Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: NikosR on September 12, 2007, 07:41:31 am
-
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/di...r/d3/sample.htm (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/sample.htm)
Looks good.
-
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/di...r/d3/sample.htm (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/sample.htm)
Looks good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow have you seen the noise at 6400 bam thats a slap in the face for canon.
-
Wow have you seen the noise at 6400 bam thats a slap in the face for canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The D3 at 3200 and 6400 does seem if anything even better than the 5D, with only slightly larger photosites. Well, two year's progress and all that.
Rather than being a slap for Canon, I would say that this is simply good news for everyone who cares about extreme low light shooting: it is clear now that there is no monopoly on the ability to reduce noise levels.
In fact, potentially three or four DSLR sensor makers are making big improvement in low light performance, perhaps now getting fairly close to the fundamental physical limits of photon shot noise. Canon as usual, Nikon for the D3 sensor, Sony for the D300/A700 sensor (guessing from it having half the maximum stated ISO limit of the D3 [3200 vs 6400] with half the sensor and photosite area), and maybe even Panasonic, which has significantly reduced high ISO noise in 4/3" sensors at the same time as increasing pixel count and reducing pixel spacing to 4.75 microns.
-
the 6400 shot would be exposable at a 20th at f2 with 400 (being 160th at 5.6)
(yes that would be hard to get sharp hand held)
But reveals that the situation is not actually that dark
It would be interesting to see a sample that really pushes the sensor
I bet the quality drops off exponentially with diminishing light
Yes it will be useful for bands etc but I am not sure it will revolutionise what is possible
most cameras given a bit of light to chew on look OK even at high ISO
Can it photograph a black cat in a coal hole - I doubt it
Yes I have ordered one - my first proper upgrade since the SLRn
S
-
the 6400 shot would be exposable at a 20th at f2 with 400 (being 160th at 5.6)
(yes that would be hard to get sharp hand held)
But reveals that the situation is not actually that dark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That doesn't matter much: "reciprocity" applies here. The sensor received very little light, as little as if it has been ISO 6400 at 1/20 and f/2 with four EV less illumination, and it produced a quite sharp, low noise image. The only difference in a darker environment would be if a far longer exposure produced additional dark current noise, and dark current seems to be totally insignificant at "hand-holdable" shutter speeds.
In general, and particularly with the D3, the main role for very high exposure index (ISO) seems to be getting shutter speeds high enough to freeze action, and maybe to freeze camera motion, as you mention, realms where dark current noise irrelevant and "reciprocity" reigns.
I bet the quality drops off exponentially with diminishing light
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With "on meter" exposures, all EI 6400 exposures receive a roughly equal amount of light.
-
the 6400 shot would be exposable at a 20th at f2 with 400 (being 160th at 5.6)
(yes that would be hard to get sharp hand held)
But reveals that the situation is not actually that dark
It would be interesting to see a sample that really pushes the sensor
I bet the quality drops off exponentially with diminishing light
Yes it will be useful for bands etc but I am not sure it will revolutionise what is possible
most cameras given a bit of light to chew on look OK even at high ISO
Can it photograph a black cat in a coal hole - I doubt it
Yes I have ordered one - my first proper upgrade since the SLRn
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digital Era Myth
There seems to be a persistent myth circulating in internet forums, that to show off the so called 'High ISO performance' one needs to shoot under very dark conditions (i.e Low EV).
I believe this is not true and I can find no rational justification for it. The only thing that is required is for the subject to exhibt a good mix of shadows and highlights and the ISO setting of the sensor to be set at a high value.
The sensor does not 'know' if a picture was taken under light conditions but with such aperture and speed that allowed very little light to fall on it, or in darker conditions with larger aperture and/or slower speed which allowed the same amount of light to reach the sensor.
The colour temperature of the ambient light and the white balance compensation applied also play a significant role.
Also, I'm not sure how a camera 'chews on' light
-
I appreciate the progress made, but I'm still struggling to understand if and how this 'high ISO performance' would directly or indirectly benefit my landscape images (taken at 100 or perhaps 200 ISO).
Would it help with the dynamic range ('the mix of shadows and highlights' referred to in the above posting)?
Thanks.
-
Wow have you seen the noise at 6400 bam thats a slap in the face for canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Look again. Lots of noise reduction - no color in the shadows, even at IS0 200.
