Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on March 24, 2012, 12:23:12 pm
-
today i went over to a nikon forum where they were discussing the latest results from dxomark testing that stated that the d800 surpassed the phase one iq 180 as king of the sensor hill. and as usual, to the followers of this forum, this will be the death of medium format photography because ff has now been shown to not only equal but surpass mf. i know given a choice of a ff d800 or a hasselblad cfv-50 or an iq 160 or an iq 180 it would be a no brainer, i would take any of the larger mf digital backs, then what i have, for my v system and arca-swiss 6x9. why is it so important when i read those ff forums that they want to see the death of medium format photography? i would like to see a 30x40 print by both the d800 and the iq 180. a print, the output we all strive for, should be the only test.
-
Quote: "why is it so important when i read those ff forums that they want to see the death of medium format photography?"
Well, I certainly can't speak for anyone at that forum, but I would imaging envy is at least partly involved. I mean, most amateurs/hobbyists can't afford MF equipment (digital, anyway). Course, I really don't understand the need to wish for the early demise of MF..sheesh, just enjoy the equipment you've got and make the most of it.
John
-
Just ignore the tribal drumbeat found on some forums. There are a lot of self professed profits, most of them forecasting doom for some product that doesn't match their preferred conceptions.
The Nikon D800/E does put some new pressure on the low end of medium format, but there's still lots of life left in that baby.
Michael
-
At this point all the new cameras are so good that the results depend more on the operators than anything else. Well that and lenses. The one thing that no one is going to question is that the new DSLR's are going to come out on top at ISO 400 and higher.
-
It is funny how photography is not an art but a competitive forum where the one with the best stuff wins. But I guess that is a lot easier than having to make photographs that impress others...
-
Hey, steady on, are you seriously saying that cameras have a purpose other than as testbeds for resolution and dynamic range?
Sorry, what was I saying? I alway fall into the trap of over thinking these things...
-
At this point all the new cameras are so good that the results depend more on the operators than anything else. Well that and lenses.
Eric is spot-on correct. The current line-up of digital cameras, 35mm DSLRs and MF, is so competent that you could choose any one of these systems and make great photographs. There is no limitation in the equipment, only in your imagination and, of course, what you can afford. With my own system, it takes immaculate technique to anywhere near approach the limits of the sensor. And by the time you have managed that, you are way beyond what you could have achieved with the same format film in terms of resolution and freedom from grain.
No, the cameras are great. It's fun to debate pros and cons, and to be partisan about brands and lenses. We all did that in film days too. Ten years ago, digital photography was in its infancy, and a great deal of the gear was frankly crap. That's just not true anymore.
No need to agonise, just choose the system that resonates with you and fits your pocket. There are very few lemons out there.
John
-
At this point all the new cameras are so good that the results depend more on the operators than anything else.
Exactly. It's fun to discuss the technical end, and technical advances can open up more creative
possibilities. However, the challenge of making interesting photographs will always trump gear.
And DXO has only done sensor testing. Once glass goes on and real-world stuff begins, unless Nikon
has found a way to get around the laws of physics, a high-end MF image should still win the day.
Not that I want to dis a camera I will be shooting. I'm sure the D800 will produce a great image, but
thus far, I've never cared for debating the often-debated issue of full frame dslr vs MF quality,
because to my eyes it has never been questionable: I can tell a MF print at 100 yards, compared
to the same image printed from a dslr file. Of course, the dslr print will look !@#$% fantastic by itself,
when such comparisons are not available, and in doing personal work, they never are.
Obviously, if your also putting food on your table with your gear, your needs will be different, due to
the competitive aspects.
Aside from commerce, we all know photographers are a lot like audiophiles and wine lovers (ok, "oenophiles"!),
they are hyper-tuned aficionados and connoisseurs who love to pour over and enjoy the subtle yet complex
differences in the gear they use to enjoy their passions.
-
i'm not a fan of amateur bickering/fanboyism but then i remember that without the millions of weekend warriors there would be no medium format digital/high end 35mm or the cost would double/triple without them.
-
DxO is a pile of RUBBISH. A Nikon 800 is not even remotely in the same League as a Phase One IQ180, P65+ or even a IQ140 for that matter.
-
And you are basing both of these observations on what empirical or objective criteria?
Or is opinion and wishing something to be so enough?
Michael
-
DxO is a pile of RUBBISH. A Nikon 800 is not even remotely in the same League as a Phase One IQ180, P65+ or even a IQ140 for that matter.
You are right. With Nikon, for about three thousand dollars you get a camera AND a sensor.
Not at all in the same league at all! The 180 will cost you 40k and you'll still have to buy a camera!
Chill, dude ... The chicks will still dig your $50k camera ... It'll be ok. 8)
-
<<With Nikon, for about three thousand dollars you get a camera AND a sensor.>>
AND a high-definition video camera...
PdF
-
DxO is a pile of RUBBISH. A Nikon 800 is not even remotely in the same League as a Phase One IQ180, P65+ or even a IQ140 for that matter.
Dude, you can't just dismiss it without providing evidence to the contrary.
Remember, it's a benchmark of the sensor only.
The fact that none of the PhaseOne backs you mention can go past ISO 1600 (unbinned), or 120 seconds of exposure, should tell you something...they ain't perfect. In fact, to borrow your parlance, in those domains they're not even remotely in the same League as a Nikon (or Canon or Sony or ...). The difference is, I can state this because I'm citing facts provided by the manufacturers themselves.
What exactly don't you believe about the D800 results in DxOmark?
Ray
-
Chicks care about cameras?
Shhhhh ... Don't tell him .... He's sensitive.
-
DxO is a pile of RUBBISH. A Nikon 800 is not even remotely in the same League as a Phase One IQ180, P65+ or even a IQ140 for that matter.
Sorry, that is a silly comment. DxOmark measures sensor input/output response and is a valid measure of a sensor. The scores do not give any spatial quantification. If an engine is 1000 HP, does that mean the car goes fast or do you need more information like if it is in a sports car or a Hummer? To say these scores are meaningless is just the same mistake as thinking they mean everything.
-
Just ignore the tribal drumbeat found on some forums. There are a lot of self professed profits, most of them forecasting doom for some product that doesn't match their preferred conceptions.
