Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: jeffok on December 09, 2007, 02:48:48 pm
-
Michael, your quote on the comparison of the 1 DS3 and he D3: "But that still isn't going to stop me, or many others for that matter, from doing the comparison. These are the two leading company's current flagships, and they both started shipping the same week. It's was inevitable."
No one can stop you from doing it, but they can legitimately ask "why"?, Because they are the two "flagships"? To me, rather than comparing flagships, what you are doing is more like comparing apples and oranges. I and others would say that a fairer comparison would be between the 1D3 and the D3, given the similarity in resolution, intended use, and other factors.
There are many factors in a camera that would be important to me as a landscape photographer,and high ISO performance would be one, albeit a relatively minor one. Pixel peeping as some are on this one aspect and between two quite different cameras is, to me, a rather narrow and pointless exercise.
By the way, I WOULD be much more interested in the real-world large print quality comparison that you said you were going to do with the 1Ds3 and other cameras, including medium format. Now that to me would be really interesting and more to the point, wouldn't it?
Jeff
-
The things that interest me may not be the same as those that interest you, and the million or so people that visit this site each month may have other opinions as well. In fact I'm almost sure that they do.
So since I can't satisfy everyone, or even a large subset of everyones, I think I'll just continue to investigate the things that appeal to me, and write about them as my time permits.
Michael
-
I'm gobsmascked (to coin a colloquialism) by the progress that Nikon, Canon, Olympus have made in reducing noise at high ISO in their current generation of top dslr's (possibly the most by Nikon, because they had further to travel to get to where they are).
Instead of moaning about the comparisons, we should be amazed at the results. I simply wonder where this will all lead. Is 1600 ISO destined to be the new 100 ISO of the future?
Quentin
-
Michael, your quote on the comparison of the 1 DS3 and he D3: "But that still isn't going to stop me, or many others for that matter, from doing the comparison. These are the two leading company's current flagships, and they both started shipping the same week. It's was inevitable."
No one can stop you from doing it, but they can legitimately ask "why"?, Because they are the two "flagships"?
As it said in the report Jeff.
"Because they were there."
Sure it would have been better had thee been a 1D 111 there too, and even a D3x but lets be thankful for an objective report on both.
Tim
-
The things that interest me may not be the same as those that interest you, and the million or so people that visit this site each month may have other opinions as well. In fact I'm almost sure that they do.
So since I can't satisfy everyone, or even a large subset of everyones, I think I'll just continue to investigate the things that appeal to me, and write about them as my time permits.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed your right michael and I'm sure most forum members wouldn't dream of trying to deny you your right to review whatever you wish most of which is well received and appreciated,however I think a little less arrogance and touchiness from your good self in presenting and prefacing your articles/reviews and responding to what appears to be legitimate constructive criticism would also be appreciated and help set a higher standard of debate across the forums, "nobleese oblige"might help.
-
...however I think a little less arrogance and touchiness from your good self in presenting and prefacing your articles/reviews and responding to what appears to be legitimate constructive criticism would also be appreciated and help set a higher standard of debate across the forums, "nobleese oblige"might help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While I'm sure Michael can fend for himself, I can understand the need for the preliminary comments after reading past accusations of bias and hidden agendas on forums like Dpreview's. The nutters and trolls outweigh those with constructive criticism 10:1, unfortunately.
Quentin
-
I have no problem comparing apples and oranges. Apples are crisp and sweet whereas oranges are more acidic and tangy, as well as more juicy.
Let's not create problems where none exist. Do we not have enough 'real' problems in the world.
-
Nobleese oblige has nothing to do with it.
The point I am trying to make is that this is what I wrote simply because the gear was available and I found it interesting to do, as did the 20 other members of that weekend's seminar.
It was fun. That's the extent of it, and as I do with most of the testing and experiments that I do, I wrote it up.
I'll stress again that I don't have some master game plan or publishing schedule. I publish this site for the pleasure of doing so without the need to follow anyone else's needs or demands. If that were to happen it would stop being fun and I would stop doing it.
These are flagship cameras. No question there. They can out virtually on the same day. They were available. I did the comparison. I've said that another Canon model would have been more appropriate. But, and here's the big but – there wasn't one at the gallery the weekend that the D3 was.
Can I be any clearer?
Michael
ps: And what you call constructive critisism I call rude at best and derogatory and scurrilous at worst. You clearly havn't read what was written about me on DPReview last week. Constructive criticism it was not.
-
And what you call constructive critisism I call rude at best and derogatory and scurrilous at worst. You clearly havn't read what was written about me on DPReview last week. Constructive criticism it was not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What the heck, you know that they will never be happy, right?
I for one find it very interesting that you bothered travelling in Nikon territory, and I have the feeling that the format you have chosen - comment as you get the chance - is interesting.
