Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo  (Read 16786 times)

nokinq

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2007, 03:57:57 am »

Quote
Cool...and I might add that 4 total posts–two of them pretty much a complete waste in this thread–does not bode well for your continued participation in these forums, long term. It's my experience you simply won't get the sort of response you want...

And you are entirely welcome to hold whatever opinions you wish no matter how ridiculous they may be...but don't think that the ridiculous won't get ridiculed...that's our job!

You might just want to try to fit in a bit before before you tell your host he has bad breath...ya know?
bjanes  Posted Yesterday, 08:12 PM c
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its a very old and cheap but now ineffective debating trick to put words in the mouth of your opponent [tell your host he has bad breath] and try to make them look silly,usually this ploy indicates a weak argument on the part of the responder.You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who doe's not conform to your rather limited views and standards [I use the word loosely] should withdraw from the forum,this along with referring to parts of the anatomy on which the sun doesn't shine,what an original contribution to any discussion.
With regards to the "ridiculous" I think you need to look no further than the mirror to find you life's work manifested, words like falstaffien come to mind.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2007, 06:44:13 am »

Quote
Regardless of what it's compared to, the D3 noise levels at high (very high) ISO are simply amazing. I shoot Canon--switched when the New F1 was introduced, and haven't looked back--but let's be honest:  Canon doesn't even offer a body that does real ISO 6400.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's a pity that the real nature of the imrovements of the latest Nikons at high ISO tend to get lost in the hype. I've seen comparisons between the D300 and the 40D which show the D300 having substantially less noise than the 40D at ISO 3200 and sometimes apparently equal detail, but when you look closely you sometimes find that the detail in the D300 shot, particularly with regard to fine textured surfaces, is lacking to the same degree that the noise is less. In other words, there's been some sort of trade-off between noise reduction and detail.

There seems little doubt, in the comparisons that I've seen between the D3 and the 5D, that the D3 produces a better result at high ISO. But once again, the real significance of such improvement seems to be partially obscured. For example, you don't often see it mentioned that the 5D's ISO 3200 is really ISO 4000 and the difference between ISO 4000 and ISO 6400 is only 2/3rds of a stop.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2007, 07:47:40 am »

Please keep things civil. No personal attacks.

Michael
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2007, 01:11:55 pm »

Quote
With regards to the "ridiculous" I think you need to look no further than the mirror to find you life's work manifested, words like falstaffien come to mind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh, you mean "Falstaffian"? There ya go, wasting post number 5...
Logged

Martin Ocando

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
    • Lightcraftings
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2007, 02:33:28 pm »

Is amazing how people can get attached to a manufacturer. Looks like they get paid for them. That they are willing to flame a fine photographer for just simply "playing around" with the competition.

I wonder what would happen to them if Canon goes out of business, as ridiculous as might sound, nobody thought KM would do it. But it happened. Now, are they hanging themselves for this?

Jeeze. Get a life.

BTW Jeff, I'm sold to "Frontera Merlot" (From Concha y Toro, chilean winery) these days. What did you got in Thomas' house? I've seen those mixes, and they look like they are very nice, 50% Merlot, 20% Cabernet Sauvignon, 30% Shiraz or something like that. How about them?
Logged
Martin Ocando
Olympus OM-D E-M1 -

Kevin Gallagher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 963
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2007, 04:39:51 pm »

Quote
Please keep things civil. No personal attacks.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Hey Michael, this just goes to show that LL is a cut above the rest..I needed to get a dictionary to follow this thread. Take care Kevin  
Logged
Kevin In CT
All Animals Are Equal But Some Are More Equal
 George Orwell

ashdavid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2007, 06:15:41 am »

I believe it is apples vs apples, just one is green and the other red!
Logged

brethogan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2007, 11:11:23 pm »

Quote
Please keep things civil. No personal attacks.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rats!  Does that mean that I can't be the first to call you a "Nikon shill?"

I think it is funny that all these Nikonaholics have been bashing
Michael for years, calling him a shill for Canon.  Now when
he finally reviews a Nikon, they all go ga-ga over a few Nikon snaps
of some dude's eyebrows.

Good work, Michael ... you just captured a whole new audience.

Seriously, when did ultra-high ISO noise performance become the standard by which all cameras will now be judged?  How did the film shooters of the past ever do without ISO 25000 film?  Low-light photography seems like a very small segment of what people want a camera for these days.  I could use better high-ISO performance in my macro work, but since most of the stuff I shoot is wildlife or landscapes I'm more concerned with resolution, focus-tracking, etc.
You know, things that make a real difference.

People that know me know that I'm Canon through and through ... the ultimate Canon shill.  Having said that, there are some worthwhile additions to the latest Nikon models that I'd love to see on my Canons.  The interval timer and the ability to do multiple-exposures, for example, is one neat little trick that Nikon has included on its latest model.  I have to shoot tethered to a laptop and use external software to do that.  Also, the ability to control wireless flashes direcly from the camera without the need for a wireless transmitter like the ST-E2.
Hopefully, Canon will build Pocket Wizards into their next models.

In future reviews, I'd like to see more attention paid to useful features like those as well as real-world performance differences.

