really matters in the real world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this is broadly true although the reason is not necessarily that the pixels of the higher rez camera are smaller, when different formats are being compared.
I always remember my surprise when I first read the review of the 1Ds at dpreview comparing its noise characteristics with the earlier Canon D60. Up to about ISO 400, noise in the 1Ds was actually slightly worse than the D60, yet the 1Ds had bigger pixels.
Of course, when dpreview compares noise, they compare it on a pixel-for-pixel basis; grey patches of equal size.
But the point was made by dpreview that this apparent lower noise of the D60 would not be evident in equal size prints and I'm sure those who used both cameras would have been very much aware that the 1Ds had lower noise in practice.
-
I can appreciate the whole "noise" debate and recognize that it's a concern but what interest me more as predominately a studio shooter at ISO 100, is a direct comparison as to how well these cameras can hold up when enlarging an image to 24x30.
Michael
-
For the D3, the JPEGs look like Nikon is so used to having higher noise that they forgot to use less NR on the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you read Michael's postscript, you will see that the shots were in raw and rendered in Lightroom. They are not in camera JPEGs. Of course, Nikon may have done some NR behind Michael's back to the raw file.
Bill
-
I can appreciate the whole "noise" debate and recognize that it's a concern but what interest me more as predominately a studio shooter at ISO 100, is a direct comparison as to how well these cameras can hold up when enlarging an image to 24x30.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A 24X30 print would show a clear advantage to the Canon. There's no way that a 12MP camera can make a print that size the way a 21MP camera can.
And as I indicated in my article, at print sizes that are within the capability of both cameras the IQ differences at low ISO would be a quibble, and likely subject to the vagaries of processing as much as anything else.
Michael
-
A 24X30 print would show a clear advantage to the Canon. There's no way that a 12MP camera can make a print that size the way a 21MP camera can.
And as I indicated in my article, at print sizes that are within the capability of both cameras the IQ differences at low ISO would be a quibble, and likely subject to the vagaries of processing as much as anything else.
Michael
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=158972\")
Congradulations Michael for this very interesting and highly informative quick take!
Nevertheless, to me, the comparison can be better, if we taking in the following factors.
1. The Nikon 24-120mm VR is not really a sharp lens at f/5.6. But this does not affect the noise behavior of course and high ISO noise was Michael's main aim.
2. The one which does affect noise the the RAW converter. ACR/LightRoom in general produce much noisier images from the D3/D300 NEF files, I have found, compared to Capture NX, even when the NR is turned off in the NX. On the other hand the handle the CR2 files much better, to my eyes.
Why? Actually there has been quite interesting discussions on going at Bjørn Rørslett's forum on both NX's (and possibly Nikon's) noise and behind scene CA reduction issues:
[a href=\"http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0]http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0[/url]
, talking about the possible hidden information in the D3/D300 NEFs which I am almost sure the ACR/LightRoom is not current consider, if they do exist.
By the way, I have seen many 1DsIII samples and exactly like Michael I am extremely impressed. Still shooting film, I am tireless to try to squeeze out the last bits of fine details relatively artifacts free from digital captures. Based on what I saw, if I spend serious money on a DSLR today, I would not hesitate to go for a 1DsIII, since I am basically a landscape photographer and the 1DIII/D3's high ISO capabilities does not matter too much. The pixel level fine details and micro-contrast contained in the 1DsIII RAW files are truly astonishing, basically at the same level of 18-22MP MF backs if the right processing tools are used, despite of the presence of the AA filter. Even I label myself a Nikon shooter and lover! In the past I argued with many others on the film vs. digital subject, but even with my more conservative accessment the 1DsIII resolution has passed the 645 Velvia 50 level. For example there is a 1DsIII/MF back comparison here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...25835108&page=1 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=25835108&page=1)
Talking about resolution, and again like Michael, most importantly at low ISO values, there has been reports that the D3 images does not contain ultra-fine details, like these from my mentor and friend Lloyd Chambers:
http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html)
The subject is heavily debated here:
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6911.0 (http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6911.0)
For one I tended to agree with Lloyd: without access a D3 I too found my D300 images not to the crispy D2x image level with more soft, maybe more "(negative) film like" feeling which I do not really like (I like chrome and B&W film feelings). I thought the same could be the case for the D3 until yesterday, when Imaging-Resourse posted the RAW files of their preliminary test images. I downloaded the NEFs, and played carefully in different RAW converters, ACR, LightRoom (basically the same to ACR but ACR is just updated), Capture NX, Phase One, and my perferred RAW Developer (RD). At the end, I found the RD does a much surperior job digging out that last ounce of fine details out of the D3 RAW files, although it also outputs more noise (which I do not care), and it lacks the automatic CA reduction feature in the NX.
Unlike most reviewers/testers, I do not look the converted images merely at 100%, but upsample them to a standard size, which is 16x24 at 300dpi, or 4800x7200 pixels, as my comparison base to exam the real fine detail and artifact level. This link brings to the RD processed D3 RAW files to see the level of fine details there:
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=7081.0 (http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=7081.0)
To my eyes, at the 170% upsample level, the ACR/LightRoom images look plasticky with the fine textures on smooth surfaces totally wiped out. ACR only exports at 25.1MP or 4088 pixels at the short site maximum, so to compare the ACR converted with mine you have to further upres. There is a reason Charlie Cramer and many other used to be film-based fine photographers use RD for RAW conversion. A direct link to the RD output, at 170% resolution, is here:
http://lepingzha.smugmug.com/gallery/50676...229584488/Large (http://lepingzha.smugmug.com/gallery/506767/1/229584488/Large)
which was from the RD's Hybrid sharpening set to 1/10. Some small crops are below. No Photoshop involved in processing except for saving JPEGs at quality level 10.
Remember you are looking at a 16x24 blow up at 100% on screen. The little mostly demosiacing artifact will disappear on print, or at 50% viewing level, which matches printing results better.
Thank you for reading my long post!
-
I consider Michael to be the type of guy to get into something and give a very solid opinion or report on whatever he has hi hands on. Even if I don't agree with the outcome, there is enough weight behind his thinking to make his words command attention.
Having said that, there are a few points I would make on some of Michael's statements. One thing that really isn't that important, but also can't be allowed to just fall to the floor is while understanding and appreciating the result of the comparison of the 1Ds MK3 and D3, it is just enough of an annoyance to see that the 1D MK3 and D3 are the real comparable cameras and not the D3 and the 1Ds MK3. This should be kept in mind for the future and just because I mention it it does not mean any disagreement or lack of understanding on my part that the MK3 was not available. It means it is something important enough in my eyes to do in the future.
Two area's where I do have a disagreement is the basic underlining premise that bigger pixels automatically mean lower noise. Canon's entire advancement this last round is based on smaller pixels but at the same time keeping the same size photo receptors as the previous generation of sensor. If the Canon 1D MK3 proves to be fairly close in noise to the Nikon D3, then the Canon is accomplishing that with a smaller pixel - but that test was not able to be done. The 1Ds MK3 however, has a smaller pixel but the same size photo receptor inside the pixel and manages to achieve better results than the 1Ds MK2. The 1D MK3 has a bigger pixel than the 1Ds MK3, so where the chips may fall is still undetermined.
Having the 5D and the MK3 I can tell you that shooting a wedding and in the part of the church service where there is no flash, I much much prefer using the MK3 over the 5D at ISO 3200 and the results are about a stop or more better. Even though I know I am right on this - assuming someone disagrees with me, what this proves is that the next generation of the 5D is poised to become the king of the hill at low noise if Canon uses this same technology on the next 5D and Canon also stays conservative with the amount of megapixels they put into the camera. I would guess the extreme would be something in the 16 megapixel size and a conservative approach would be something in the 14 megapixel size. At the 1Ds MK2's 16.7 megapixels with the new smaller-pixel/larger-photo-receptor technology, that sensor should yield the equal to Nikon's D3. At 14 megapixels it should pass the Nikon's D3 easily. If nikon was able to do the same thing that Canon does with a smaller pixel and larger photo receptor, it would take that camera to a whole new level, Canon is the only one in position to accomplish that now, if they chose to do it.
I also want to add an interesting test in making 12x18 lab prints from both the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds MK3 and having about 10 people choose which was better, the Canon won 9 out of 10, and I also chose the Canon print. The person choosing the Nikon print chose it based on the facial expression - duh. The prints were ISO 3200 images from both cameras.
Peter
-
I also want to add an interesting test in making 12x18 lab prints from both the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds MK3 and having about 10 people choose which was better, the Canon won 9 out of 10, and I also chose the Canon print. The person choosing the Nikon print chose it based on the facial expression - duh. The prints were ISO 3200 images from both cameras.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159004\")
Convince me it is fair to make 12x18s out of a 12MP camera to be compared with the one from a 21MP. D3 vs. 1DIII is far more fair since the D3 and 1DsIII are targeted for different applications, just as one guy said you can't compare a Ferrari with a truck.
Don't take me wrong since I will probably get a 1DsIII, but I am a landscape shooter not a sport chaser or photo journalists.
Plus, you should checkout the sensor efficiency test results where the D3 has a clear lead. Maybe the 1DsIII's is even higher, but sorry, no data yet.
[a href=\"http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/]http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/po...D300_40D_tests/[/url]
The subject is also heavily discussed here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...25658562&page=1 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=25658562&page=1)
You see more noise on your prints because the improper RAW converter (ACR) was used. See my post above it does not treat CR2s and NEFs equally well and output heavy noise from the Nikon RAW files. Try out Capture NX and see the difference. We should always compare with the manufacture's own converters, i.e., DPP and NX. ACR or LightRoom are NOT the equal base for all under the same settings, for sure.