Those who feel threatened by this either way should spend the money wasted on their internet connection in a few bonus sessions with their respective shrinks. There are many frustrated folks out there. My advise to them remains the same, quit cameras and get into something less competitive like... wireless steam irons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...I think a little less arrogance and touchiness from your good self (Michael) in presenting and prefacing your articles/reviews and responding to what appears to be legitimate constructive criticism would also be appreciated and help set a higher standard of debate across the forums, "nobleese oblige"might help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who are these new people?
Michael handles his wealth, power and prestige exceptionally well! He is socially responsible, even hanging out with people like Jeff.
Thank you Michael for sharing your passion with us.
Fred
-
Michael, your quote on the comparison of the 1 DS3 and he D3: "But that still isn't going to stop me, or many others for that matter, from doing the comparison. These are the two leading company's current flagships, and they both started shipping the same week. It's was inevitable."
No one can stop you from doing it, but they can legitimately ask "why"?, Because they are the two "flagships"? To me, rather than comparing flagships, what you are doing is more like comparing apples and oranges. I and others would say that a fairer comparison would be between the 1D3 and the D3, given the similarity in resolution, intended use, and other factors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For photographers with investments in one or the other series of lenses, the comparison is quite valid. Changing camera line is one of the major decisions one can make at that level, so knowing what the cream of the crop of each line is capable of is relevant. Exactly because they are flagships, their performance sets the limit for what the line can do. And besides, the fact that the up-rezzing of the Nikon worked out so well says something about whether the extra pixels on the 1DsIII are really interesting. Not that the 1DIII vs D3 comparison would be uninteresting by any means, especially for more action-oriented photography where ISO is very relevant. I, as a relatively poor person, can't wait to see this technology dribble down into smaller cameras.
-Lars
-
Lars
You have no right claiming to be the site´s ´relatively poor´ person; I have reserved that position already having spent a lifetime´s effort getting there! Some respect, please!
Rob C
-
...
My advise to them remains the same, quit cameras and get into something less competitive like... wireless steam irons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are these Bluetooth-enabled? I'd be interested ...
-
Michael handles his wealth, power and prestige exceptionally well! He is socially responsible, even hanging out with people like Jeff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey, I resemble that remark!!!
Michael is a big boy, but he's Canadian (which means he really does try to be polite and civil) which means he realizes some people just don't "get it" and will try to fry him up in a New York minute just for doing ANYTHING...
But, he does what he does because he wants to. And I like that about him (I'm pretty much the same way).
...however I think a little less arrogance and touchiness from your good self in presenting and prefacing your articles/reviews and responding to what appears to be legitimate constructive criticism would also be appreciated
No, it wouldn't...he'll get crap from some people regardless of what he says/does (such as your feeble contribution) so he might as well do what he feels like with the only yardstick being his honest thoughts and opinions...and if ya don't like it, well, you know what you can do with it...
(hint, it don' shine there)
:~)
I actually got a kick out of playing with Michael's D300 last week when we hooked up at Thomas' house. It was the fist time in about ten years that I actually shot with a Nikon. I think Michael is having fun playing with the Nikons again too. I USED to be a Nikon shooter, way back when...and personally, I'm glad they are back with some "competitive" equipment again (although I won't be buying a Nikon any time soon–as a Canon Explorer of Light, that might be frowned on by Canon).
-
some people around here need to get a life... (away from pixels).
-
No, it wouldn't...he'll get crap from some people regardless of what he says/does (such as your feeble contribution) so he might as well do what he feels like with the only yardstick being his honest thoughts and opinions...and if ya don't like it, well, you know what you can do with it...
(hint, it don' shine there)
:~)
]
Thank you Mr. Schewe for enlightening me re Michaels' right to put forward "his honest thoughts and opinions" I wasn't aware that I suggested he should not, obviously you do not believe this right extends to those like myself who might have the cheek to disagree with the manner in which these thoughts and opinions are expressed.I'm sorry that you found my contribution "feeble" but I respect your right to your opinion.
-
I actually got a kick out of playing with Michael's D300 last week when we hooked up at Thomas' house. It was the fist time in about ten years that I actually shot with a Nikon. I think Michael is having fun playing with the Nikons again too. I USED to be a Nikon shooter, way back when...and personally, I'm glad they are back with some "competitive" equipment again (although I won't be buying a Nikon any time soon–as a Canon Explorer of Light, that might be frowned on by Canon).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I saw on PhotoshopNews that you were going to Ann Arbor and was hoping that you would be posting a report on anything significant that transpired there. Anything new to report?
Bill
PS
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed Michael's report on the Nikon and Canon cameras. Some of the reaction to that report reminds me of the recent case of the Brit teacher in Africa.
-
I'm sorry that you found my contribution "feeble" but I respect your right to your opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
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 you tell your host he has bad breath...ya know?
-
Anything new to report?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From that meeting? NDA...