The images suggest lower-than-average shot noise, perhaps, but read noise doesn't look like anything revolutionary. You really need RAW files (and test files, not real photographs) to tell what has really been done, hardware-wise, in the D3.
-
I appreciate the progress made, but I'm still struggling to understand if and how this 'high ISO performance' would directly or indirectly benefit my landscape images (taken at 100 or perhaps 200 ISO).
Would it help with the dynamic range ('the mix of shadows and highlights' referred to in the above posting)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're not going to tell from these JPEGs. They have destroyed the deep shadow areas with blurring and desaturation.
-
Digital Era Myth
There seems to be a persistent myth circulating in internet forums, that to show off the so called 'High ISO performance' one needs to shoot under very dark conditions (i.e Low EV).
I believe this is not true and I can find no rational justification for it. The only thing that is required is for the subject to exhibt a good mix of shadows and highlights and the ISO setting of the sensor to be set at a high value.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, but very dark situations often have large black areas where the noise shows a lot, as well as some tonal transitions from dark to mid-dark where the noise shows a lot.
Regards,
Bernard
-
The sensor does not 'know' if a picture was taken under light conditions but with such aperture and speed that allowed very little light to fall on it, or in darker conditions with larger aperture and/or slower speed which allowed the same amount of light to reach the sensor.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would appear to be a completely rational argument.
However I still adhere to the opinion that my digital cameras, used in good light with stupid fast shutter speeds anda high ISO setting exhibit less noise than when I use the same cameras in a situation that actually demands a high ISO
Maybe because longer exposures tend to be involved in low light conditions
I am sure the tech boys can forward an opinion about why longer exposures = more noise - heat whatever - I have no idea.
I would never choose 160 at 5.6 in a dark environ much go for a wider aperture and slower ISO or wide ap and faster shut if the movement/lens lenght demanded it
Hopefully I would do BETTER under the same conditions having got away with 800ISO at 2 or 2.8
That image is therefore not likely to be relevant to me at least
I rekon the D3 will be good for 800 in real situations
This is exciting becuase I consider all other nikons not really usable beyond base ISO - 100
S
-
True, but very dark situations often have large black areas where the noise shows a lot, as well as some tonal transitions from dark to mid-dark where the noise shows a lot.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Longer exposure times increases noise, even if the light level hitting the sensor is the same on a shorter exposure. IOW, if that trumpet player were a still life, and shot at the equivalent EI of f22 @ 1/10th, it might be a tad noisier.
For my main line of work, which often involves 15-30 second exposures, I think we can predict that since the sensor has better noise performance at high ISO's it will also have better image quality at low ISO's with long shutter speeds, because of less need for post-exposure NR reduction.
Anyway, as far as we can tell from these in-camera jpeg's, the high ISO noise performance is a -dramatic- leap forward for Nikon! I rarely need it (when I do I borrow my studio mate's Canon) but if I tried that shot with my D200 (or a D2x) it wouldn't be usable. Nikon's get funky at 400, by 1600 they're ugly, and 3200 pure junk. That kind of quality at 6400 is, subjectively, superb.
The low ISO model shots look real good too. Lovely skin tone, and smooth tonal gradations (for a jpeg).
Can't wait to see a 14-bit RAW file but I'm expecting good things. Like usual with Nikon you'll probably get better conversions at first with their software, but Adobe tends to tweak ACR's performance with pro cameras every revision - the first version that read my D200 files was okay but not great, but now they render quite nicely.
BTW, anybody wanna buy two D200's?
-
That would appear to be a completely rational argument.
However I still adhere to the opinion that my digital cameras, used in good light with stupid fast shutter speeds anda high ISO setting exhibit less noise than when I use the same cameras in a situation that actually demands a high ISO
Maybe because longer exposures tend to be involved in low light conditions
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I believe that the explanation for the myth does not lie in long exposure noise (you generally need quite long speeds to show up the amp noise, this would not show up as different in a 1/15s vs 1/60s picture), but it lies in the fact that large areas of shadows or 'semi-shadows' so to speak, do tend to occur more often in dark lighting conditions. But this has to do with the subject and not with the average available light intensity. A scene with large shadow parts can also occur (just not so often) in lighter lighting conditions.