The Nikon D800/E does put some new pressure on the low end of medium format, but there's still lots of life left in that baby.
Michael
I believe is not just for low end medium format, but to medium format companies. I also believe that if they fail to see it then big trouble lies ahead.
The reason for that is resource deprivation. They need to sell enough to support increasing development efforts. Right now dalsa also count with Canadian government support but I don't know for how long.
Nevertheless there is the niche theory, and possible Better Light is a good example. Let's see if/how they react.
I want to stress that I agree that, as a device the D800/D800E just challenge the lower end of the MF range from Phase one and Hasselblad.
Best regards,
James
-
But history has shown the statement not to be true. When 35mm sensors hit about 20MP, it did not seem to stop sales of the MFD backs/camera in that range. Nor did the companies seem really to suffer and you can still buy 22MP backs from Phase and Leaf and the sales are doing fine from what I hear. DSLR customers are not simply MFD customers with not enough money. In the silver age of photography, 35mm was not king because larger formats were simply more expensive. The DSLR/35mm customer is just a different animal. Just as the MFD/large format shooter was a different animal. Your mistake comes from thinking the choice is simply economic and based on matching the number of pixels. Art is not an economic problem.
-
Remember, it's a benchmark of the sensor only.
no, it is not... they do not have any magic access directly to the sensor, only to the data that was written by camera's firmware... hence it is really benchmark of a camera (moreover - many tests are actually w/ some lenses mounted).
-
no, it is not... they do not have any magic access directly to the sensor, only to the data that was written by camera's firmware... hence it is really benchmark of a camera (moreover - many tests are actually w/ some lenses mounted).
What I meant is that key aspects of final image quality depend on the optics and their MTF interaction with the pixel pitch, and DxO don't test for that. It's not a resolution/contrast benchmark, where one can reasonably expect better results from larger medium format sensors of the same megapixel count. Some MFD users seem to not be aware that DxO aren't doing this, and I think that explains their indignation when a 35mm DSLR tops the scores. Some 35mm DSLR users also seem to not be aware of it, and I think that explains their sometimes erroneous extrapolation of what the results mean for the future of MFD.
Yes it was inaccurate of me to say "sensor" only...I was implying the effects of firmware too but my phraseology was wrong.
Ray
-
Wow, it's like I wore a Boy George outfit to a Klan meeting!
Hate to burst your bubble boys but I AM a lady.
Reading blogs over the last few days and peoples reactions in various places it's just so strange that people hear "Best Result" and then turn that into "Better than an IQ180". One quick look at the high res samples from Nikon and you see how flawed this result is.
I could care less what people use or what people think about what I use. My final image quality is what counts to me and if people want to be fooled into thinking that a Nikon 800 is better than Medium Format then good for them! But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, gives the likes of the "35mm is as good as MF crowd" an annoying 200W Loud Haler to parrot on about with.
And anyway, FYI, the only "chicks" who care about cameras are photographers. Trust me, they are crazy and it won't work out well! But Jeremy in your instance maybe a bigger camera might help you compensate for something else anyway....
-
Wow, it's like I wore a Boy George outfit to a Klan meeting!
Hate to burst your bubble boys but I AM a lady.
Reading blogs over the last few days and peoples reactions in various places it's just so strange that people hear "Best Result" and then turn that into "Better than an IQ180". One quick look at the high res samples from Nikon and you see how flawed this result is.
I could care less what people use or what people think about what I use. My final image quality is what counts to me and if people want to be fooled into thinking that a Nikon 800 is better than Medium Format then good for them! But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, gives the likes of the "35mm is as good as MF crowd" an annoying 200W Loud Haler to parrot on about with.
And anyway, FYI, the only "chicks" who care about cameras are photographers. Trust me, they are crazy and it won't work out well! But Jeremy in your instance maybe a bigger camera might help you compensate for something else anyway....
The fact you don't have a penis is irrelevant ... That was a throw-away meant to lighten the mood.
The real issue is that you don't seem to understand what DXO is and isn't ...
What it is is very valuable, but you need to look past the unified score to the individual measurements.
-
While you assume for some reason I don't understand DxO, please rest assured I can read and have no problems understanding. Perhaps you could care read to my post properly.
"it's just so strange that people hear "Best Result" and then turn that into "Better than an IQ180"
-
"But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway,"
You have now made it clear that you are not capable of rational dialog. I'd suggest that you tone down your rhetoric, because you are simply portraying yourself as a known-nothing conspiracy theorist.
If you wamt to engage in this, then I suggest moving to DPReview's forums, where like minded people seem to congregate.
Michael
-
But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, gives the likes of the "35mm is as good as MF crowd" an annoying 200W Loud Haler to parrot on about with.
So you don't like the Nikon crowd because they are excited about their new camera. I am not sure why you would care about this group, they obviously don't know enough about DxO to understand the results.
Then you go and attack DxO which provides a valuable service, yet you claim you understand DxO.
But then, that is what photography is all about, having the gear with the best specs...
-
i would imagine the reason for the dxo results would have to do with the low light capabilities at high iso for the d800. but since i use a tripod for everything that is a non plus for me and maybe for others. the real test for me is for a landscape 30x40 image from both. the testing equipment would be the eyes.
-
does it really matter what DXO say? it's just a guide and a not very good one at that.
-
Is the Nikon a MFDB? Never new that.
Seems the MFDB sub forum has become a place to predict the demise of MFDB rather than a place to help out and discuss issues related to the use of MFDB.
Meanwhile I continue to make good money from my MFDB.
Not learning anything here at the moment. Thanks guys. It has been facinating.
-
But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway, [...]
Nope, you aren't even close.
DxO is actually funded by aliens who plan to invade earth, and they have to wipe off good cameras off the market, as Canon's ones for one, and as MFDBs for two, because they don't really like to be photographed you know. With nikons it's okay because images are so blurry and inconclusive. My chaman (http://xkcd.com/966/) just explained me that you know.
-
"But it's things like DxO, who lets face it is probably funded by Nikon anyway,"
You have now made it clear that you are not capable of rational dialog. I'd suggest that you tone down your rhetoric, because you are simply portraying yourself as a known-nothing conspiracy theorist.
If you wamt to engage in this, then I suggest moving to DPReview's forums, where like minded people seem to congregate.