Other than that, we had a really nice time, got to interview the Camera Raw Team and had a really nice dinner (I had the beef Wellington, I forget what Michael had)...the interview will be going on the Camera Raw video tutorial Michael and I will be doing on Jan for release in late Feb.
-
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.
Let's also not forget that low noise performance is only part of what a camera system needs to do. Let's see how AF performs, image quality in other respects than noise, etc. Tests of these capabilities, and comparisons to the 1DIII will appear in good time, and very few NEED to buy a new body today, so just sit back and enjoy the fray.
I've got too big an investment in Canon gear to make a switch likely at this point, but I'm impressed with what I've seen of the D3 so far.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Please keep things civil. No personal attacks.
Michael
-
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...
-
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?
-
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
-
I believe it is apples vs apples, just one is green and the other red!
-
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
-
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.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=160292\")
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]
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
-
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 (http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=160321\")
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]
-
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 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=25658562)
[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.
-
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 .
-
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?
-
I was curious to know the differences (beyond pixel count) between the two cameras. Michael delivered that information. Job done.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
For the life of me, I don't know why everyone gets so worked up. I agree with others that it is a terrific time to have access to cameras with the kind of technology and sophistication that allows us to move our craft into areas not previously (or perhaps easily) accessible, no matter whether one previously shot film and/or digital. And I am appreciative to those such as Michael or Jay or Jeff who are willing to test these cameras and share with us their experiences. I mean, how many of us could consider purchasing multiple cameras to post our observations on our blogs?
My appreciation notwithstanding, my experiences will never be Michael's, my priorities never Jeff's. No one forces me to read their opinions nor to take workshops from them. For example, did I put myself in the path of a wayward seal? No, but I did enjoy the images of the "wolfpack" seals. And of course, I thoroughly enjoyed the commentary.
What a boring site this would be if we all agreed! I say, celebrate our differences in perspective and our tendencies to compete. Because (as I started) without all of this, we would still be shooting deguerrotypes.
Rick Allen
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, there's a little more to it than that. Canon has traditionally been the astrophotographer's DSLR of choice not just because of the lower overall noise, but because Canon does not clip the RAW data anywhere near black, but far below it. Unlike the shot noise due to photon collection (and leakage noise, too), which can never be less than photonic black, the noises incurred in reading the sensor have both positive and negative elements. Reading out the sensor so that the true black level is zero (as most manufacturers do) in the RAW data clips away half of the noise at black. That is not a good thing because the noise also pushes the signal up and down, so signal near black is lost in the process, to a greater degree than noise is lost. To clip above black (as is done in the D3) not only reduces the strength of signals and SNRs near black, but loses the very lowest levels of signal almost completely, because even piggy-backed on top of the noise, they still don't reach the clipping point. For the lowest ISOs, no signal may survive at all, because there is not enough noise for anything to reach above the clipping point.
None of this matters much in a well-exposed image, but if you really need to get down in the shadows, and stack or bin multiple images, the Canon style of RAW data is the way to go, as you can stack and bin in such a way that you don't lose any signal, and the near black means are totally linear right up until the point that black is finally clipped, and much more linear than they would otherwise be, after the clipping.
-
Well, there's a little more to it than that. Canon has traditionally been the astrophotographer's DSLR of choice not just because of the lower overall noise, but because Canon does not clip the RAW data anywhere near black, but far below it. Unlike the shot noise due to photon collection (and leakage noise, too), which can never be less than photonic black, the noises incurred in reading the sensor have both positive and negative elements. Reading out the sensor so that the true black level is zero (as most manufacturers do) in the RAW data clips away half of the noise at black. That is not a good thing because the noise also pushes the signal up and down, so signal near black is lost in the process, to a greater degree than noise is lost. To clip above black (as is done in the D3) not only reduces the strength of signals and SNRs near black, but loses the very lowest levels of signal almost completely, because even piggy-backed on top of the noise, they still don't reach the clipping point. For the lowest ISOs, no signal may survive at all, because there is not enough noise for anything to reach above the clipping point.
None of this matters much in a well-exposed image, but if you really need to get down in the shadows, and stack or bin multiple images, the Canon style of RAW data is the way to go, as you can stack and bin in such a way that you don't lose any signal, and the near black means are totally linear right up until the point that black is finally clipped, and much more linear than they would otherwise be, after the clipping.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
An informative post. Canon applies a bias voltage so that the read noise is not clipped. Of course, this could decrease the dynamic range a bit if clipping at the high end occurs sooner. What factors do you think caused Nikon to use their current strategy and what are the advantages and disadvantages?
As for astrophotography, it seems to me that Christian Buil's main complaint was not clipping of the blacks but the way they handle thermal noise by filtering the raw data. This would seem to eliminate the need for a second exposure for subtraction of a reference dark signal map and could speed up things for normal photography. Again, what is your take on the two approaches?
Bill