-
Well, I believe that the explanation for the myth does not lie in long exposure noise (you generally need quite long speeds to show up the amp noise, this would not show up as different in a 1/15s vs 1/60s picture), but it lies in the fact that large areas of shadows or 'semi-shadows' so to speak, do tend to occur more often in dark lighting conditions. But this has to do with the subject and not with the average available light intensity. A scene with large shadow parts can also occur (just not so often) in lighter lighting conditions.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=139056\")
Quite possibly correct again. (not often I back down on this board!)
Anyway the bottom line is that my D200 and D80 are sh*t off of the base ISO
So bad that I actually have got better results exposing my 25ISO eyelike at 400 than using the D200
It looks like the camera will be far better - hence my order
A recent situation where I have desired ISO..
[a href=\"http://tinyurl.com/2opveu]winehouse[/url] (note the desaturation - I certainly had to burn the background 'back to black!')
SMM
-
Hm to a lot of people go back to the 1DMk3 images and you will be suprised. 6400 there is just a total mess. I also thought it's not sooo special but after seeing images again from both cameras...
-
Digital Era Myth
There seems to be a persistent myth circulating in internet forums, that to show off the so called 'High ISO performance' one needs to shoot under very dark conditions (i.e Low EV).
I believe this is not true and I can find no rational justification for it. The only thing that is required is for the subject to exhibt a good mix of shadows and highlights and the ISO setting of the sensor to be set at a high value.
You obviously haven't done much high-ISO shooting then. Shoot a Color Checker at ISO 1600 outside, aperture se to get an exposure of 1/1000 or so, then shoot the same Color Checker inside in low light at ISO 1600 with aperture set to get a shutter of 1/2 or so. Your goal is to get both shots exposed so that the lightest neutral patch is about level 245-250 with exposure set to 0 in the RAW converter. Then compare noise levels in the darkest patches.
There are several kinds of noise in digital sensors. The most important are read noise, which is constant at a given ISO regardless of shutter speed, and there is another kind of noise (the name escapes me now) that is directly proportional to exposure time, and is caused by electrons leaking out of the photosites on the chip. This noise tends to have a fixed-pattern component (hence the "long exposure noise reduction" mode on most DSLRs where a dark frame is taken after the main exposure and subtracted from it), but it has a random element as well. So the slower your shutter speed, the noisier the image will be at a given ISO, even if overall exposure is constant. The difference may not be noticeable with only a 1-stop difference in shutter speed, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
-
You obviously haven't done much high-ISO shooting then. Shoot a Color Checker at ISO 1600 outside, aperture se to get an exposure of 1/1000 or so, then shoot the same Color Checker inside in low light at ISO 1600 with aperture set to get a shutter of 1/2 or so. Your goal is to get both shots exposed so that the lightest neutral patch is about level 245-250 with exposure set to 0 in the RAW converter. Then compare noise levels in the darkest patches.
There are several kinds of noise in digital sensors. The most important are read noise, which is constant at a given ISO regardless of shutter speed, and there is another kind of noise (the name escapes me now) that is directly proportional to exposure time, and is caused by electrons leaking out of the photosites on the chip. This noise tends to have a fixed-pattern component (hence the "long exposure noise reduction" mode on most DSLRs where a dark frame is taken after the main exposure and subtracted from it), but it has a random element as well. So the slower your shutter speed, the noisier the image will be at a given ISO, even if overall exposure is constant. The difference may not be noticeable with only a 1-stop difference in shutter speed, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would be happy to be shown images were long exposure noise is visible at the shutter speeds we have been talking about (that is handholding speeds). Please look at the posts in the beginning of this thread which argued about the validity regarding noise of the Nikon sample image.
Of course the dark-current noise, amp noise etc are visible in speeds approaching or exceeding the second. That's why most cameras introduce a dark frame subtraction noise reduction for long shutter speeds. But that is not what this discussion has been all about. I mentioned long exposure noise in a previous post which you failed to quote.
So please substantiate your argument with a suitable example at speeds relevant to this discussion. Any such test should also guarrantee that the colour temperature in both pictures remains the same and the white balance correction is the same also. Otherwise the difference in perceived noise introduced by the different channels and the different digital amplification required for correcting the white balance will make the test invalid.
-
How long berfore Michael pops up with a D3? I'm sure he's arguing with himself about it. But I'm equally sure its calling ... c a l l i n g.... to him. What if Nikon really HAS leap-fogged Canon on image quality? We need Michael Riechmann in there to find out for us!