-bret douglas ----> aka the artist formerly known as Annika1980
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2007, 01:43:32 am »

Quote
Seriously, when did ultra-high ISO noise performance become the standard by which all cameras will now be judged?  How did the film shooters of the past ever do without ISO 25000 film?  Low-light photography seems like a very small segment of what people want a camera for these days.  I could use better high-ISO performance in my macro work, but since most of the stuff I shoot is wildlife or landscapes I'm more concerned with resolution, focus-tracking, etc.
You know, things that make a real difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bret,
You're joking, of course, but just in case others don't realise that  . Insufficient light has always been a problem for photography since the process was first invented and still is.

The only subjects that rarely present a problem due to insufficient light are still-lifes (including landscapes) and studio lit scenes, and even then, still-lifes at night-time, even with a tripod, can present a problem due to long exposure noise (thermal noise) and in the case of film, reciprocity failure.

It seems to me that the number and variety of scene types that benefit from fast shutter speeds and/or high ISO far outweigh the types of still-lifes that don't. They include most indoor scenes without special lighting, sporting activities, wildlife shooting particularly of birds, street photography at night, photojournalism, and snapshots in general of art works in the countless museums and art galleries around the world where tripods and flash are generally not permitted.

I could go on, but you get my point.
Logged

ashdavid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2007, 07:13:55 am »

Quote
Bret,
You're joking, of course, but just in case others don't realise that  . Insufficient light has always been a problem for photography since the process was first invented and still is.

The only subjects that rarely present a problem due to insufficient light are still-lifes (including landscapes) and studio lit scenes, and even then, still-lifes at night-time, even with a tripod, can present a problem due to long exposure noise (thermal noise) and in the case of film, reciprocity failure.

It seems to me that the number and variety of scene types that benefit from fast shutter speeds and/or high ISO far outweigh the types of still-lifes that don't. They include most indoor scenes without special lighting, sporting activities, wildlife shooting particularly of birds, street photography at night, photojournalism, and snapshots in general of art works in the countless museums and art galleries around the world where tripods and flash are generally not permitted.

I could go on, but you get my point.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And nikon fail misserably in that area, have a look at this site and you will see why canon still has the goods on nikon. Oh and BTW I am no canon fanboy.

[a href=\"http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm]http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm[/url]

Quote
The readout noise of the Nikon and Canon CMOS detectors is very similar. The high ISO sensitivity displayed by Nikon is for the marketing: Nikon D3 CMOS (and also the CMOS D300 CMOS - Sony origin) is a very high quality sensor, but in the end, Nikon just rises now the level of Canon technology.

The behaviour of Nikon DSLR are radically different from the Canon ones for long exposure:

- For Nikon, the hot pixels are eliminated by a sophisticated digital processing external to the sensor. During this digital processing, the signal of the neighboring pixels is also affected. The damage of such processing is well-known in astronomy: the weak stars are also eliminated and the image loose photometric qualities on stellar like objects.
- For Canon, the thermal signal is reduced for each pixel by a differential reading method. The thermal signal level measured at the output of the sensor is very low. The residual can efficiently be removed during the image processing (a simple substraction of a reference dark signal map).

 It is tragic to see that Nikon solved the problem of thermal signal by a digital processing of the RAW files (i.e. NEF files do  not contain true raw data). This processing can surely meet the daytime users and the high performance for main application is evident. But by repeating the same mistake made on the D70 and the D200 (equipped with a CCD) on the news Digital SLR Nikon probably divorces once more with the astronomical community.

 Today the Canon and Pentax cameras seem to be the only ones useable digital SLR for efficient and advanced astronomy
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 07:19:08 am by ashdavid »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2007, 08:22:27 am »

Quote
And nikon fail misserably in that area, have a look at this site and you will see why canon still has the goods on nikon. Oh and BTW I am no canon fanboy.

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your statement is demonstrably false. For the time being, the Nikon D3 is the current high ISO champion. Christian Buil's statement about inflated ISO for marketing purposes is not backed up by any data and has been discussed on the D3 DPReview discussion forum. EJ Martinic, who is professor of physics at the University of Chicago and who has conducted his own tests on the D3, could not understand that statement.

Nikon's decision to clip the read noise is unfortunate for astrophotographers has little bearing on normal photography. Further, thermal noise is only evident at exposures of more than 1 second and is not a major factor in most normal usage.

[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=25658562]DPReview Thread[/url]
Logged

ashdavid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2007, 10:12:21 am »

Quote
Your statement is demonstrably false. For the time being, the Nikon D3 is the current high ISO champion. Christian Buil's statement about inflated ISO for marketing purposes is not backed up by any data and has been discussed on the D3 DPReview discussion forum. EJ Martinic, who is professor of physics at the University of Chicago and who has conducted his own tests on the D3, could not understand that statement.

Nikon's decision to clip the read noise is unfortunate for astrophotographers has little bearing on normal photography. Further, thermal noise is only evident at exposures of more than 1 second and is not a major factor in most normal usage.