-
If you read Michael's postscript, you will see that the shots were in raw and rendered in Lightroom. They are not in camera JPEGs. Of course, Nikon may have done some NR behind Michael's back to the raw file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I come in here through the back door. When someone starts a thread, referencing an article from the main page, it might not be obvious that it was an article that was being referenced. So, naturally, I thought of default conversions or JPEGs.
I don't think that converters that convert many cameras and brands convert all images equally. You stand the risk of upsetting people if their cameras' RAWs convert noisier in you converter, or are more detail-less, so there is motive to try to stick with the MFR's style as closely as possible, unless you can make an improvement without compromising something else (such as ACR's line noise reduction).
I've looked at the RAW data of all three cameras, and they all look pretty honest, with no signs of filtering (noise concentrated near nyquist). The only tampering is with blackpoint, highlight clipping, and rescaling of RAW values on a global or line-by-line basis, etc.
-
And the good news is, both Canon and Nikon users have reason to be happy!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, those willing to spend US$8000! The 40D still collects only about 1/4 as many photons as a D3 with the same exposure, and has more than double the individual pixel read noise as the 1Dmk3 at ISO 1600, while having less than half as many pixels!
-
A 24X30 print would show a clear advantage to the Canon. There's no way that a 12MP camera can make a print that size the way a 21MP camera can.
And as I indicated in my article, at print sizes that are within the capability of both cameras the IQ differences at low ISO would be a quibble, and likely subject to the vagaries of processing as much as anything else.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree, Michael. I broke my own (16x24) rule and upsampled (in RD) and printed the Imaging-Resource's 1DsIII RAW test image to 24x36 (part of it of course) at 300dpi, and it look great (even I can't stand the most people's 12x18s out of DSLRs).
I hope you would consider going back to China someday with real local photographers, and I will be happy and more than thrilled to be your local logistic manager and interpretor, as I did for Richard Lohmann and George DeWolf last year at this time!
-
Michael,
Thanks for this practical test. I found it useful, and as always you concentrate on what matters in real world use for those in the market for this type of camera.
A while back I was watching LLVJ #1 and the review of the D30. You held up some large prints and showed just how wonderful the results could be from a camera that might now be called primitive.
The cameras in this test, and others like the 40D and 5D, offer results that are simply spectacular. We can quibble endlessly about technical details, but from the cameras now available there is certainly something to fit the needs and budget of most photographers.
Well, those willing to spend US$8000! The 40D still collects only about 1/4 as many photons as a D3 with the same exposure, and has more than double the individual pixel read noise as the 1Dmk3 at ISO 1600, while having less than half as many pixels!
Perhaps we need to ask: is there a camera available that can allow me to print to the size I want and produce excellent results. The actual specification measurements matter not at all. It's the end result we should be measuring.
-
The cameras in this test, and others like the 40D and 5D, offer results that are simply spectacular. We can quibble endlessly about technical details, but from the cameras now available there is certainly something to fit the needs and budget of most photographers.
Perhaps we need to ask: is there a camera available that can allow me to print to the size I want and produce excellent results. The actual specification measurements matter not at all. It's the end result we should be measuring.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not talking about some philosophical abstraction; all "end results" originate with signal and noise; it's all recorded as numbers, and some have more numbers, some have less numbers, some have more accurate numbers, some have less accurate numbers.
-
I admit I'm somewhat of a photographic philistine, having done most of my serious work in photojournalism rather than the various high-quality advertising and art modes, but I just got my D3 and FREAKIN' 25600. You can do whatever pixel-peeping you want, but I promise you, this is gonna be a revolution in pj work -- I took the camera out of the box, stuck in a battery from the D2x and shot my cat walking across the room in the light of a single lamp at ISO 6400 -- and I COULD HAVE FREAKIN' PUT IT IN A NEWSPAPER if it hadn't been a picture of my cat.
I can tell you that an awful lot of PJ work is done in low-light conditions -- late in the afternoon outside of jails, into the interior of cars, press conferences in poorly-lit rooms, or people walking along government-building hallways, or sitting in their living rooms, or night-time crime scenes, or shots taken with long (slow) lenses. Flash works for some of it,, but also makes things look really unnatural, unless you have hours to set up, and there's not much you can do about the long-slow problem. But at 6400 and up you can shoot natural-light shots at fast enough speeds that you don't get blur when people move their lips or turn their heads...And though the photos won't work for art purposes, they'll sure as hell work in a newspaper. I am seriously impressed by this camera, in a way I wasn't with earlier cameras. There was always an argument with earlier cameras about whether they were really as good as film, or just more convenient -- in this case, I haven't seen film do what this camera can. This camera notably pushes beyond film capabilities.
Maybe Nikon shooters just haven't been as privileged as Canon shooters when it comes to high ISO, but I was reading Bjorn Rorslett's site when he got his D3, and he pretty much portrayed it as a jaw-dropper. That's about all I can say: I'm not a pixel-peeper, but I freaked out the first few hours I was shooting this thing. It's like nothing I've ever encountered, and I spent last year working with an M8 and a Noctilux....
Not be be over-excited, or anything. 8-)
JC
-
Perhaps we need to ask: is there a camera available that can allow me to print to the size I want and produce excellent results. The actual specification measurements matter not at all. It's the end result we should be measuring.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with that statement to some degree.
The challenge is there are many times you don't know what you want, how big you want it, or how much you might need to crop it until you see the images. That has been true long before digital came into the picture.
-
I agree with that statement to some degree.
The challenge is there are many times you don't know what you want, how big you want it, or how much you might need to crop it until you see the images. That has been true long before digital came into the picture.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159104\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Where we're going doesn't seem to change all that much through the years, but how we get there sure keeps mutating!
-
I admit I'm somewhat of a photographic philistine, having done most of my serious work in photojournalism rather than the various high-quality advertising and art modes, but I just got my D3 and FREAKIN' 25600. You can do whatever pixel-peeping you want, but I promise you, this is gonna be a revolution in pj work -- I took the camera out of the box, stuck in a battery from the D2x and shot my cat walking across the room in the light of a single lamp at ISO 6400 -- and I COULD HAVE FREAKIN' PUT IT IN A NEWSPAPER if it hadn't been a picture of my cat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
I felt pretty much the same way when I got my 5D. I found I could take photos in the street at night without the disturbing flash which brings attention to oneself. I thought it would be ideal for photojournalism.
I wish Michael had also compared the D3 with the 5D which has the same pixel count and sensor size. We could have then found out if the lower noise of the D3 at say ISO 6400 was at the sacrifice of some detail, because of course any camera can have an ISO of 12,800 and 25,600 by simply underexposing the appropriate number of stops at the highest ISO setting.
With this idea in mind, I wondered how my 5D would perform at various stops of underexposure at ISO 3200 (which is already ISO 1600 underexposed one stop).
So I set up my 5D on tripod and directed it to a poorly lit corner of the room. Experimented with a few shots to get a full ETTR, which was 2 seconds at f11 and ISO 3200, then proceeded to reduce the exposure with each subsequent shot, eventually arriving at an ISO equivalent of a quarter of a million (ISO 256,000).
Instead of the figure of ISO 3200, I have used the correct figure of ISO 4000 (according to dpreview) to arrive at an ISO equivalent of a quarter of a million with 6 stops underexposure, ie. from the ETTR of 2 secs exposure; 1 sec, 1/2 sec, 1/4 sec, 1/8th sec, 1/15th sec, 1/30th sec.
The shot which was underexposed by 6 stops was hoplessly noisy but I wondered if the 'mean' stacking mode in CS3E would make it usable. I think it has.
So here it is, with a 'before and after' stacking comparison. Perhaps the first ISO quarter of a million shot ever displayed on LL .
[attachment=4178:attachment] [attachment=4177:attachment]
-
I wish Michael had also compared the D3 with the 5D which has the same pixel count and sensor size. We could have then found out if the lower noise of the D3 at say ISO 6400 was at the sacrifice of some detail, because of course any camera can have an ISO of 12,800 and 25,600 by simply underexposing the appropriate number of stops at the highest ISO setting.
I hope it is not simple exposure. Checkout the measures on the page I posted:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/po...D300_40D_tests/ (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/)
the 5D's quantum efficiency (4.1) is way behind the D3's (7.7). 5D collects 0.061 electrons per unit area while D3 captrues 0.108. These are not surprising since the 5D is two year old technology and the D3 use the new double micro lens design.
Sorry for getting into numbers again. But I am trained as a scientist as well. From looking samples I have a feeling that the 1DsIII's QE is on the par of the D3's, but there has been no measures yet.
From the samples I saw (checkout the Imaging-Resources, for example) the D3's exposure parameters are consistent with the ISO ratings, and to my eyes the D3 RAW images contains more details than my 5Ds when examed at not 100% but 170% to 200% at high ISOs, and properly (and painfully) sharpen. As Lloyd going to point out D3's initial soft images actually makes them exceptionally well to be enlarged, just like my very soft Imacon 949 scans.
-
I hope it is not simple exposure.
....the 5D's quantum efficiency (4.1) is way behind the D3's (7.7). 5D collects 0.061 electrons per unit area while D3 captrues 0.108. These are not surprising since the 5D is two year old technology and the D3 use the new double micro lens design.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose the fact that the D3's base ISO is 200 (rather than the 100 of the Canons) is explained by it's greater quantum efficiency. I'm not doubting that the D3 has lower noise than the 5D at high ISO's, it's just not clear by how much and I simply don't know enough to make assumptions that what might appear to be as much as, say a 1 stop improvement at ISO 1600, is carried forward to ISO 25,800 and beyond. Although it would be reasonable to assume that it would be the case.
As I understand it, ISO 3200 on the 5D (actually ISO 4000 and this should be taken into account when making comparisons) is really ISO 1600 underexposed 1 stop (ie. no pre A/D analog boost) and likewise, ISO 12,800 and 25,600 on the D3 is really ISO 6,400 underexposed 1 stop and 2 stops respectively.