Sure, he's at this point telling himself he'll wait for the high resolution version surely coming out within six months or so. Yeah I tried that with myself. But the D3 whispered that I could easilly fleabay it for full price soons the 'heavy hitter pixel monster' came out.
Resistence is futile MR. You NEED a D3. Buncha lenses too.
I'm 7th on the list in Austin, TX. for the cam and 24-70. Probably get my unit in '08 or so. %^/
(Now where did I stash that extra $7k I had lying around?)
-
So please substantiate your argument with a suitable example at speeds relevant to this discussion. Any such test should also guarrantee that the colour temperature in both pictures remains the same and the white balance correction is the same also.
I just did some tests, using the lighting in my room, with a high ISO setting and aperture priority mode, and varying the aperture from f/2 to f/32, shooting 9 frames at 1-stop intervals. The results weren't quite what I expected. My 1Ds does have somewhat higher noise at longer shutter speeds (range tested was 1/2 to 1/400), but the 1D-II actually goes the opposite way, with slightly lower noise at longer shutter speeds. I would imagine that it is possible there are other cameras that split the difference and stay about the same.
But in both cases, small exposure errors were much more significant in their effect on noise than the actual shutter speed. Proper exposure (exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing important highlights) is the most effective way to minimize noise at high ISO. Shutter speed (all else being equal) has a small effect on noise levels, but it is pretty insignificant with the cameras I've tested so far in the 1/2 - 1/400 range.
-
1. To Jonathan and Morgan:
I indirectly addressed this issue in my first response.
Yes, "noise reciprocity" fails at sufficiently long exposures, like 1/2 second, because then dark current noise can increase to significant levels. But as far as I know, this is irrelevant at hand-holdable shutter speeds, say 1/30s and faster.
Jonathan, what did your tests show at 1/30s and faster?
2. To Morgan: you seem to be saying that the main use for very high exposure index (IE, or 'ISO') is with long exposure times, and thus in what is over all extremely low light. I doubt it. High EI seems to be most often used to get moderate to fast shutter speeds for action photography, and I would think that most times where a long exposure like 1/2s is needed, one is dealing with a tripod and stationary subject matter, and so might as well go to an even longer exposure time and use base ISO speed.
3. To Bernard: you have a good point, which is that the harshest test of high EI settings is scenes of high subject brightness range, like ones with deep shadows, particularly if there is something to attract the viewer's curiosity in those shadows. Nikon's 6400 example seems to fit that bill.
-
I just did some tests, using the lighting in my room, with a high ISO setting and aperture priority mode, and varying the aperture from f/2 to f/32, shooting 9 frames at 1-stop intervals. The results weren't quite what I expected. My 1Ds does have somewhat higher noise at longer shutter speeds (range tested was 1/2 to 1/400), but the 1D-II actually goes the opposite way, with slightly lower noise at longer shutter speeds. I would imagine that it is possible there are other cameras that split the difference and stay about the same.
But in both cases, small exposure errors were much more significant in their effect on noise than the actual shutter speed. Proper exposure (exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing important highlights) is the most effective way to minimize noise at high ISO. Shutter speed (all else being equal) has a small effect on noise levels, but it is pretty insignificant with the cameras I've tested so far in the 1/2 - 1/400 range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This has been my experience also.
-
1. To Jonathan and Morgan:
I indirectly addressed this issue in my first response.
Yes, "noise reciprocity" fails at sufficiently long exposures, like 1/2 second, because then dark current noise can increase to significant levels. But as far as I know, this is irrelevant at hand-holdable shutter speeds, say 1/30s and faster.
Jonathan, what did your tests show at 1/30s and faster?
2. To Morgan: you seem to be saying that the main use for very high exposure index (IE, or 'ISO') is with long exposure times, and thus in what is over all extremely low light. I doubt it. High EI seems to be most often used to get moderate to fast shutter speeds for action photography, and I would think that most times where a long exposure like 1/2s is needed, one is dealing with a tripod and stationary subject matter, and so might as well go to an even longer exposure time and use base ISO speed.
3. To Bernard: you have a good point, which is that the harshest test of high EI settings is scenes of high subject brightness range, like ones with deep shadows, particularly if there is something to attract the viewer's curiosity in those shadows. Nikon's 6400 example seems to fit that bill.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I absolutely agree on all these points.
Additionaly I should stress the difference blue defficient lighting conditions have in accentuating the noise when a substantial white balance correction has been applied.