Michael
Ouch. Your presuming an awful lot there Michael.
One hypothetical suggestion and I'm branded an irrational conspiracy theorist? How very rational of of you!
It's clear this place really is no different to dpreview...bye bye.
-
I think we should all wait and see what D800E delivers with our own eyes, just as with the newly announced Canon. I decided not to buy anything just yet and see what are these cameras capable of with their prioprietary lenses in front- because let's not forget that these are just cameras.. let's see how does a 36mp sensor work with Nikkor lenses (I don't think I'd be using a D800 with a tech camera and probably most of other photogs here wouldn't do so as well). And I don't get the negative reactions- let other people speculate, MF will prevail (for now) and we may just get another great tool for taking photos.. it's a win-win situation for everyone.
-
Sensor-wise I think we already with say 5d mark 2 passed the line that you can use any camera you like to make gallery quality. Sure there are differences, but only specialists detect them. You can concentrate on image content.
Now it is more about what camera you like to work with. I just recently invested in medium format to be able to use a tech camera. Image quality will actually be worse than d800 since I need to use a 7 year old 22 megapixel back to stay in budget, but still good enough for quality prints, and that is enough for me, to start with at least :-).
I have noted though that MF image quality is sometimes praised in similar way as some audiophile high end gear like extremely expensive loudspeaker cables. Said to be vastly better in several unmeasurable ways obvious to anyone with golden ears. To me it seems that sometimes one needs "golden eyes" to fully appreciate medium format image quality ;-).
-
In the past I have proposed the following adjustment to DxO Mark scores, it is a great tool to evaluate sensor characteristics but it does not account for resolution. It takes 4 times the pixels to double resolution so why not take the dxo mark score and multiply it by the sqrt of the sensors resolution to get a real world value? 5DII = 79 x sqrt 21 = 362, D800 = 95 x sqrt 36 = 570, IQ180 = 91 x sqrt 80 = 814, this correlates with what I see. I personally use DxO to evaluate whether an upgrade is worth it or not, if I can't get a 10 point increase in DxO Mark score I don't spend the money. Using this metric it certainly made sense to upgrade my P45+ to a IQ180 and it makes more sense to upgrade my 5DII to a D800 than a 5DIII.
Marc
-
In the past I have proposed the following adjustment to DxO Mark scores, it is a great tool to evaluate sensor characteristics but it does not account for resolution. It takes 4 times the pixels to double resolution so why not take the dxo mark score and multiply it by the sqrt of the sensors resolution to get a real world value? 5DII = 79 x sqrt 21 = 362, D800 = 95 x sqrt 36 = 570, IQ180 = 91 x sqrt 80 = 814, this correlates with what I see. I personally use DxO to evaluate whether an upgrade is worth it or not, if I can't get a 10 point increase in DxO Mark score I don't spend the money. Using this metric it certainly made sense to upgrade my P45+ to a IQ180 and it makes more sense to upgrade my 5DII to a D800 than a 5DIII.
Marc
A good idea. The single metric that is easiest to see in real pictures after post-processing is complete is resolution (assuming detailed contents and large prints which you can nose). I think MF has its space in 40 - 100 megapixels, when you need that kind of resolution I don't think current lens manufacturing technology can deliver the resolving power to the small 135 format (not corner-to-corner at least), but in the larger medium format it is already possible. An MF SLR with 40 megapixel or less has serious competition these days though, but I guess low res backs can continue to exist as a low cost entry level for those that want to start invest in MF gear (body, lenses) but upgrade to higher resolution later.
-
Marc,
I think your suggestion is a good one. Looking at DxO that way might make mor sense- but still I never use it to compare very dissimilar cameras. it's great to see stuff like d700 v d800 but I think the differences between th
e MFDB and dslr platform are so big that apples to apples type of comparisons can't be easily made.
Michael,
At least to me your post to DeeJay came across as overly harsh. i've read plenty of DxO bashing on these forums and not seen that response before.
Certainly she was right in her point about downloading and comparing samples - where the differences between d800 and iq180 seem much larger than DxO figures.
-
The interesting part is what does this difference between IQ180 and D800 come from?
Is it sharper lenses rendering sharper pixels so it looks nicer pixel-peeped? Is it the obvious difference in overall resolution, 36 vs 80 megapixels? Or is it so that also a reduced size on-screen image is superior perhaps in color or some other aspect unrelated to resolution?
To me, small sized images look good out of any camera these days assuming a good post-processing procedure. So the only real advantage in practical photography I can see is the increased resolution (you may like the handling of MF cameras and look of lenses etc too of course), which indeed is an attractive one for us that like to print large and then do some nosing. What I can find a bit provoking though is unbacked claims of the type that dynamic range is several stops better, it registers many more shades of color etc when the measurements do not show that and my eyes can't see it. I haven't done print comparisons side by side though, so perhaps there is some secret sauce there...
Should be noted that DxOMark does take resolution into account if you select "print" mode, but then only from a signal/noise ratio. So if you absolutely love resolution the difference shown is too small.
-
Quote: "why is it so important when i read those ff forums that they want to see the death of medium format photography?"
Well, I certainly can't speak for anyone at that forum, but I would imaging envy is at least partly involved. I mean, most amateurs/hobbyists can't afford MF equipment (digital, anyway). Course, I really don't understand the need to wish for the early demise of MF..sheesh, just enjoy the equipment you've got and make the most of it.
If FF is ever able to "beat"*) MF at a lower price, every camera user should be happy for it. It means that more people can do more for less, how can that be a bad thing (except for the manufacturers)?
I can see why people interested in photography would want such a development, perhaps to the point where they would make poorly founded claims that it will happen with the upcoming generation of cameras.
-h
*)Define this to taste: spatial resolution, image "pop", DR, whatever consitutes a "better" image in your eyes
-
But history has shown the statement not to be true. When 35mm sensors hit about 20MP, it did not seem to stop sales of the MFD backs/camera in that range. Nor did the companies seem really to suffer and you can still buy 22MP backs from Phase and Leaf and the sales are doing fine from what I hear. DSLR customers are not simply MFD customers with not enough money. In the silver age of photography, 35mm was not king because larger formats were simply more expensive. The DSLR/35mm customer is just a different animal. Just as the MFD/large format shooter was a different animal. Your mistake comes from thinking the choice is simply economic and based on matching the number of pixels. Art is not an economic problem.