If this is the case, it seems a legitimate comparison to me to compare the 5D at ISO 4000, underexposed by 2/3rds of a stop to make it effectively ISO 6,400, with the D3 at ISO 6400, just to see the difference .
Also, I see no reason why one should not extend this principle and compare further underexposure in both cameras. Perhaps at ISO 256,000 the D3 could produce a result with a single image as good as that 5D stacked image I posted above . (7 images of the same exposure stacked in mean mode and auto-aligned).
-
Also, I see no reason why one should not extend this principle and compare further underexposure in both cameras. Perhaps at ISO 256,000 the D3 could produce a result with a single image as good as that 5D stacked image I posted above . (7 images of the same exposure stacked in mean mode and auto-aligned).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159317\")
Thanks Ray! With the stacked images in hand you should download the trial version and try this "super resolutin" (and noise reduction) stuff out:
[a href=\"http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_hdr_and_tonemapping/20071002_PhotoAcute/index.html]http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_0...cute/index.html[/url]
I tried it out with a set of my infrared converted 5D shots and blow is a crop of the results at 200% (you know my habit ). Do I need to say the smoother looking one (right) is after the "super resolution" treatment?
Canon 5D-IR, 24-105mm/f4 L lens at 105mm, upsampled to 200% in PhotoAcute from 4 identical exposures on the tripod ("2x", the PhotoAcute "super-resolution" default) to DNG RAW file, with "Oversharpenng protection" at "Normal" and no other options (such as color defringing, geometry correction, or dynamic expansion), then converted to TIFF in Raw Developer (ACR or Light Room much worse) with R-L deconvolution sharpening 1.2/50, opened in Photoshop with little "Film Noise" added to the 5,836x8,768 pixel (almost 20x30 at 300dpi) file, JPEG saved from cropping the ~150MB image at 100%.
Comparison image: one of the four source RAW files, processed in Raw Developer with the same parameters and output to the same pixel dimensions, then went through the same operations in Photoshop.
To me, the "super-resolution" does not really matter that much, but the much less artifacts at the 200% level is impressive, as well as the much more natural looking and the improved dynamic range. Remember we are looking images through the demosic process, and at 200% level. Much better than Q-Image or Genuine Fractals, to my eyes.
Here is the Wiki entry of the process with an impossible-looking example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution)
Cheers,
Leping
-
I think this is broadly true although the reason is not necessarily that the pixels of the higher rez camera are smaller, when different formats are being compared.
I always remember my surprise when I first read the review of the 1Ds at dpreview comparing its noise characteristics with the earlier Canon D60. Up to about ISO 400, noise in the 1Ds was actually slightly worse than the D60, yet the 1Ds had bigger pixels.
Of course, when dpreview compares noise, they compare it on a pixel-for-pixel basis; grey patches of equal size.
But the point was made by dpreview that this apparent lower noise of the D60 would not be evident in equal size prints and I'm sure those who used both cameras would have been very much aware that the 1Ds had lower noise in practice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. This is pretty much what I'm saying. The greater rez of the original 1Ds over the D60 would tend to make the noise less apparent at the same image size.
Of course, being able to shoot at 12,800, or 25,600, would tend to result in less noisy pictures than a higher rez camera that can't shoot at those speeds at all.
-
To me, the "super-resolution" does not really matter that much, but the much less artifacts at the 200% level is impressive, as well as the much more natural looking and the improved dynamic range. Remember we are looking images through the demosic process, and at 200% level. Much better than Q-Image or Genuine Fractals, to my eyes.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159323\")
We seem to be talking about similar technology here but perhaps used in a different way. I posted a comparison of shots of my hotel room in Krabi on another thread with a tongue-in-cheek title about reducing D3 low-noise envy.
The problem is essentially this. You want to photograph a poorly lit scene with a fairly extensive depth of field where flash will not do because distant object will be severely underexposed, and/or, near objects will be severly overexposed.
Fortunately, the scene is pretty static so no problem. You use a tripod, a slow shutter speed and f11 for good DoF.
But what happens if you are not carrying a tripod. It's my experience that most people do not carry a tripod most of the time. I don't, although I have one in my room. With a camera slung around my neck and a couple of lenses in my photographers' vest, I find it very inconvenient and cumbersome to also carry a tripod.
It seems that stacking in 'mean mode' with CS3E has now provided another option in such situations. If, for a hand-held shot of the scene at the sort of aperture necessary for good DoF, it becomes necessary to use ISO 256,000 (ISO 3200 underexposed 6 stops), then a burst of 6 or 7 shots with the 5D at the same shutter speed could provide a usable image, provided the dynamic range of the scene was not great.
Check out my thread at [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21343]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=21343[/url]
-
Of course, being able to shoot at 12,800, or 25,600, would tend to result in less noisy pictures than a higher rez camera that can't shoot at those speeds at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One would certainly expect this to be the case, but often things are not what they seem to be. For example, the D3's ISO 12,800 and 25,600 settings are apparently bogus. The purpose of having them is (presumably) to make assessing correct exposure in the histogram and the camera's LCD much easier. The jpeg image has been adjusted, in-camera, despite real and actual underexposure. Without such settings, one would be squinting at apparently underexposed shots in the camera's LCD and trying to judge if the shot was really too much underexposed or not.
I think also the purpose of these ultra high ISO settings relates to ISO bracketing. I'm not sure about the features on Nikon cameras, but I believe they've had ISO bracketing for a while. Of course you can't bracket an ISO which doesn't exist.
For example, if I take a shot with my 5D at ISO 3200 and the histogram and highlight flashing tell me I've overexposed, I've ruined the shot. If I need a particular combination of aperture (for DoF) and shutter speed (to freeze the action or camera shake), then autobracketing of exposure is not a good option.
Without ISO bracketing there can be a disadvantage in using an 'ersatz' ISO setting.
Since Nikon is now offering these 2 ultra-high settings which are really underexposures, it's quite likely they have built in a level of noise reduction to make them more acceptable. Once detail has been lost through in-camera noise reduction, it cannot be regained.
However, there is now a way of reducing noise, not only without destroying some degree of resolution, but with actual enhancement of resolution.
I'm suggesting here that using such stacking processes with ultra-high ISO shots, the D3 might not even equal the 5D. It's something which I think should be tested.
-
Since Nikon is now offering these 2 ultra-high settings which are really underexposures, it's quite likely they have built in a level of noise reduction to make them more acceptable. Once detail has been lost through in-camera noise reduction, it cannot be regained.
However, there is now a way of reducing noise, not only without destroying some degree of resolution, but with actual enhancement of resolution.
I'm suggesting here that using such stacking processes with ultra-high ISO shots, the D3 might not even equal the 5D. It's something which I think should be tested.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
All manufacture's streched ISO's are, just you mentioned, streched from the real ISOs, and the D3's is no difference. What I don't understand is why do you think what your 5D can do (handhold multiple exposure stacking) the D3 would not.
If you exam available example carefully you see D3's high ISO NRs kept most of fine details, when processed in Capture NX.
-
Ray,
Pls. explain your use and the justification for using therms ' apparently bogus' and 'underexposures' when refering to the D3's implementation of the high sensitivity settings (High1 and High2 not calibrated 12800 and 25600).
If what you're saying is that the camera at these settings just digitally amplifies the signal rather than amplifying in in the analogue domain, you might be right or partly right, but your use of the term 'underexposure' is not appropriate I believe.
Furthermore, this issue is not new with these cameras as all cameras that I know off behave similarly in their respective uncalibrated high sensitivity settings.
-
If what you're saying is that the camera at these settings just digitally amplifies the signal rather than amplifying in in the analogue domain, you might be right or partly right, but your use of the term 'underexposure' is not appropriate I believe.
I believe it is very appropriate in the sense that there is usually a qualitative improvement when using a higher ISO. The image has less noise than it would if one used the same exposure at a lower ISO. One is to some extent taking a risk in using a higher ISO. If one miscalculates and overexposes, the shot is ruined. However, if one gets it right, a good ETTR, one gets a better image.
But when using these false ISO's, the risk of overexposure is the same but the benefit regarding image quality and less shadow noise is zero. A correct exposure to the right, with the 5D at ISO 3200, produces the same result as using ISO 1600 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The only difference is in the appearance of the histogram and image on the camera's LCD.
Using ISO 1600 with the confidence one can underexpose a bit and preserve highlight detail without compromising image quality compared to using ISO 3200 is a real advantage. I'd describe it as being better that the latest feature of 'highlight tone priority' in Canon cameras, which is causing some confusion apparently
Furthermore, this issue is not new with these cameras as all cameras that I know off behave similarly in their respective uncalibrated high sensitivity settings.
That's true. It's not new. But Nikon have taken it a step further and given us 2 false ISO settings, and yours truly has taken it a few steps even further and produced an ISO 256,000 image with his 5D.
-
I'd describe it as being better that the latest feature of 'highlight tone priority' in Canon cameras, which is causing some confusion apparently
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ray,
I'm not sure what you mean by "causing some confusion", because the description in the manual and the outcomes are quite consistent. To quote from the 1DsIII manual:
"Improves the highklight detail. The dynamic range is expanded from the standard 18% grey to bright highlights. The gradation between the greys and the highlights becomes smoother."
Then immediately under that cryptic description (yes, Canon still struggles with how to write a good manual), they do warn us: "With setting 1, noise in the shadow areas may be slightly more than usual."
My limited experience with it before I turned it off indicates that the manual is correct: it generates noise. Another Torontonian whose work I've seen a couple of times and respect has a 1DIII and he told me he turned it off permanently, so my experience has been replicated as the manual leads one to expect.