This is why I think the Nikon 6400 sample seems to me to be very interesting. Not only was it shot at 6400 and contains large shadow portions, it was also shot with 3750K white balance correction and the main subject is obviously lit with yellowish colored gel lights. Compare the skin color to the whitish (I supose halogen) light source visible in the upper right corner of the picture.
-
2. To Morgan: you seem to be saying that the main use for very high exposure index (IE, or 'ISO') is with long exposure times, and thus in what is over all extremely low light. I doubt it. High EI seems to be most often used to get moderate to fast shutter speeds for action photography, and I would think that most times where a long exposure like 1/2s is needed, one is dealing with a tripod and stationary subject matter, and so might as well go to an even longer exposure time and use base ISO speed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I dont think I said that.
Intially I was questioning the fact that the test shot had no reason to use 6400 at 160 5.6
I then quaestioned whether there would be more noise say in a situation that forced you to use 60th at 2 with 6400
I still think there might be - being superstitiious - no technical argument
However in the nikon I will be looking for handholdability and performances in shutter speeds no lower than 15th
I dont get high ISOs and tripods used in conjunction either
S
-
Yes, "noise reciprocity" fails at sufficiently long exposures, like 1/2 second, because then dark current noise can increase to significant levels. But as far as I know, this is irrelevant at hand-holdable shutter speeds, say 1/30s and faster.
Jonathan, what did your tests show at 1/30s and faster?
In a nutshell, that at handholdable shutter speeds, even down to 1/4, that given a constant exposure level (exposing so that the lighest patch on a Color Checker ends up ~249) the effect of shutter speed on noise level is not very significant, and varies by camera model. Over- or under-exposure has a far greater effect, so much so that shutter speed per se is really not worth worrying about as long as dark current doesn't come into play. By far, the most significant way to reduce noise to the lowest level possible is to get as much exposure as possible without clipping the highlights unacceptably. A 2/3-stop underexposure will have maybe 10x the effect on noise that going from 1/10 to 1/100 will. I hesitate to try to quantify the difference, but overall exposure level is far more significant a factor than shutter speed alone.
-
On occasion, if you're shooting at f/16-22 and a .5-1 sec exposure @ ISO 100, a higher ISO and faster shutter speed with little degradation could get the slightly moving leaves & branches to freeze ...
-
On occasion, if you're shooting at f/16-22 and a .5-1 sec exposure @ ISO 100, a higher ISO and faster shutter speed with little degradation could get the slightly moving leaves & branches to freeze ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
maybe, but then ISO 400 gets you to 1/4 or faster and then, according the post immediately above yours, dark current noise is probably not a factor. And ISO 6400 would get you to 1/30s of faster, definitely out of dark current noise territory.
The bottom line remains that ISO 6400 will almost always be used at shutter speeds faster enough (1/30s seems easily fat enough) that the noise level is determined by the amount of light received by the sensor (the exposure index?), and is not significantly effected by aperture ratio or shutter speed. So the 3200 and 6400 examples do their job, unless one suspects substantial NR of a type that reduces sharpness or resolution. (Some have suggested that the shadows in these images lack color saturation, hinting at chroma noise reduction processing.)
-
people can whinge and moan as much as they want about noise in predominantly dark conditions, and colour charts ... but in the REAL world the D3 looks to be a phenominal step up from any of the Nikon Digis to date.
These images look better at 3200 than my [loved] D2H at 400. Even better than the D2 @ base ISO in 'dark tone' conditions ill say flippantly...
I feel that Nikon users should be very pleased. I bloody am
-
The basic issue here I think is, to what extent is resolution compromised at high ISO? For example, although the Canon 5D has exlempary noise characteristrics at ISO 3200, there is a slight blurring of resolution, at ISO 1600 too.
I recall the 1Ds2 did not suffer as much from such smearing, but as a consequence appeared slightly noisier than the 5D at maximum ISO.
The D2X of course lost a lot of resolution at high ISO with noise reduction on whereas the new Canon 40D appears to have a noise reduction feature which does not degrade resolution at all, compared with noise reduction off.
Those fortunate enough to own a copy of CS3E will be aware that stacked multiple images can be auto-aligned so well that it's possible to reduce noise significantly, by 2 stops or so, from a hand-held burst of 5 or more shots. Not much good if the subject is moving of course, but for still life in low light it seems to work.