They did not stop, but we did see a lot of work that was been done with medium format going to DSLR.
Since this is electronics; is not enough to have the same level of sales. Development cots rise.
There is a level of sales you really need in order to remain competitive.
For professionals MF system is an inversion that needs to be recovered. For wealthy amateurs it's not. So they do have the alternative of changing the market segment. Even if they do, so they need to invest.
My points:
1. The D800, even in accordance with DxO is still a DSLR in terms of color rendition. They can not touch the quality MF gives for still life. Hasselbad has the 200MS and Phase one the IQ180. I am on the theory that even the 40s will be better than the D800 on this application.
2. Remember that the IQ series has such a good result because of the low resolution mode. For the IQ180 it means 20MP more than needed on most cases, but less than the new Canon and Nikon machines
3. MF is not dead, not even close, but they need to act fast, before is too late and get push to a "looks" niche.
4. Remember that is a system component. The Canon and Nikon systems are far ahead. This includes increasingly popular the wireless and video options.
Best regards,
James
-
In the past I have proposed the following adjustment to DxO Mark scores, it is a great tool to evaluate sensor characteristics but it does not account for resolution. It takes 4 times the pixels to double resolution so why not take the dxo mark score and multiply it by the sqrt of the sensors resolution to get a real world value? 5DII = 79 x sqrt 21 = 362, D800 = 95 x sqrt 36 = 570, IQ180 = 91 x sqrt 80 = 814, this correlates with what I see. I personally use DxO to evaluate whether an upgrade is worth it or not, if I can't get a 10 point increase in DxO Mark score I don't spend the money. Using this metric it certainly made sense to upgrade my P45+ to a IQ180 and it makes more sense to upgrade my 5DII to a D800 than a 5DIII.
Marc
The problem with DxO is that their tests seem ok, what they mean (S/n vs DR) is less clear, and then the aggregated score is a joke, as you point out.
On the other hand, I have a D4, and find that -as usual- the interesting questions are the focus, metering, ability to take images on the fly, all stuff which MF users of studio flash don't really care about, and shouldn't be paying for, and which DxO is not testing.
Edmund
-
1. The D800, even in accordance with DxO is still a DSLR in terms of color rendition. They can not touch the quality MF gives for still life. Hasselbad has the 200MS and Phase one the IQ180. I am on the theory that even the 40s will be better than the D800 on this application.
I'm curious about this color rendition thing. Multishot backs will obviously yield better colors on pixel level thanks to complete RGB information in each pixel. But the IQ180? I don't see any large differences in DxO data on color response and color sensitivity, and my (untrained?) eyes don't manage to detect huge differences on the (few) examples I have seen, but perhaps I'm missing something? I was kind of suspecting that color rendition superiority was more about good icc defaults in capture one than the backs actually registering more color information. But I've heard several talk about this superior color rendition so I'm thinking that I may be missing something. Is there perhaps a nice demonstration on the web somewhere?
-
Just for fun I used the Compare tool to see how my D5100 fares against the more expensive D7000...
Shame I didn't spend more money coz I could have gotten another 0.3 stops of DR...instead I have a camera that can do sports better with 28 more iso's...(but I don't shoot sports)...
Hey but I found out it's got the same DR as the IQ180....yeah, right...
Oh well...
-
I don't think current lens manufacturing technology can deliver the resolving power to the small 135 format (not corner-to-corner at least), but in the larger medium format it is already possible.
really ? you can mount your beloved MF lenses on dSLR camera (even w/o AF) and then 80mp (of IQ180) / 2.5 (IQ180 sensor size vs FF sensor size) = 32mp... that's almost 36mp of FF sensor, but on FF sensor you are using the better central portion of your MF lenses...
-
Just for fun I used the Compare tool to see how my D5100 fares against the more expensive D7000...
Shame I didn't spend more money coz I could have gotten another 0.3 stops of DR...instead I have a camera that can do sports better with 28 more iso's...(but I don't shoot sports)...
Hey but I found out it's got the same DR as the IQ180....yeah, right...
Oh well...
Picture of Yair looking at his Kodak stock options:
-
What surprises me is that the likes of Nikon, Canon, and Sony have yet to introduce a new camera & lens system incorporating a "MF" size sensor.
-
really ? you can mount your beloved MF lenses on dSLR camera (even w/o AF) and then 80mp (of IQ180) / 2.5 (IQ180 sensor size vs FF sensor size) = 32mp... that's almost 36mp of FF sensor, but on FF sensor you are using the better central portion of your MF lenses...
I think FF will be ok up to ~40 megapixels, so D800 should do quite fine in most focal lengths. IQ180 is probably quite close to the limit of what MF lenses can do, if corner sharpness is considered important. I recently tested my TS-E 24mm with a the dense 7D sensor, shifted it out to the lens FF corner to see what a 45 megapixel FF corner would look, and well, it is ok but not that great. I see considerably better results with say a P65+ on a Rodenstock wide angle. It is harder to make large image circles with high lp/mm, so you can probably go smaller pixels with DSLR but in total line pairs there's still some gain in MF.
Real well-made tests of MF lenses are not widely available though, so I base this observation of crops and RAWs/JPEGs I've seen in here and there over some time, so I'm not 100% sure this will hold true. I was sure enough to myself invest in a MF tech camera system though...
-
Hey but I found out it's got the same DR as the IQ180....yeah, right...
There's no reason to doubt the measurement, but this is engineering DR of course (at which point signal = noise) which is just an indication of what photographic useful DR might be. Many other factors must be taken into account. One can see that the IQ180 has much less noise at 18% (more than two stops) which actually may a stronger indication of "photographic DR" than engineering DR. Noise quality (blotchiness etc) also matters much, which DxO does not measure...
I have myself when looking at MF raws been impressed by how clean they are so they can be pushed a lot, but if there's an advantage to the best DSLRs it seems to me to be 1-2 stops or so, not 6 stops that I have seen some claim. At some point I guess I need to do a bit more formal study... it is surprising how hard it is to establish what the DR of these things really are... the debate has been on for years it seems.