Perhaps there's some confusion about exactly how the "feature" operates, but not much confusion about its impact. People with more technical knowledge about how sensors work than I possess can probably reverse engineer an explanation in their own minds, because we certainly don't get it from Canon. That said, it seems to me there is only so much light hitting those receptors, hence perhaps the firmware is somehow allocating more of the available light to the part of the tonal range between 18% grey and white in order to improve tonal gradation in that part of the range, leaving less for the 3/4 tones and below, which are inherently relatively "starved" for light anyhow and therefore produce less S/N. Does this make any sense? Or am I just displaying the confusion you mention?
Mark
-
As far as I understand the highlight mode just re-biases lattitude trading a stop or two below key, for a stop or two above key. To make the resulting image look "right" a tonal curve is used to brighten the image without crushing the highlights. This is something you can "do by hand" quite easily, but Canon have automated it for you.
Graeme
-
As far as I understand the highlight mode just re-biases lattitude trading a stop or two below key, for a stop or two above key. To make the resulting image look "right" a tonal curve is used to brighten the image without crushing the highlights. This is something you can "do by hand" quite easily, but Canon have automated it for you.
Graeme
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graeme, I'd appreciate if you could restate the first sentence using what Ben Willmore calls "a techno-babble decoder" so I can understand what you are saying . If you would kindly explain the meaning of the terms "re-biases lattitude" and "key" that would do it for me. Despite my difficulty with the first sentence I agree with the second sentence, because it occured to me as well that whatever Canon is doing in HTP one can most likely do by hand in Camera Raw. Then the final missing element is how all this may generate more noise.
-
One would certainly expect this to be the case, but often things are not what they seem to be. For example, the D3's ISO 12,800 and 25,600 settings are apparently bogus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Possibly true at some level, but "bogus" comes in different shades. There isn't necessarily a visible difference in IQ between ISO 1600 pushed to 25,600 and actually having amplification 16x as strong as ISO 1600, if the RAW data clips below black, or exactly at black. The only problem is if the data is clipped above black, in which case whatever is clipped is 4 stops bigger in ISO 1600 pushed to 25,600 than what "true" 25,600 might give if it clipped at the same ADU level.
As far as I can tell, I am the first person in the world of usenet and web photo forums to note that ISO 3200 and sometimes 1600 were achieved in a different manner than the lower ISOs on my 10D (and many other cameras too), and popularized the term "fake ISO" (some of the astrophotography folks may have noticed, too, but kept it to their astroworld). That terminology was based on the context of the 10D, where, clearly, read noise in electrons dropped quickly from ISO 100 to 200, less so from 200 to 400, but still a good amount from 400 to 800. The "real" ISOs, then were 100 to 800, which were achieved apparently through different amplifications *at* the photosites. Upon examining other cameras, however, like the Nikons using Sony CCD chips, it became apparent that another level of fakeness existed, as all ISOs on these cameras have the same amplification at the initial read, and the differences of ISO were achieved only through amplifying the signal yet again before hitting the ADC. There is no opportunity, however, for this second analog amplification to improve on the photosite read noise in electrons, as that read already occurs earlier in the chain, so the amplification basically only puts the signal at an advantage going into the ADC, with less resulting ADC noise in electrons at higher ISOs. In the realm of high ISOs, ADC noise is so small, relatively, that there need be no major difference between amplifying and multiplying. The differences are the kind you need to be stacking a dozen or more images to take advantage of.
-
Despite my difficulty with the first sentence I agree with the second sentence, because it occured to me as well that whatever Canon is doing in HTP one can most likely do by hand in Camera Raw. Then the final missing element is how all this may generate more noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're then asking Camera Raw to pull down 1 stop more highlights into the image, which it may or may not handle gracefully.
Noise breaks down into two basic sources; shot noise, which comes from the actual exposure of the sensor (and has nothing to do with ISOs or modes, except as how they affect metering, and therefore, exposure), and read noise, which is a fixed blanket of electronic noise generated by the camera while reading the sensor and converting its signal to numbers for the RAW data. The read noise is the only one that varies directly with ISO, and the HTP setting. The read noise is usually about the same for ISO 100 and 200, being slightly higher for ISO 200 with modern Canon DSLRs. This means that relative to your signal, using ISO 200 and HTP (which uses -1 EC and ISO 100 internally) has almost 2x the read noise of straight ISO 200, for the same absolute exposure. The significance of read noise depends on what you are shooting, and how it is exposed. Read noise is significantly visible only in the shadow areas, so if you shoot in controlled lighting, without deep shadows, then you won't have any tones swamped with read noise, and the loss is not significant. If you are going to pull up highlights or have areas of slow gradients in near-blacks, however, the extra read noise from HTP can be significant.
-
Perhaps there's some confusion about exactly how the "feature" operates, but not much confusion about its impact. People with more technical knowledge about how sensors work than I possess can probably reverse engineer an explanation in their own minds, because we certainly don't get it from Canon. That said, it seems to me there is only so much light hitting those receptors, hence perhaps the firmware is somehow allocating more of the available light to the part of the tonal range between 18% grey and white in order to improve tonal gradation in that part of the range, leaving less for the 3/4 tones and below, which are inherently relatively "starved" for light anyhow and therefore produce less S/N. Does this make any sense? Or am I just displaying the confusion you mention?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
I'm relying on people like John Sheehy for the explanations of these matters. But I have verified for myself, as probably you have also, that an underexposure at a low ISO produces a noisier image than the same exposure at a higher ISO. The effect was fairly marginal with early Canon DSLRs like the D60, so an ISO 100 shot, 2 stops underexposed, would have hardly more noise than the same exposure at ISO 400 (which in relation to the ISO 400 setting would be a correct exposure).
It's this principle at work which I believe is responsible for the noiser shadows with HTP enabled. The reverse of HTP would be to have a suitable shutter speed and aperture at say ISO 100, take an experimental shot and discover it was 1 stop underexposed, then take the shot again at the same aperture and shutter speed (on manual) but at ISO 200. The second shot would then be correctly exposed, along the lines of ETTR, and shadow noise would be less.
This probably sounds a bit complicated and convoluted, but it makes sense to me .
-
Just a word here for M. Reichmann with regard to Jay Maisel's close-up enlargements.
You say: "Possibly there's a bit more shadow detail in the Canon frame though (look at the iris). "
I think it's not the iris but just the reflection in his glasses which is positioned very slightly more to the left in the Canon shot thereby "drawing" what might seem to be detail from the eye rather than off the glasses themselves.
In any case, both wonderful machines and as always a refreshing article, thank you.
-
You're then asking Camera Raw to pull down 1 stop more highlights into the image, which it may or may not handle gracefully.
Noise breaks down into two basic sources; shot noise, which comes from the actual exposure of the sensor (and has nothing to do with ISOs or modes, except as how they affect metering, and therefore, exposure), and read noise, which is a fixed blanket of electronic noise generated by the camera while reading the sensor and converting its signal to numbers for the RAW data. The read noise is the only one that varies directly with ISO, and the HTP setting. The read noise is usually about the same for ISO 100 and 200, being slightly higher for ISO 200 with modern Canon DSLRs. This means that relative to your signal, using ISO 200 and HTP (which uses -1 EC and ISO 100 internally) has almost 2x the read noise of straight ISO 200, for the same absolute exposure. The significance of read noise depends on what you are shooting, and how it is exposed. Read noise is significantly visible only in the shadow areas, so if you shoot in controlled lighting, without deep shadows, then you won't have any tones swamped with read noise, and the loss is not significant. If you are going to pull up highlights or have areas of slow gradients in near-blacks, however, the extra read noise from HTP can be significant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, thanks this is getting clearer as it continues. Where I noticed most of the noise on December 4th when I had HTP enabled was indeed in the dark areas of tall charcoal-coloured buildings in the TD Centre of Toronto. When I turned HTP off and returned there on December 5th to re-photograph those same buildings (intrusiveness from *security* notwithstanding) I obtained less noisy results. The interesting thing, though, is that these noise differences are much more apparent on a high resolution display (LaCie 321 at 1600*1200) than they are in a Premium Luster 13*19 inch print from an Epson 3800, where it hardly shows. Once this discussion moves from display to print (at least to 13*19 inches) I'm discovering that the issue's existence may be less significant than its impact.
-
One thing I would like to see discussed when judging the Nikon D3 high ISO quality or compare it to other (Canon) cameras is not only concetrating on noise but discuss the colour integrity of the results.
Colour integrity does not involve only saturation but fidelity and apparent 'depth' as well, things that cannot be easily restored through postprocessing.
From the examples I have seen it looks like the D3 performs much better than other cameras in this respect, managing to produce acceptable colour integrity at sensitivities where other cameras 'break down' so to speak.
-
One thing I would like to see discussed when judging the Nikon D3 high ISO quality or compare it to other (Canon) cameras is not only concetrating on noise but discuss the colour integrity of the results.
Colour integrity does not involve only saturation but fidelity and apparent 'depth' as well, things that cannot be easily restored through postprocessing.
From the examples I have seen it looks like the D3 performs much better than other cameras in this respect, managing to produce acceptable colour integrity at sensitivities where other cameras 'break down' so to speak.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Colour integrity of the results" depends mainly on how a raw file is demosaiced and processed in the raw converter.
-
"Colour integrity of the results" depends mainly on how a raw file is demosaiced and processed in the raw converter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Other than what noise does to color, the only other camera-induced factor (assuming optimal software for conversion) is the response curves of the color filters, which determine how well subtle shades of hues can be differentiated without introducing extra chroma noise.
-
While this is certainly true, in camera NR reduction methods (at whatever stage in the processing pipe these might exist) might well influence colour. So, yes in a sense colour fidelity deterioration is a result of noise and NR methods but, if one is interested in judging final output I believe that colour should be judged as well as apparent noisiness.