The 5D has a relatively slow continuous frame rate, yet I've been able to take a burst of 5 shots at 1/13th sec at ISO 3200 (using IS) and auto-align and stack them so well that the result looks sharper than any single shot from the series; sharper no doubt only as a result of lower noise, equal to that from an ISO 800 setting, but probably not as sharp as stacking 5 images of the same scene shot at ISO 800.
-
I wish Michael had something to offer re the D3.
-
I wish Michael had something to offer re the D3.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141134\")
More D3 Nikon official samples mirrored here:
[a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8743-9108]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8743-9108[/url]
Nikon has them as well, of course but VERY SLOW:
http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/09/nikon_d3_sample_images.php (http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/09/nikon_d3_sample_images.php)
They look fantastical!! )
-
Just at a Nikon day here in Dublin .. I have some files from the D3 ... but I'm frustrated by Nikon's website and how to download the view software for the raw files. Does anyone have a handy URL for the download area? .. Might be my browser (Safari).. will check in Firefox also. (They look fab on the new camera screen BTW)
Ta!
Ros
-
Hmm think this might be it .. I'll try this tomorrow in the office..
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...li=&p_topview=1 (http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=23043&p_created=1189521077&p_sid=_z4zL8Oi&p_accessibility=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NCZwX3Byb2RzPTE5LDQ0OCZwX2NhdHM9NjQ5JnBfcHY9Mi40NDgmcF9jdj0xLjY0OSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1)
(View NX)
Ros
-
Managed to convert some of the raw files ... lovely files at high iso .. thinking of returning to nikon after a brief sojurn with the 1dmkIII .. one thing however: The canon is fab at resolving changes in light at edges ... the d2x not as good ... (I know the lens has a lot to do with this) But after having horrible experiences with the Kodak SLR/n I'm wondering how much of this magenta/ green fringing is due to the chip? ... Image taken at iso 200 at f 1.4 on 85mm on a D3. Three 100% crops together:
Ros
(edited for spelling and lens type APOLOGIES)
-
Hmm seems I'm talking to myself .. any comments?
Ros
PS Just to re-iterate .. these are 100% crops from the new Nikon D3 and 85mm 1.4 lens... I can post raw files if anybody wants them....
Ros
(edited for lens type APOLOGIES)
-
Hmm seems I'm talking to myself .. any comments?
Ros
PS Just to re-iterate .. these are 100% crops from the new Nikon D3 and 24-70 2.8 lens... I can post raw files if anybody wants them....
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The fringing doesn't look good at all. Did you have a lokk a other sample pics on the web to see this kind of behaviour there as well?!
Regards
Heinrich
-
Hi there .. had a look a the files again and realised that I had posted the one taken with an 85mm 1.4 ... APOLOGIES!... the fringing was really bad but I looked at the ones taken with the 24-70 and there is no fringing on those... I have also checked some other photographers D3 shots taken with an 85mm lens and there is no fringing on those either... So it looks like mine is acting up .... why!?
So .. to say again .. there is no problem with the 24-70 .. it was my 85mm that was giving problems.
Apologies again!..
Here is a different shot with the 85mm
Ros
-
Ros
I don't think you're doing Nikon any favors by posting samples using that 85mm
Mark
-
I wish Michael had something to offer re the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well at least MR got someone to pitch hit. Thank you Mr. Russel. Nice article.
-
Hi there .. had a look a the files again and realised that I had posted the one taken with an 85mm 1.4 ... APOLOGIES!... the fringing was really bad but I looked at the ones taken with the 24-70 and there is no fringing on those... I have also checked some other photographers D3 shots taken with an 85mm lens and there is no fringing on those either... So it looks like mine is acting up .... why!?
So .. to say again .. there is no problem with the 24-70 .. it was my 85mm that was giving problems.
Apologies again!..
Here is a different shot with the 85mm
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you're talking about lateral colour aberrations, the 85 1.4, with all that's good about it, has a reputation for producing these under some high contrast circumstances in some apertures. My sample certainly does that. It's certainly not a perfect lens, but very good at what it was designed to do i.e. portraits.
-
Have to agree re portraits and 85 mm .. I got it for stage work so this creates some trouble with highlights... the worst is the 50mm 1.4 just cant get a decent image at wide aperture on stage... have tried the zeiss 50mm .. this is miles better... I was used to using the 85mm on the d2x so hadn't seen it at its extremeties until I put it on the D3.
Ros