-
There's no reason to doubt the measurement, but this is engineering DR of course (at which point signal = noise) which is just an indication of what photographic useful DR might be. Many other factors must be taken into account. One can see that the IQ180 has much less noise at 18% (more than two stops) which actually may a stronger indication of "photographic DR" than engineering DR. Noise quality (blotchiness etc) also matters much, which DxO does not measure...
I have myself when looking at MF raws been impressed by how clean they are so they can be pushed a lot, but if there's an advantage to the best DSLRs it seems to me to be 1-2 stops or so, not 6 stops that I have seen some claim. At some point I guess I need to do a bit more formal study... it is surprising how hard it is to establish what the DR of these things really are... the debate has been on for years it seems.
BCLAFF ... a forum contributor ... has done excellent work on measuring what he calls PDR - Photographic Dynamic Range.
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm
Unfortunately, it doesn't have any MFDBs but has a nice selection of DSLRs.
-
Kodak stock options
What's that???
-
Just for fun I used the Compare tool to see how my D5100 fares against the more expensive D7000...
Same sensor ...
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D5100-DxOMark-Review/Nikon-D5100-vs-Nikon-D7000-same-sensor-same-results
-
I've seen some semi-real-world results (deliberate test subjects) showing the D800 pretty close to the 40 mp generation MFDBs (which are not only lower resolution than the IQ180, but also older sensor generations). They are close enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the D800e reaches P45+ quality levels. I'll be very interested to see images that are not just tests, and to examine large prints - pixel peeping any of this stuff on screen is crazy because no monitor displays more than (rarely) 2560x1600 pixels!
The D3x was a close competitor to 20+ mp backs (another generation older), suggesting that FF sensors may just about keep up with MF sensors at the same resolution (obviously, except for depth of field and other direct effects of sensor size) because the extra generations of sensor development in the years it takes FF to reach a given resolution more or less cancel out the effect of pixel size? The newest generation MF sensors will always be significantly ahead, but at a high price. We seem to have the same generational effect with the (APS-C) NEX-7 possibly catching the D3x (or coming closer than one might think) - the 3 years newer sensor makes up for the smaller size... Of course, the NEX-7 has lens issues - Sony's built a camera their lenses don't always keep up with... They aren't alone, hasn't Phase had that problem with some of the older Mamiya lenses?
I wonder why no MFDB has gone CMOS? A double-size D800E sensor might be much cheaper to produce than the IQ180 sensor, and perhaps as good?
-
Same sensor ...
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D5100-DxOMark-Review/Nikon-D5100-vs-Nikon-D7000-same-sensor-same-results
Yup, but I've got 28 more iso's and 0.3 less f-stops....outrageous in'it ;)
-
Yup, but I've got 28 more iso's and 0.3 less f-stops....outrageous in'it ;)
You're just field, not policy - if you were policy, maybe the policy would be saner?
Edmund
-
2012 vs 2004 ;D
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17452116/DynamicRange_5DMIIIvsAptus22.jpg
-
You're just field, not policy - if you were policy, maybe the policy would be saner?
Edmund
So I googled Field-Policy and found this article (http://link-to-results.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=61)...
Their circles theory makes DXO's measurements look like kids math...
-
2012 vs 2004 ;D
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17452116/DynamicRange_5DMIIIvsAptus22.jpg
And imediately i now remember why i love my MF backs, from the 6Mp CantareXY to the Hasselblad 40Mp...... Just take a look at the shadows of the 5d. These are as ugly as all dark parts with my 5DMk2. ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
This might or might not be relevant:
Link 1 (http://www.focus-numerique.com/nikon-d800-tueur-moyen-format-news-3163.html) and Link 2 (http://www.focus-numerique.com/d800-vs-moyen-formats-acte-ii-raw-news-3165.html)
But it'll surely add to this already all-over-the-place thread....
-
This might or might not be relevant:
Link 1 (http://www.focus-numerique.com/nikon-d800-tueur-moyen-format-news-3163.html) and Link 2 (http://www.focus-numerique.com/d800-vs-moyen-formats-acte-ii-raw-news-3165.html)
But it'll surely add to this already all-over-the-place thread....
Kudos for providing the link. Maybe Nikon needs a Chuck Westfall clone, you could apply.
In the mean time, I went the other way, and got a D4. It has an interesting texture and look for portraits, see the crying baby above.
You will remember that a lot of people here said they wanted fewer better pixels, in a certain sense the D4 is providing that.
But then I think Saint Augustine said, O Lord, make me chaste and poor, but please wait a bit before doing it ...
Edmund
-
There's no reason to doubt the measurement, but this is engineering DR of course (at which point signal = noise) which is just an indication of what photographic useful DR might be. Many other factors must be taken into account. One can see that the IQ180 has much less noise at 18% (more than two stops) which actually may a stronger indication of "photographic DR" than engineering DR. Noise quality (blotchiness etc) also matters much, which DxO does not measure...
I have myself when looking at MF raws been impressed by how clean they are so they can be pushed a lot, but if there's an advantage to the best DSLRs it seems to me to be 1-2 stops or so, not 6 stops that I have seen some claim. At some point I guess I need to do a bit more formal study... it is surprising how hard it is to establish what the DR of these things really are... the debate has been on for years it seems.
Perhaps you should recheck your math. The print DXO SNR at 18% is 48.7 dB for the IQ180 at a measured ISO of 29, and the corresponding figures for the D800 are 45 dB at a measured ISO of 74. 48.7 dB = 272.1:1, for a DR of 8.1 stops. 38.4 dB = 177.8:1 or 7.5 stops.
48.7 dB is rather high for a noise floor used to determine photographic DR. One can use the full SNR plots by DXO to determine the DR for any noise floor (see Emil Martinec (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42158.0)). For a noise floor of 18 dB (around 25:1), I get a normalized (DXO method) DR of 10.5 stops for the D800 and 10.2 for the IQ 180.
Regards,
Bill
-
Bill,
Maybe you could clarify the relationship between S/N and DR ?
Edmund
Perhaps you should recheck your math. The print DXO SNR at 18% is 48.7 dB for the IQ180 at a measured ISO of 29, and the corresponding figures for the D800 are 45 dB at a measured ISO of 74. 48.7 dB = 272.1:1, for a DR of 8.1 stops. 38.4 dB = 177.8:1 or 7.5 stops.