-
One would certainly expect this to be the case, but often things are not what they seem to be. For example, the D3's ISO 12,800 and 25,600 settings are apparently bogus. The purpose of having them is (presumably) to make assessing correct exposure in the histogram and the camera's LCD much easier. The jpeg image has been adjusted, in-camera, despite real and actual underexposure. Without such settings, one would be squinting at apparently underexposed shots in the camera's LCD and trying to judge if the shot was really too much underexposed or not.
I think also the purpose of these ultra high ISO settings relates to ISO bracketing. I'm not sure about the features on Nikon cameras, but I believe they've had ISO bracketing for a while. Of course you can't bracket an ISO which doesn't exist.
For example, if I take a shot with my 5D at ISO 3200 and the histogram and highlight flashing tell me I've overexposed, I've ruined the shot. If I need a particular combination of aperture (for DoF) and shutter speed (to freeze the action or camera shake), then autobracketing of exposure is not a good option.
Without ISO bracketing there can be a disadvantage in using an 'ersatz' ISO setting.
Since Nikon is now offering these 2 ultra-high settings which are really underexposures, it's quite likely they have built in a level of noise reduction to make them more acceptable. Once detail has been lost through in-camera noise reduction, it cannot be regained.
However, there is now a way of reducing noise, not only without destroying some degree of resolution, but with actual enhancement of resolution.
I'm suggesting here that using such stacking processes with ultra-high ISO shots, the D3 might not even equal the 5D. It's something which I think should be tested.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't used the D3 yet, so i don't know, but do you have evidence of this, or is it an assumption?
My 5D does have low noise levels, but 3200 makes a jump. More so than from 800 to 1600, so what you say could be true in regards to the 5D.
But, it seems to be quite a step to go one from stop further in underexpose, to two stops.
From what Michael has shown, and from what I've seen on some other sites, even 25,600 looks to be noisy, but usable. I haven't tried underexposing to get to 6,400, but somehow, I don't think the noise, and lack of shadow detail, would be as good as the Nikon at 12,800. But, now, after all of this talk, I will see if I have time tonight to try it.
The supersharp techniques seem to be interesting, but are not really useful under most conditions. It's too specialized, more so than the HDR tecniques I use.
No matter what we want to do, the capability of the camera itself is still the practical limiting factor. The 5D has the greatest dynamic range I've seen outside of the Leaf backs I test for Leaf. I assume other medium format backs also have great dynamic range. But, these backs rarely go above 400, and I've not tried to push them further.
It's an interesting topic, and so maybe I will try next week, with the Aptus. The problem pushing any camera beyond what the manufacturer specs, is that the RAW converters are set up to process these files only according to the limits set up by the manufacturers, and moving out of that parameter range might result in unexpected deterioration of the image.
No matter how we look at the 5D vs the D3 (and this is from a Canon user since 1969 when I went to Phokina and saw the new Canon "F".), the Nikon seems to have at least two "real" stops of ISO extension, and this is very significant. Canon will have to catch up. Hopefully, a 5D replacement will show up in late Feb, or March, and will make up one of those stops, with a "normal" range going to 3,200, and an extension to 6,400. This would satisfy the old Tri-X at 1200 with Accufine person in me quite well.
-
While this is certainly true, in camera NR reduction methods (at whatever stage in the processing pipe these might exist) might well influence colour. So, yes in a sense colour fidelity deterioration is a result of noise and NR methods but, if one is interested in judging final output I believe that colour should be judged as well as apparent noisiness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No such processing is done to RAW data, in any camera, AFAIK. The only doctoring of RAW data is to scale individual color channels (which has no effect on color that can't be changed in the conversion), or individual lines of pixels, as a sort of calibration, and of course, clipping on the highlight end in all cameras, and clipping at, near, or below black, depending on the camera. And things like reducing the numeric precision in the highlights, as Nikon does in their compressed NEFs.
-
No such processing is done to RAW data, in any camera, AFAIK. The only doctoring of RAW data is to scale individual color channels (which has no effect on color that can't be changed in the conversion), or individual lines of pixels, as a sort of calibration, and of course, clipping on the highlight end in all cameras, and clipping at, near, or below black, depending on the camera. And things like reducing the numeric precision in the highlights, as Nikon does in their compressed NEFs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is an interesting question, and one the manuals don't make clear. For example, my 5D manual shows the menu to allow noise reduction to be turned on or off for long exposures, that is, exposures over 1 second. The camera can determine whether such noise reduction is needed, or you can further specify whether it should simply give the noise reduction for all 1 second, or longer, exposures.
It's been my opinion that as this noise reduction is done by taking a "dark" shot automatically, as far as I know, and removing noise using that as the "standard", that noise reduction would be in the RAW file as well. You're saying it would only end up in the jpeg? Again, this is something I've not made a comparison of. It's a good experiment.
-
It's been my opinion that as this noise reduction is done by taking a "dark" shot automatically, as far as I know, and removing noise using that as the "standard", that noise reduction would be in the RAW file as well. You're saying it would only end up in the jpeg? Again, this is something I've not made a comparison of. It's a good experiment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I wasn't talking about long exposures at all. In any event, the dark frame subtraction is done before the RAW data is written to a file, or converted in-camera to JPEG. But that does not qualify as something "other than noise" because it is noise (removal).
-
No, I wasn't talking about long exposures at all. In any event, the dark frame subtraction is done before the RAW data is written to a file, or converted in-camera to JPEG. But that does not qualify as something "other than noise" because it is noise (removal).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159556\")
We need to watch the interesting discussions over the subject here, titled "RAW files are not RAW anymore?"
[a href=\"http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0]http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0[/url]
-
No such processing is done to RAW data, in any camera, AFAIK. The only doctoring of RAW data is to scale individual color channels (which has no effect on color that can't be changed in the conversion), or individual lines of pixels, as a sort of calibration, and of course, clipping on the highlight end in all cameras, and clipping at, near, or below black, depending on the camera. And things like reducing the numeric precision in the highlights, as Nikon does in their compressed NEFs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, probably, until we are proven wrong by the manufacturers. But you're missing my point leading this discussion somewhere I had not intented to lead it.
My point is one and only. High ISO exhibit both grainyness and deterioration of colour quality. Now both of these might be the result of noise but when judging the final outcome (be that straight off the camera or off an external raw converter) both of these visual clues should be looked at. You can't judge (visually) the final outcome of a raw file without converting it, so your point is moot in the context of my question.
-
No, I wasn't talking about long exposures at all. In any event, the dark frame subtraction is done before the RAW data is written to a file, or converted in-camera to JPEG. But that does not qualify as something "other than noise" because it is noise (removal).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I realize that you weren't talking about that, though long exposure is being talked about here, where this will occur.
However, it does alter the data that would otherwise be recorded. First, the picture is taken, then the dark frame is taken (or the other way around, it doesn't matter), after which mathematical interpolation is done to the two files to come up with the de-noised file. That IS altering the RAW file.
What results is no longer a RAW dump from the sensor. It has been modified. The question is how de-noising is done on shots other than the longer dark frame method. If they also modify the RAW file, then it also is no longer a straight dump.
This is important, because it may affect the way the converter handles the mosaic.
-
We need to watch the interesting discussions over the subject here, titled "RAW files are not RAW anymore?"
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0 (http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is precisely what I'm saying. A RAW file isn't always what people think it is. If fact, Nikon has a compressed RAW file format as well. It uses lossy compression, which eliminates some data from the right side of the curve. Supposedly, it doesn't result in visible loss, but that's Nikon talking. Since the right half of the curve contains half the data, the loss is likely little. But, if you overexposed, wouldn't you want every last bit for your converter, to allow as much recovery as possible?
I really don't think we can say what is happening to the RAW file these days.
That's one of the reasons why it's also difficult to know what Nikon did with the 12,800, and 25,600 files.
-
Possibly true at some level, but "bogus" comes in different shades. There isn't necessarily a visible difference in IQ between ISO 1600 pushed to 25,600 and actually having amplification 16x as strong as ISO 1600, if the RAW data clips below black, or exactly at black. The only problem is if the data is clipped above black, in which case whatever is clipped is 4 stops bigger in ISO 1600 pushed to 25,600 than what "true" 25,600 might give if it clipped at the same ADU level.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose in a sense one could describe all ISO settings in digital cameras as fake, or bogus. The sensitivy of the light gathering capacity of the photoreceptors does not change with changing ISO settings.
At a fundamental level, there is only one ISO sensitivity in a digital camera and only one best and correct exposure for maximum S/N and highest dynamic range.
All ISO settings higher than base ISO (which is ISO 125 for the Canon 5D and ISO 200 for the D3) merely represent the camera's attempts to compensate for underexposure.
When I set my 5D to ISO 3200, I'm really just sending an instruction to the camera's processor that subsequent shots will be underexposed by 5 stops. If I'm shooting RAW I don't have any control over the way the camera's built-in processor will compensate for such underexposure.
Another way of looking at this is that fundamentally the difference between the 5D and the D3 is that the 5D will only accept instructions (from the user) on how to deal with 5 stops of underexposure, where as the D3 will accept instructions on how to deal with as much as 7 stops of underexposure. (It's a more advanced robot ).
But I've got my own way of compensating for underexposure, so I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to say the following shot was taken at ISO 256,000.
That's a total of 10 stops of underexposure, the first 5 handled by the camera's processing and the additional 5 handled by me and photoshop .
How is this possible considering the 5D only has about 10 stops of DR or less?
In the following maximum quality jpegs, please bear in mind that I'm working on a laptop that has been calibrated only with Adobe Gamma with partial success. If you are viewing these on a properly calibated monitor and the images look far too light or dark, then that's the explanation.
Also, because my laptop doesn't have the power to stack 9 images in 16 bit color depth, the conversions and processing were all done in 8 bit.
No noise reduction has been applied to these images and no sharpening (the default ACR sharpening was reduced to zero because I figured this shot is all about mood. No sharpening required.)