DPReview Thread
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But ,no it isn't. It was stated that nikon has problem with long expossures and I clarified that.  It does have a problem with long exposures and you just admited it yourself. And please tell me what real life photography is to you, b/c it has many meanings to many people.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2007, 10:44:33 am »

I'm developing a theory that the reason why there are so few really thorough and competent image comparisons amongst differenct cameras is that such comparisons would tend to reduce disputation and argumentation which many of us enjoy.

Dpreview tests seem to come the closest to providing argument proof results, but even they often rely too much on in-camera jpegs, in my opinion.

This current thread at the dpreview forum on D3 noise is just horrendous. Never have I read so much noise about noise and not a single comparison of images   .
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2007, 11:53:54 am »

Quote
But ,no it isn't. It was stated that nikon has problem with long expossures and I clarified that.  It does have a problem with long exposures and you just admited it yourself. And please tell me what real life photography is to you, b/c it has many meanings to many people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your statement that "And nikon fail misserably in that area, have a look at this site and you will see why canon still has the goods on nikon. Oh and BTW I am no canon fanboy." is absurd. You give a link to topics that you probably don't understand and come to unfounded conclusions. Clipping of the black point rather than using an bias such as done by Canon is probably not optimal, but how does it affect your photography? Also, how does the Nikon handling of hot pixels with long exposures affect your photography? Exactly what problem does Nikon have with "long" exposures?
Logged

Provokot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://www.pauldaveycreative.co.uk
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2007, 02:13:21 pm »

I was curious to know the differences (beyond pixel count) between the two cameras.  Michael delivered that information. Job done.
Logged

ashdavid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2007, 06:58:44 pm »

Quote
Your statement that "And nikon fail misserably in that area, have a look at this site and you will see why canon still has the goods on nikon. Oh and BTW I am no canon fanboy." is absurd. You give a link to topics that you probably don't understand and come to unfounded conclusions. Clipping of the black point rather than using an bias such as done by Canon is probably not optimal, but how does it affect your photography? Also, how does the Nikon handling of hot pixels with long exposures affect your photography? Exactly what problem does Nikon have with "long" exposures?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good on you buddy, you know absolutely nothing about me, but it seems that you can assume that ,what was it in your words "give a link to topics that you probably don't understand and come to unfounded conclusions". My conclusion that nikons are not as good as canons in astrophotography are correct and you even said it yourself ,quote
Quote
Nikon's decision to clip the read noise is unfortunate for astrophotographers has little bearing on normal photography. Further, thermal noise is only evident at exposures of more than 1 second and is not a major factor in most normal usage.
Again, I ask why you call photography under 1 second exposure normal?

 To answer your question how does it affect my photography? Well nikons are still unable to be used effectively in astrophotography, so yes that has an effect on my photography.  Your presumptions and assumptions are making you look very amature and stupid and I feel no need to discuss this with someone that has the amount of ignorance that you seem to be showing.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 07:03:35 pm by ashdavid »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2007, 07:18:08 pm »

Quote
Again, I ask why you call photography under 1 second exposure normal?

Probably because the vast majority of photographs are taken with an exposure of 1 second or faster. Astrophotography is a highly specialized field, and the equipment and techniques used bear little resemblance to that used in almost every other genre of photography.
Logged

ashdavid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2007, 11:02:49 pm »

Quote
Probably because the vast majority of photographs are taken with an exposure of 1 second or faster. Astrophotography is a highly specialized field, and the equipment and techniques used bear little resemblance to that used in almost every other genre of photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That being said, there are plenty of other types of photography that use more than one second exposure, eg lightning photography. Every feild has its speciality,settings ect,ect , so why does it needed to be labled normal? Depends on the point of veiw I suppose and I  don't want to get into a discussion about what is "normal" and what is not.
Logged

John Sheehy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 838
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2007, 11:18:12 pm »

Quote
That being said, there are plenty of other types of photography that use more than one second exposure, eg lightning photography. Every feild has its speciality,settings ect,ect , so why does it needed to be labled normal? Depends on the point of veiw I suppose and I  don't want to get into a discussion about what is "normal" and what is not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The one-second thing is mainly for high ISOs.  Low ISOs generally don't show much thermal noise until many seconds.

The whole idea of having a camera kick in dark frame subtraction at a certain exposure length is silly, IMO; it should be a factor of exposure time and ISO, like 1600 ISO-seconds (and make it user-selectable).
Logged

NikosR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
    • http://
D3, 1Ds3 noise comparo
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2007, 05:46:55 am »

If I understand the astrosurf article well, the issue for them (astrophotographers) is that the way Nikon handles noise issues in long exposures, makes it difficult for their post-processing techniques to differentiate noise from real info. Real info in their case you have to remember is POINT LIGHT SOURCES. Nikon noise processing affects their point light source subjects (stars) and that's their main problem in their application.

So, in this vain, I do find very little relevance of the issue that they discuss with general photography. Even long exposure general photography.

The article itself seems to suggest the same, but some people just choose to ignore this detail or plainly do not understand the premise of the astrosurf discussion.

Unless your photography involves long exposures of distant point light sources, them being stars or whatever, I do think that this issue will not affect the quality of your pictures.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 05:51:38 am by NikosR »
Logged
Nikos
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up