48.7 dB is rather high for a noise floor used to determine photographic DR. One can use the full SNR plots by DXO to determine the DR for any noise floor (see Emil Martinec (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42158.0)). For a noise floor of 18 dB (around 25:1), I get a normalized (DXO method) DR of 10.5 stops for the D800 and 10.2 for the IQ 180.
Regards,
Bill
-
Bill,
Maybe you could clarify the relationship between S/N and DR ?
Edmund
Edmumd,
It is all explained in the link to Emil Martinec (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42158.0) that I provided earlier but perhaps you didn't see. He explains it more clearly and authoritatively than I could. Basically, the DR is the number of stops from saturation down to the chosen noise floor. The engineering definition uses a SNR of 1.0, which is too low for practical photograrphy.
Regards,
Bill
-
Maybe you could clarify the relationship between S/N and DR ?
Edmund
S/N is the ratio of the signal (illumination level) to the amount of noise at that signal level; DR is the range of illumination levels (S_min to S_max) for which the S/N exceeds whatever quality threshold you wish to impose. Engineering DR takes that threshold to be (S/N)_min = 1; most photographers would ask for something substantially higher. Thus S/N and DR are not directly related. They are indirectly related in that light carries its own noise (photon shot noise) for which the noise level is the square root of the number of photons captured, and thus goes as sqrt(S), for a S/N~sqrt(S); this imposes a constraint on how low S can go before S/N drops below your threshold for acceptable quality. Another constraint is electronic read noise, which increases the noise and therefore may make S/N drop below your threshold sooner than if the noise was photon noise alone.
Larger sensors gather more light for a given f-ratio (but also have less DoF), so for fixed exposure and similar read noise will have a higher DR, but not by a lot; I think rather that much of what people are seeing as a 'DR advantage' of MFDBs is actually a higher S/N over midtones caused by the greater light gathered rather than a greater range in shadows where the S/N, while poor, exceeds the quality threshold.
-
Bill,
Thank you very much for the reference.
As I am getting every day more lazy and no less dumb in my geriatric age, would you indulge me and tell me how one would choose a (photographically meaningful) noise floor?
Edmund
Edmumd,
It is all explained in the link to Emil Martinec (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42158.0) that I provided earlier but perhaps you didn't see. He explains it more clearly and authoritatively than I could. Basically, the DR is the number of stops from saturation down to the chosen noise floor. The engineering definition uses a SNR of 1.0, which is too low for practical photograrphy.
Regards,
Bill
-
Bill,
Thank you very much for the reference.
As I am getting every day more lazy and no less dumb in my geriatric age, would you indulge me and tell me how one would choose a (photographically meaningful) noise floor?
Hi Edmund,
The great thing about the most strict 'engineering definition' of DR is that it, as a rule of thumb, also applies to more relaxed definitions. Hence, better is best ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Edmund,
The great thing about the most strict 'engineering definition' of DR is that it, as a rule of thumb, also applies to more relaxed definitions. Hence, better is best ...
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I assume you would mean an SNR of 1 (0 db) but don't think that would necessarily be considered very strict ...
Or, more probably I am missing something (a lot?).
Edmund
-
Hi Bart,
I assume you would mean an SNR of 1 (0 db) but don't think that would necessarily be considered very strict ...
Or, more probably I am missing something (a lot?).
Hi Edmund,
How could it be any more strict than that? And, as long as that (proportionally) translates o less strict (is higher) noise thresholds, it would offer more playroom for more relaxed criteria.
Cheers,
Bart
-
BCLAFF ... a forum contributor ... has done excellent work on measuring what he calls PDR - Photographic Dynamic Range.
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm
Unfortunately, it doesn't have any MFDBs but has a nice selection of DSLRs.
I accept PDR files in any raw format that can be converted to DNG.
Anyone wanting to contribute should simply contact me by email for details.
Generally I want one shot per ISO of a particular target that I provide.
:-)
Bill
-
Bill,
Thank you very much for the reference.
As I am getting every day more lazy and no less dumb in my geriatric age, would you indulge me and tell me how one would choose a (photographically meaningful) noise floor?
Edmund
Edmund,
That is pretty much a personal decision. Also, one should keep in mind that pattern noise such as banding (noted on some older Canon cameras) is more disturbing than white noise, so the SNR floor may not tell the whole story. Emil (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html#SNR-DR) has a demonstration of S:N ranging from 0 to 8 (see his figure 13). Perhaps Bart can comment--he always provides a wealth of good information.
Regards,
Bill
-
how one would choose a (photographically meaningful) noise floor?
For PDR I chose and SNR of 20 for the "standard" Circle of Confusion (CoC).
I chose 20 because ISO considers 10 "acceptable" and 40 "excellent".
The "standard" CoC is .033mm for FX, etc.
:-)
Bill
-
Bill (bjanes),
Thank you.
Bill (bclaff)
Thank you.
I will look through that site of emil's.
At the moment I quite like my D4; however, I am idly wondering whether as it uses amplification for low ISOs one could not extract much more DR from it by some trick such as converting both the unamplified (high bits) and amplified (low bit) data.
Edmund
For PDR I chose and SNR of 20 for the "standard" Circle of Confusion (CoC).
I chose 20 because ISO considers 10 "acceptable" and 40 "excellent".
The "standard" CoC is .033mm for FX, etc.
:-)
Bill
-
2012 vs 2004 ;D
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17452116/DynamicRange_5DMIIIvsAptus22.jpg
It should be noted that Canon is not near Sony Exmor in CMOS noise performance at base ISO. Additionally, to make a fair test you cannot blow highlights more in one shot. There seems to be more highlight detail in the 5D shot, although it is a bit hard to judge since the Aptus 22 is more out of focus in the bright background. But anyway I do expect the Aptus 22 to win over 5D mark III. Canon doesn't have Sony Exmor technology, only Sony has. It can also be noted that Aptus 22 is still quite competitive with 2012 MF backs in terms of DR. The development of CCD tech has not been as dramatic as with CMOS, but on the other hand noone can at base ISO do as good as Sony, so the best CMOS tech is not found in all cameras, in no Canon camera for example. With MF CCDs as far as I know each one since 2003 has had great DR, so you can't really get a bad one there, at least if you will shoot at base ISO and have short exposure times.