First a bit of a preamble. The shot is from the inside of a temple about 9.30pm (Wat Maha Wan in Tha Prae Rd, Chiang Mai). The only lighting in the temple precinct, apart from a bit of faint light from the windows of the monks' quarters, was light from the nearby street, which is coming from the right in the image.
What was I doing skulking around temples in the dark? Well, I'd just had a very tasty meal in a restaurant directly opposite the temple. I had my 5D with me, but no flash. (For those who don't know, the 5D has no built-in flash).
Having enjoyed a couple of glasses of wine with my meal, I was feeling relaxed enough to hold that camera steady, so after dinner I wandered over to the temple and took a series of 9 hand-held shots with camera in continuous mode. I suppose the 9 exposures took about 3 seconds, or perhaps a bit more.
I'm rather pleased with the image. It's noisy of course, but Neat Image could probably help there as well as a bit of sharpening afterwards.
The first image below demonstrates my claim of ISO 256,000 which is ISO 4000 underexposed by 5 stops. The ACR window shows only a +4 stop EC, but those who are familiar with ETTR know that we should be counting from -1 EC. (DB owners please take note ). The RGB values under the histogram are taken from the brightest part of the image showing that nothing here is even near to clipping.
The second image shows how the unadjusted image looked after stacking in mean mode. You should notice a bluish blob in the extreme bottom right corner. This is a defect in my sensor. The defect is also exacerbated by the fact that a 28mm lens at f5.6 will inevitably have some vignetting in the extreme corners.
I noticed this defect when I tested my second copy of the 5D. The first copy had unacceptable banding in deep shadows. I returned the camera and found the second one was better regarding the ugly banding, but had this defective corner. I considered returning the second camera, but decided against it on the grounds that possibly all 5D sensors would have one defect or another. This was a budget Full Frame sensor after all.
The third image is shows a levels adjustment and the bluish blob cloned out.
The fourth image is the 100% crop showing a fair amount of noise. What would you say, film at ISO 800? Remember, the D3 does ISO 25,600. My shot has an extra zero. ISO 256,000.
[attachment=4216:attachment] [attachment=4215:attachment] [attachment=4214:attachment] [attachment=4217:attachment]
-
I suppose in a sense one could describe all ISO settings in digital cameras as fake, or bogus. The sensitivy of the light gathering capacity of the photoreceptors does not change with changing ISO settings.
At a fundamental level, there is only one ISO sensitivity in a digital camera and only one best and correct exposure for maximum S/N and highest dynamic range.
All ISO settings higher than base ISO (which is ISO 125 for the Canon 5D and ISO 200 for the D3) merely represent the camera's attempts to compensate for underexposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
A nice example of stacking, but why not just place the camera on a tripod and take one proper exposure?
Bill
-
Ray,
A nice example of stacking, but why not just place the camera on a tripod and take one proper exposure?
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill,
It doesn't conform with my standard of sartorial elegance to walk around with camera and tripod. As it is, I feel a bit of a burke walking around with a camera slung around my neck and a photographers' vest with a lens in the pocket on one side to balance the flash in a pocket on the other side so I don't look too lobsided.
This line of argument on my part started with a response to John Camp's claim that the D3 was ideally suited to photojournalism. I believe journalist also do not want to carry a tripod everywhere.
-
Ray
I have found that even the humble D200 with a small, manual 2,8/24 on the front becomes a proverbial last straw in the breaking of backs game.
This, combined with the utterly useless Nikon advertising band which makes it impossible to wrap the only means of support a little more firmly around the wrist, has led me of late to think about Leica Ms. But as I can´t really justify crippling the bank any further I have had moments when the mind has turned towards Voigtlander rangefinder cameras and some other little lenses which might both ease the weight and give me back a wide angle again. Like Michael, I see the cropped 35mm as a dead end and will buy nothing beyond the D200 body - never have - that´s designed for the format. Having a film scanner does allow for lateral thinking and as my best pics still seem to come from old Kodachromes, film doesn´t frighten me much. That olde Minolta Flashmeter might get a new lease of life yet!
Have you known anyone who has used one of those Voigtlanders?
As my explorations seem to be in the wide angle domain just now, something like a 21mm would be delightful; an accurate viewfinder on a hand-held camera focussed by zones wouldn´t be a huge priority...
Rob C
-
Have you known anyone who has used one of those Voigtlanders?
As my explorations seem to be in the wide angle domain just now, something like a 21mm would be delightful; an accurate viewfinder on a hand-held camera focussed by zones wouldn´t be a huge priority...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can't help you re the Voigtlander, Rob, but as a lightweight alternative to the main players, the Olympus 4/3rds system is looking good.
Whenever I see comparisons with 35mm, the noise of the E-3 seems noticeably worse at high ISO, yet when one factors in the 2 stop advantage re DoF compared with FF 35mm and the 2/3rds stop advantage compared with cameras like the D200 or 40D, it's coming pretty close to the performance of the larger format.
-
Can't help you re the Voigtlander, Rob, but as a lightweight alternative to the main players, the Olympus 4/3rds system is looking good.
Whenever I see comparisons with 35mm, the noise of the E-3 seems noticeably worse at high ISO, yet when one factors in the 2 stop advantage re DoF compared with FF 35mm and the 2/3rds stop advantage compared with cameras like the D200 or 40D, it's coming pretty close to the performance of the larger format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ray
No, not another digital mini. If I get around to any more digital cameras then it will be Nikon FF if only because I have some Nikkor glass that I like. However, nothing digitally FF will offer the weight savings that I want for my wanderings about the highways and bye-ways, well, backstreets and alleys of this little pueblo near which I live.
I did fancy the original Olympus E-1, particularly after I saw their Waclaw Wantuch piccies on the ´pro user´gallery; happily, I realised in time the folly of thinking the camera would make the difference. A Ferrari, oui! An Olympus? Non!
Ciao - Rob C
-
A nice example of stacking, but why not just place the camera on a tripod and take one proper exposure?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill,
You might be interested in the fact I did return the following night to the same temple, but this time with Manfrotto 714SHB in one hand. I thought the scene might be worth shooting at ISO 100 on a tripod.
Unfortunately, I got there a little late and found the temple gates were shut. Nevertheless, I continued with my nocturnal wanderings but found it somewhat awkward to take a shot when both hands are required, one to adjust the zoom.
This resulted in my having to stick the tripod between my legs, which could in fact give a very odd impression to anyone glancing in my direction from a distance, especially when photographing subjects like the one illustrated below, a transvestite marching down the street.
[attachment=4222:attachment]
Since I'm on an uncalibrated laptop I'm never sure how images I present will appear to someone viewing them on a properly calibrated monitor. Perhaps I could get some feed-back here.
Does the following image, which has been lightened, look more natural, taking into consideration it is night-time?
[attachment=4223:attachment]
By the way, this shot was taken at only 1/25th sec at ISO 3200, f4, 82mm, 24-105 IS zoom.
No flash, apart from the tripod between my legs.
-
Hi Ray,
You ARE having fun in Thailand aren't you..... Almost a perfect job except for the leg muscles!
OK back to photography, two observations: I prefer the darker image - more of a night time atmosphere, though there is no mistaking it is night in both of them. I find the image quality remarkable for the ISO.
-
Bill,
You might be interested in the fact I did return the following night to the same temple, but this time with Manfrotto 714SHB in one hand. I thought the scene might be worth shooting at ISO 100 on a tripod.
Unfortunately, I got there a little late and found the temple gates were shut. Nevertheless, I continued with my nocturnal wanderings but found it somewhat awkward to take a shot when both hands are required, one to adjust the zoom.
This resulted in my having to stick the tripod between my legs, which could in fact give a very odd impression to anyone glancing in my direction from a distance, especially when photographing subjects like the one illustrated below, a transvestite marching down the street.
[attachment=4222:attachment]
Since I'm on an uncalibrated laptop I'm never sure how images I present will appear to someone viewing them on a properly calibrated monitor. Perhaps I could get some feed-back here.
Does the following image, which has been lightened, look more natural, taking into consideration it is night-time?
[attachment=4223:attachment]
By the way, this shot was taken at only 1/25th sec at ISO 3200, f4, 82mm, 24-105 IS zoom.
No flash, apart from the tripod between my legs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agree with Mark: the skin tones are much better in the top rendition of the pic; the lower one - on my machine - looks as if you are losing the leg tones, burning out, somewhat.
I have this vision of you resting your equipment on the tripod between your legs; no wonder the transvestites give you a funny over-the-shoulder kind of look - a challenge too far, one must assume they must assume.
But more power to your, well, elbow. Are you built in the manner of Rambo, or do you just psyche yourself up to believe that you are?
Cheers - Rob C
-
Bill,
You might be interested in the fact I did return the following night to the same temple, but this time with Manfrotto 714SHB in one hand. I thought the scene might be worth shooting at ISO 100 on a tripod.
Unfortunately, I got there a little late and found the temple gates were shut. Nevertheless, I continued with my nocturnal wanderings but found it somewhat awkward to take a shot when both hands are required, one to adjust the zoom.
This resulted in my having to stick the tripod between my legs, which could in fact give a very odd impression to anyone glancing in my direction from a distance, especially when photographing subjects like the one illustrated below, a transvestite marching down the street.
Since I'm on an uncalibrated laptop I'm never sure how images I present will appear to someone viewing them on a properly calibrated monitor. Perhaps I could get some feed-back here.
Does the following image, which has been lightened, look more natural, taking into consideration it is night-time?
By the way, this shot was taken at only 1/25th sec at ISO 3200, f4, 82mm, 24-105 IS zoom.
No flash, apart from the tripod between my legs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
On my calibrated monitor, I prefer the darker image, since it preserves some of the ambiance of a night shot. BTW, impressive results given the shooting conditions.
On first glance, I had assumed that those were hookers, but then I saw your note that they were transvestites. Maybe still hookers, but not the type a normal guy would be interested in. Anyway, I certainly appreciate your humor .
Bill
-
Thanks guys. It looks as though I should be tilting my laptop screen a little more forward. What's surprising is the el cheapo Epson C90 seems to agree with your assessment that the darker image is better. I'm used to prints turning out a shade lighter than what I see on the screen. However, this is a printer with just one generic profile that came with the driver and I'm not even using Epson papers (although I'm using Epson inks). The printer is handling the color management and produces quite reasonable results if the image is converted to sRGB first. Even though the printer has an ARGB setting, I find the colors a liitle too pale if I print a file with embedded ARGB profile.
As you can see, I'm in a rather primitive situation here regarding the digital darkroom, but it's working.
-
Thanks guys. It looks as though I should be tilting my laptop screen a little more forward. What's surprising is the el cheapo Epson C90 seems to agree with your assessment that the darker image is better. I'm used to prints turning out a shade lighter than what I see on the screen. However, this is a printer with just one generic profile that came with the driver and I'm not even using Epson papers (although I'm using Epson inks). The printer is handling the color management and produces quite reasonable results if the image is converted to sRGB first. Even though the printer has an ARGB setting, I find the colors a liitle too pale if I print a file with embedded ARGB profile.
As you can see, I'm in a rather primitive situation here regarding the digital darkroom, but it's working.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
One thing you can do to help the laptop situation is to download a copy of Bill Atkinson's printer test target, or any other printer test target you are very familiar with - in terms of its tonality, colors, etc. Then adjust the angle of laptop screen to the point where that image looks "most right" to you. Also fix the angle of your head looking at the screen. This will give you the most "correct" appearance of your photographs that you'll get from the laptop under your working conditions.
Mark
-
Ray,
One thing you can do to help the laptop situation is to download a copy of Bill Atkinson's printer test target, or any other printer test target you are very familiar with - in terms of its tonality, colors, etc. Then adjust the angle of laptop screen to the point where that image looks "most right" to you. Also fix the angle of your head looking at the screen. This will give you the most "correct" appearance of your photographs that you'll get from the laptop under your working conditions.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't completely agree with that.
While the test target is a good idea. The one of tilting the screen to match is not.
The screen should always be used at its optimum position, or the colors, contrast, and brightness will all be incorrect. The problem here is that as you get further off center, it becomes even more difficult to maintain the same view. Center position gives the broadest range of head movement possible without having the appearance change. Once you move off center, it becomes more difficult to return to the same spot. so each time you do that, you will be looking at a different combination of color, contrast, and brightness. Very erratic.
Photoshop can be used to correct any screen anomalies, if required because you can't adjust the screen yourself.
I'm not really familiar with how Windows deals with screen calibration, but Apple has manual calibration built-in.
Failing to be able to adjust the screen through Windows, go to PS/Edit/Colorsettings. At the bottom, check Desaturate Monitor Colors By:. Change the percentage until the colors are toned down to where the print is.
This takes care of a fair amount of color mismatches with prints. Also, check to see what your gamma is set to. You may have to change that as well. Also in that same panel, you can go to Settings, and click on Monitor Color. You have selections there. One of them will likely bring you closer to what your prints look like.
Some combination of these PS settings will usually work for a quick and dirty fix. But, the only real solution is to have a monitor designed for graphics use. That's an 8 bit LCD, preferably with LED backlighting. Most portables , and cheaper LCD monitors use the cheaper 6 bit screens which have only 256K real colors.
-
Ray,
One thing you can do to help the laptop situation is to download a copy of Bill Atkinson's printer test target, or any other printer test target you are very familiar with - in terms of its tonality, colors, etc. Then adjust the angle of laptop screen to the point where that image looks "most right" to you. Also fix the angle of your head looking at the screen. This will give you the most "correct" appearance of your photographs that you'll get from the laptop under your working conditions.
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Mark. You mentioned before that Bill Atkinson had a target specifically designed for adjusting laptop screen angle, but I couldn't find it on his site. However, I did download some other targets designed for testing printer fidelity, and then I was hit with that bug in the CS3 software and wasted time, ink and paper trying to print the targets resized to fill A4 paper, only to find they printed at something like 6x4" in one corner of the sheet. Of course, I hadn't read the thread on LL dealing with this issue and also wasted more time trying to find and install an updated driver. I just assumed it would be a bug in Epson's software.
What I attempted to do was calibrate my laptop to my printer's output (using Adobe Gamma), but not being quite sure how accurate the results from my printer are. I'm not really familiar with any of these targets in the sense that I've never worked with them, although I've seen them before.
I couldn't quite believe that my laptop screen should be tilted forward to such a degree that it seems considerably less than 90 degrees to my line of sight. But this appears to be the case and is now confirmed by 3 assessments of the darker of my two images being right.
-
I can't completely agree with that.
While the test target is a good idea. The one of tilting the screen to match is not.
The screen should always be used at its optimum position, or the colors, contrast, and brightness will all be incorrect. The problem here is that as you get further off center, it becomes even more difficult to maintain the same view. Center position gives the broadest range of head movement possible without having the appearance change. Once you move off center, it becomes more difficult to return to the same spot. so each time you do that, you will be looking at a different combination of color, contrast, and brightness. Very erratic.
Photoshop can be used to correct any screen anomalies, if required because you can't adjust the screen yourself.
I'm not really familiar with how Windows deals with screen calibration, but Apple has manual calibration built-in.
Failing to be able to adjust the screen through Windows, go to PS/Edit/Colorsettings. At the bottom, check Desaturate Monitor Colors By:. Change the percentage until the colors are toned down to where the print is.
This takes care of a fair amount of color mismatches with prints. Also, check to see what your gamma is set to. You may have to change that as well. Also in that same panel, you can go to Settings, and click on Monitor Color. You have selections there. One of them will likely bring you closer to what your prints look like.
Some combination of these PS settings will usually work for a quick and dirty fix. But, the only real solution is to have a monitor designed for graphics use. That's an 8 bit LCD, preferably with LED backlighting. Most portables , and cheaper LCD monitors use the cheaper 6 bit screens which have only 256K real colors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Calibrating and profiling a laptop screen with whatever tools are available, while always very imperfect, is fine. BUT you still need to determine which screen angle and angle of view gives you the most reliable appearance, because it is literally a moving target every time you open the unit. That is where my suggestion comes in. It was recommended at the Cramer/Atkinson workshop here in Toronto and I found it helpful.
-
Thanks, Mark. You mentioned before that Bill Atkinson had a target specifically designed for adjusting laptop screen angle, but I couldn't find it on his site. However, I did download some other targets designed for testing printer fidelity, and then I was hit with that bug in the CS3 software and wasted time, ink and paper trying to print the targets resized to fill A4 paper, only to find they printed at something like 6x4" in one corner of the sheet. Of course, I hadn't read the thread on LL dealing with this issue and also wasted more time trying to find and install an updated driver. I just assumed it would be a bug in Epson's software.
What I attempted to do was calibrate my laptop to my printer's output (using Adobe Gamma), but not being quite sure how accurate the results from my printer are. I'm not really familiar with any of these targets in the sense that I've never worked with them, although I've seen them before.
I couldn't quite believe that my laptop screen should be tilted forward to such a degree that it seems considerably less than 90 degrees to my line of sight. But this appears to be the case and is now confirmed by 3 assessments of the darker of my two images being right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, yes, I should have mentioned - it is a printer target, but that's OK. Any such target that is familiar enough to give a reliable appearance is fine. As for your printing problem, perhaps you have not yet downloaded from the Adobe website the Patcher Application which converts your copy of Photoshop CS3 version 10.1 to Version 10.0.1. This solves those problems very well.
Mark
-
...perhaps you have not yet downloaded from the Adobe website the Patcher Application which converts your copy of Photoshop CS3 version 10.1 to Version 10.0.1. This solves those problems very well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
I certainly have. My computer automatically notified me the download was ready. It just so happened that the upgrade became available about the time I started reading that thread which highlighted the very problem I'd been experiencing.
I was thus deprived of joining in the chorus of complaints .
The fact is, ever since the Photoshop printing interface began misbehaving with my Epson 7600, I switched to using Qimage and have never looked back, until this latest acquisition of the bottom-of-the-range Epson printer which I didn't anticipate ever buying to use with an uncalibrated laptop.
Thanks for your friendly advice, as usual .
-
Mark,
I certainly have. My computer automatically notified me the download was ready. It just so happened that the upgrade became available about the time I started reading that thread which highlighted the very problem I'd been experiencing.
I was thus deprived of joining in the chorus of complaints .
The fact is, ever since the Photoshop printing interface began misbehaving with my Epson 7600, I switched to using Qimage and have never looked back, until this latest acquisition of the bottom-of-the-range Epson printer which I didn't anticipate ever buying to use with an uncalibrated laptop.
Thanks for your friendly advice, as usual .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, that's more than a bit disconcerting - are you saying that even with 10.0.1 you are experiencing print centering problems? Probably trivial to ask whether you've made sure "centered" is selected both in the Photoshop print interface and in the Epson driver "Paper" tab. Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to know what Epson printer and what version number of the Epson driver you are using and what operating system on the PC, because the intention of 10.0.1 was to clear-up these problems. Now A4 is a standard metric size paper, but not in North America where we continue to use Letter size. Though A4 has a standard preset in the Epson driver, your comment leads one to wonder whether 10.0.1 recognizes it properly, though if it didn't one would have expected many non North American users to be complaining by now.
-
Ray, that's more than a bit disconcerting - are you saying that even with 10.0.1 you are experiencing print centering problems? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Sorry for the confusion. No, I fixed the centering problem with version 10.0.1 about the same time that I became aware that this very problem was being discussed on LL with comments that there was a CS3 upgrade that might fix the problem. Just a co-incidence really.