If one wants to be pleased with an old 22 megapixel back the best way is to compare with a Canon, I know I will :-) (I plan to get an Aptus 22 or P25 myself...)
-
Perhaps you should recheck your math.
Uhh... you're probably right, but the comparison was with the D5100 in that case though, but I thought 3 dB = 1 stop, 48.7 vs 41.2 that is 7.5 dB, > 6 dB, larger than 2 stops. I guess the large difference in midtones is due to photon shot noise...
-
I wonder why no MFDB has gone CMOS? A double-size D800E sensor might be much cheaper to produce than the IQ180 sensor, and perhaps as good?
I think it is because that it is not so easy. Today only Sony can make CMOS sensors that is up there competing with MF CCDs in performance. Canon can't, Nikon can't (but use Sony sensor in D800), Dalsa can't. It is also a bit tricky to make large chips, so it could be the case that noone has the technology to make a CMOS chip of that size (which are more complicated than CCD). Concerning cost my guess is that it would be more expensive to make due to being more complicated, perhaps leading to lower yields.
Fast refresh liveview directly on the back, great ISO performance, long exposures, comparable (or perhaps better) low ISO performance. It would surely be a market for that thing, but someone must have the capability to manufacture it. Sony may be able to do it, but MF would be a whole new market for them, and much less profitable than the smaller sensors. We will see what happens.
-
I read http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/cmos_01.html
It seems Exmor sensors are made with a dedicated CU wiring process, and something in the article talks about low silicon defects which makes me think they may have an additional wafer processing step, or maybe qualify the wafers in some way. But I see no reason why other companies cannot at least copy the architecture, invent something similar, or just license/subcontract MF sensors from Sony. After all, all their competitors are also their customers for sensors.
Another question is when sensors on dSLRs are going to be back-illuminated? The Sony site states there are 8db to be gained there ...
Edmund
I think it is because that it is not so easy. Today only Sony can make CMOS sensors that is up there competing with MF CCDs in performance. Canon can't, Nikon can't (but use Sony sensor in D800), Dalsa can't. It is also a bit tricky to make large chips, so it could be the case that noone has the technology to make a CMOS chip of that size (which are more complicated than CCD). Concerning cost my guess is that it would be more expensive to make due to being more complicated, perhaps leading to lower yields.
Fast refresh liveview directly on the back, great ISO performance, long exposures, comparable (or perhaps better) low ISO performance. It would surely be a market for that thing, but someone must have the capability to manufacture it. Sony may be able to do it, but MF would be a whole new market for them, and much less profitable than the smaller sensors. We will see what happens.
-
Uhh... you're probably right, but the comparison was with the D5100 in that case though, but I thought 3 dB = 1 stop, 48.7 vs 41.2 that is 7.5 dB, > 6 dB, larger than 2 stops. I guess the large difference in midtones is due to photon shot noise...
When one uses dB to measure power (as with sound) the equation is dB = 10 * log(p1/p0), while when one is using amplitude the equation is dB = 20 * log(a1/a2), since power is the square of the amplitude. The output of the sensor is amplitude, so 1 stop = 6 dB. See here (http://blog.prosig.com/2008/04/14/what-is-db-noise-floor-dynamic-range/). It is a bit confusing. :-[
Regards,
Bill
-
When one uses dB to measure power (as with sound) the equation is dB = 10 * log(p1/p0), while when one is using amplitude the equation is dB = 20 * log(a1/a2), since power is the square of the amplitude. The output of the sensor is amplitude, so 1 stop = 6 dB. See here (http://blog.prosig.com/2008/04/14/what-is-db-noise-floor-dynamic-range/). It is a bit confusing. :-[
Thanks for clarifying, I always mix those up... it's not the first time :-).
-
Bill,
Thank you very much for the reference.
As I am getting every day more lazy and no less dumb in my geriatric age, would you indulge me and tell me how one would choose a (photographically meaningful) noise floor?
Edmund
Edmund,
I don't know about you, but my geriatric brain is a bit muddled. For the DR at 18%, I was using the number of stops that the SNR at 18% saturation is above a SNR of 0 dB (the engineering noise floor), and the floor was not at 18%. 18% is about 2.5 stops under 100%.
Regards,
Bill
-
I read http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/cmos_01.html
It seems Exmor sensors are made with a dedicated CU wiring process, and something in the article talks about low silicon defects which makes me think they may have an additional wafer processing step, or maybe qualify the wafers in some way. But I see no reason why other companies cannot at least copy the architecture, invent something similar, or just license/subcontract MF sensors from Sony. After all, all their competitors are also their customers for sensors.
Another question is when sensors on dSLRs are going to be back-illuminated? The Sony site states there are 8db to be gained there ...
I hope there is someone that knows the details about chip manufacturing here, I don't. I've just noted that it seems to be quite hard to do "obvious" things... Back-illumination, that is putting the wiring behind the photodiode instead of in front of it (blocking light) is an obvious thing to do, so why it is not done is not because they could not figure out that placing it behind would be a better construction, but because of that it is harder to manufacture the chips that way (why it is so I'd be glad to hear, I don't know). Back illumination is more important with smaller pixels since the wiring will block a larger part of the pixel then, so the 8 dB was probably for mobile phone type of chips I guess (which has extremely small pixels).
I don't know why Canon for example hasn't licensed from Sony, but I guess it is a bit of prestige and competition ongoing (and better profit using own tech), and Canon provides something that is "good enough" for nearly all types of use, so I guess they don't care too much. This very strong interest in DR as we have in MF and landscape photography is probably a niche interest. I've shot quite some landscapes with a 5Dmk2 and even 7D and frankly I rarely have had problems in practice with their in comparison rather poor DR. But I still would like more... always want more DR and more resolution :-)
-
The development of CCD tech has not been as dramatic as with CMOS, but on the other hand noone can at base ISO do as good as Sony, so the best CMOS tech is not found in all cameras
I have yet to see an image (as in a photograph...with light and a real subject, you know what I mean...) that demonstrates this allegedly superior base iso DR of the Sony...
-
I have yet to see an image (as in a photograph...with light and a real subject, you know what I mean...) that demonstrates this allegedly superior base iso DR of the Sony...