Since the problem occurred mostly whilst I was attempting to resize downloaded test targets, I gave up in frustration and stopped printing for a while. When the problem was later fixed with the CS3 upgrade, I never returned to the test target issue.
In the meantime, I had adjusted the gamma of individual channels, using Adobe Gamma and a print as a guide. In other words, I adjusted those red, green and blue squares in Adobe Gamma so that the color and tonality of an image on my screen matched as closely as possible a print I had previously made of that same image, with sRGB profile.
An alternative approach would have been to adjust the colors, brightness, contrast and saturation of the printer controls, but that would have involved far too many test prints.
The method I've used seems simpler and has worked just fine except with regard to this uncertainty about tilting the screen. The position of my screen as I write this, is at an angle of about 90 degrees to my line of sight, which seems quite natural and preferrable to the position I need for an image on the screen to match the contrast of the print.
I just wanted confirmation that this tilted-forward position which more closely matches the contrast of a print, is similar to how the image would look on a properly calibrated monitor. But I suppose that any of these downloadable test targets showing a range of human complexions would give me the same confirmation.
No problem really .
-
Thanks Ray, good to hear it's resolved.
-
On first glance, I had assumed that those were hookers, but then I saw your note that they were transvestites. Maybe still hookers, but not the type a normal guy would be interested in. Anyway, I certainly appreciate your humor .
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160111\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One wonders how much it cost Ray to learn their little secret.
-
Sorry, I didn't see your post until today.
I suppose in a sense one could describe all ISO settings in digital cameras as fake, or bogus. The sensitivy of the light gathering capacity of the photoreceptors does not change with changing ISO settings.
Not of the photoreceptors, but as far as the product of the camera is concerned, ISOs can be very different in the shadows due to read noise differences. Trying to use the bottom 1/16th of the sensor's range at ISO 100 instead of at ISO 1600 leads to a relatively poor capture with some cameras.
At a fundamental level, there is only one ISO sensitivity in a digital camera and only one best and correct exposure for maximum S/N and highest dynamic range.
All ISO settings higher than base ISO (which is ISO 125 for the Canon 5D and ISO 200 for the D3) merely represent the camera's attempts to compensate for underexposure.
The 5D is more like ISO 84. It actually meters and has enough headroom for the RAW data at ISO 120 when it is set to 100, but it has more headroom available in the sensor for its "ISO 50" (metered for ISO 60, and has only enough headroom to be a minimum of about 84).
When I set my 5D to ISO 3200, I'm really just sending an instruction to the camera's processor that subsequent shots will be underexposed by 5 stops. If I'm shooting RAW I don't have any control over the way the camera's built-in processor will compensate for such underexposure.
No, but I believe it does use a different amplification at the photosites for ISOs 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600, with a consequent different in absolute noise floor.
Another way of looking at this is that fundamentally the difference between the 5D and the D3 is that the 5D will only accept instructions (from the user) on how to deal with 5 stops of underexposure, where as the D3 will accept instructions on how to deal with as much as 7 stops of underexposure. (It's a more advanced robot ).
True, but in type, they seem to be similar; different ISOs by different gains (at the photosites) for multiple ISOs, unlike all compact cameras and most other Nikons and other brands of DSLR, which only seem to vary gain (if at all) before going into the ADC.
But I've got my own way of compensating for underexposure, so I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to say the following shot was taken at ISO 256,000.
I don't think you can really say that, because you collected photons multiple times. There is no real difference (except in read noise) between shooting one frame at 9 seconds and 9 frames at 1 second. Your ISO is 256000 divided by nine, if you took nine exposures. I have not yet investigated the difference between additive stacks and median stacks (I just have assumptions, such as median possibly being more accurate when you have a lot of wild, stray, extreme values in your system, and that additive potentially increases bit depth while median does not, meaning that median will be more likely to lead to quantization), but I am pretty certain that it is a bit of a stretch to identify the exposure index of a median stack by an individual exposure.
That's a total of 10 stops of underexposure, the first 5 handled by the camera's processing and the additional 5 handled by me and photoshop .
How is this possible considering the 5D only has about 10 stops of DR or less?
ISO 100 has that limitation; the sensor doesn't. 5D ISO 1600 goes about 2.5 stops deeper than ISO 100 for usable signal, in an absolute sense. If you could get the quality of readout at ISO 100 in its very deepest shadows that you get of the same absolute levels at ISO 1600, you would have an amazing ISO 100.
Then, as I implied, your exposure index is really the sum of the ISOs of the individual shots.
And let's not forget, most of these measures of dynamic range assume 100% pixel view, or nearly so. These DR values don't mean that you can't separate half a frame that is black from half a frame that is white, but 20 stops below sensor saturation by binning down to two pixels!
I noticed this defect when I tested my second copy of the 5D. The first copy had unacceptable banding in deep shadows. I returned the camera and found the second one was better regarding the ugly banding, but had this defective corner. I considered returning the second camera, but decided against it on the grounds that possibly all 5D sensors would have one defect or another. This was a budget Full Frame sensor after all.
I'm sure it could be calibrated out, but none of the common converters allow that, AFAIK. It's probably just a blackpoint issue, and with Canon's blackpoint offset in their RAW files, you could probably calibrate it out without losing anything near black.
The fourth image is the 100% crop showing a fair amount of noise. What would you say, film at ISO 800?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't remeber exact film qualities. Last time I shot film was 1976-1981.
-
One wonders how much it cost Ray to learn their little secret.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hardly anything. A few drinks at the most. These guys are usually very willing to be photographed because they are so proud of their transformation.
[attachment=4237:attachment]
-
I don't think you can really say that, because you collected photons multiple times. There is no real difference (except in read noise) between shooting one frame at 9 seconds and 9 frames at 1 second. Your ISO is 256000 divided by nine, if you took nine exposures. I have not yet investigated the difference between additive stacks and median stacks (I just have assumptions, such as median possibly being more accurate when you have a lot of wild, stray, extreme values in your system, and that additive potentially increases bit depth while median does not, meaning that median will be more likely to lead to quantization), but I am pretty certain that it is a bit of a stretch to identify the exposure index of a median stack by an individual exposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
Actually they were stacked in mean mode. I haven't done any comparisons between median and mean yet.
I take your point that it really is cheating to pretend that 9 stacked ISO quarter of a million shots constitute a genuine ISO 256,000 shot.
Here's is the first of those 9 shots showing all the striations in their full glory.
Hhmm! This is beginning to look like one of Edmund's underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 800 .
[attachment=4238:attachment]
-
John,
Actually they were stacked in mean mode. I haven't done any comparisons between median and mean yet.
I take your point that it really is cheating to pretend that 9 stacked ISO quarter of a million shots constitute a genuine ISO 256,000 shot.
Here's is the first of those 9 shots showing all the striations in their full glory.
Hhmm! This is beginning to look like one of Edmund's underexposed P45+ shots at ISO 800 .
[attachment=4238:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, well, I'm getting the impression that the backs, in general, are really only made for base ISO and just offer high ISO as an afterthought. The Sinar 22MP that someone linked to a RAW from in one of these forums - it performed very well at ISO 25, as you would expect, but I measured only about 38000 photons for it, full-well. Probably has no microlenses, and the color filters are probably very sharp for good color discrimination (but losing a lot of light).
Your striations are probably fairly removable with a RAW file.
If you link to the RAW of that file, I can show you what can be done with it.
-
Your striations are probably fairly removable with a RAW file.
If you link to the RAW of that file, I can show you what can be done with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the offer, John. However, I'm not subscribed to any site such as ''Yousendit" I could link to.
As Bill suggested, it would be better to use a tripod for a shot like this. I did in fact return last night with my very compact and lightweight Manfrotto and luckily found the temple gates open. (Perhaps some novice was being slack in his duties ).
Here's a 30 second exposure at ISO 400 and f11, plus a lightened version and a crop of the darkest part, bottom left corner showing surprisingly little noise.
[attachment=4267:attachment] [attachment=4268:attachment] [attachment=4269:attachment]
I also took a shorter exposure at ISO 1600 which also shows surprisingly little noise. Phwoar!
[attachment=4270:attachment]
-
Hi! John,
I've just discovered Yousendit have a free trial option. Below is the link to one of my genuine ISO 256,000 shots, give or take half a stop for error of assessment .
I'd be interested to learn if your method of removing the striations is as effective as stacking. I imagine that, after removing the striations it would not be possible to get much further benefit from stacking. Would this be right?
http://www.yousendit.com/download/www/YVJZc2ZFMVhVbS9IRGc9PQ (http://www.yousendit.com/download/www/YVJZc2ZFMVhVbS9IRGc9PQ)
-
That's a gorgeous picture (the one at 30 seconds, f/11, ISO 400). But the lightened one is lightened too much. That probably means you need to get a better laptop (with a calibrated monitor).
-
That's a gorgeous picture (the one at 30 seconds, f/11, ISO 400). But the lightened one is lightened too much. That probably means you need to get a better laptop (with a calibrated monitor).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Eric. The second one was deliberately lightened to show off the lack of noise and to create that sensation of heaven, where we all go when we die .
This choice of venue to demonstrate noise issues was particularly appropriate because some of the temples in Chiang Mai are amazingly quiet places. They are usually surrounded by thick, high walls which very successfully block out the noise from a continuous stream of honking, motor revving traffic, just a few feet away in this case.
-
... to create that sensation of heaven, where we all go when we die .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an oversimplification, Ray. There are at least two places we all go when we die. One is Canon Heaven (a.k.a. Nikon Hell), and the other is Nikon Heaven (a.k.a. ... , )
-
That's an oversimplification, Ray. There are at least two places we all go when we die. One is Canon Heaven (a.k.a. Nikon Hell), and the other is Nikon Heaven (a.k.a. ... , )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
As long as Nikon lenses are provided, I don't mind which heaven .
-
So, then: Superheaven uses Leica glass?
Rob C