Superior to Canon is quite easy... superior to an MF is harder. My point was that demonstrating MF dynamic range superiority by putting it head to head to a Canon sensor (even the recent ones) is not giving it the toughest challenge, but rather the opposite.
Also, the MF supposed DR advantage is perhaps more about midtones than shadow noise. Or perhaps it holds color information better in shadows, or perhaps less color-blotchy noise due to larger area. It must be something else than pure signal-to-noise ratio 10+ stops down. It's a mystery which would be most interesting to get an answer to.
A side-by-side shoot on a high DR landscape scene with perfectly ETTR-exposed RAW files a D800 vs an IQ180 would provide quite much information about "state of the art". But I would not hold my breath. Testers almost never provide raw files and almost always expose the cameras differently (trust autoexposure or jpeg histograms or whatever).
-
Testers almost never provide raw files and almost always expose the cameras differently (trust autoexposure or jpeg histograms or whatever).
Which is why we always encourage potential buyers to do their own testing...if you work with a dealer who sells both formats I am sure that they will be happy to do this with you, especially if they know that there's a good chance that you will buy from them
many dealers offer a "try before you buy" where if you rent the kit they will put the rental fee (or some of it) towards a purchase
Yair
-
The single headline advantage of Sony's EXMOR tecnnology is its Column parallel analog-digital conversion, which I believe helps greatly because the majority of sensor read noise in other designs enters during the fast transportation of the analog signal along the edge of the sensor and then to tue ADC, not in the photosites themselves. So digitizing before that step helps a lot. This approach also sems to make high frame rates easier to achieve, so is good for hogh resolution video.
The good news is that this technique is not a Sony exclusive, even though Sony has so far made the most of it in the world of larger sensors for "dedicated stills cameras".The same method was used first by Samsung, but in a video camera sensor, and it seems that video sensors have been the main area of application so far.
So my guess is that Canon is working on something similar --- unless it already has a different and even better idea in development. By the way, it also seems quite possible that some other sensors from other designers are also using column-parallel ADC, without talking about it so much (perhaps because it would sound rather "me too"). Some candidates are the sensors for Nikon One cameras, the video oriented multi-aspect ratio sensors of the Panasonic GH1 and GH2, and the sensor of unstated origins in the new Olympus OM-D E-M5. Panasonic has said that the GH1 and GH2 sensors produce digital output (as with EXMOR) whereas its other 4/3" sensor produce an analog output signal for off-board ADCs (as with Canon) and that those sensors are significantly more expensive to make than its other 4/3” sensors, which is why they are not used in all recent micro four thirds bodies. So maybe Panasonic is part-way there, but the new approach has problems with low yields, pushing the price up. And maybe Nikon and its sensor partners are also about the EXMOR monopoly, or already have.
P. S. it is often stated as obvious fact that the D800 sensor is from Sony, sometimes supported by the fact that Nikon does not have sensor fabrication equipment. However, AFAIK, neither Nikon nor Sony has said this, and the possibility remains that Nikon has been involved in the design of this sensor (perhaps in partnership with Sony, or Aptina, or one of the other good sensor designers that have been working mostly with smaller sensors up till now, such as Toshiba). Fabrication can be contracted out to one of several competent fabs, so Nikon's lack of a sensor fab. is irrelevant. For example, Aptina is a fabless sensor designer.
Added: talking of Aptina (likely sensor supplier for Nikon One), it is about to release an APS-C sized sensor for "DSLR/mirrorless", which does 14-bit ADC on the camera chip itself, and offers 10 fps, 1080p30 video etc.:
http://www.aptina.com/products/image_sensors/mt9h004/
I have no idea how good it is or if any major camera maker will adopt it, but the competition seems to be getting stronger, and the idea that a camera maker is always better off doing all its own sensor design in-house rather than making use of the technologies offered in a competitive market place of companies that specialize in sensor design makes less sense than ever to me. Frankly, the all in-house philosophy verges on "log cabin in the mountains off the grid survivalism".
-
Frankly, the all in-house philosophy verges on "log cabin in the mountains off the grid survivalism".
And that is the reason why every mobile phone now has an ARM chip in it, designed by a small team from an obscure Apple II clone maker in the UK (Acorn).
Edmund
-
And that is the reason why every mobile phone now has an ARM chip in it, designed by a small team from an obscure Apple II clone maker in the UK (Acorn).
Yes: not a lot of completely DIY phone processors are there? Not even from giants like Samsung (which strangely makes its own ARM chips, yet also buys some from TI.) Apple and Samsung play the game well, balancing in-house exclusives with outsourcing from companies that do some things very well and in high volume, thus sharing in economies of scale. Processors for mobile devices show the fine points of the strategy: the most successful smart phone makers, Apple and Samsung, license ARM processor core designs and graphics processor designs, but then integrate them into custom designs with some in-house chip design expertise.
Historical trivia: ARM processor designs got their first big push into the mobile device market many years ago when adopted for the first touch-screen "pad" --- the ill-fated Apple Newton MessagePad. The movie of the iPad's success story could be called "The Revenge of the Newton".
-
I have yet to see an image (as in a photograph...with light and a real subject, you know what I mean...) that demonstrates this allegedly superior base iso DR of the Sony...
How about this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36903045
-
2012 vs 2004 ;D
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17452116/DynamicRange_5DMIIIvsAptus22.jpg
Very good. Now repeat it with both cameras set to ISO 400...or heck, even ISO 400 on the Canon and ISO 100 on the Aptus.
This will illustrate
(1) the problem with MFD: shooting above base ISO is merely underexposure without any compensating improvements in electronic noise;
(2) the problem with Canons: they only come into their best above base ISO.
Ray
-
How about this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36903045
???
All I can see is 2 reasonably similar, soft looking images where 1 (I think the 6400 iso) has less shadow noise than the other and the other one holds a bit more highlight detail (because it was so much under-exposed, obviously)
No offence but personally I wouldn't use them as an example for anything...
-
Very good. Now repeat it with both cameras set to ISO 400...or heck, even ISO 400 on the Canon and ISO 100 on the Aptus.
This will illustrate
(1) the problem with MFD: shooting above base ISO is merely underexposure without any compensating improvements in electronic noise;
(2) the problem with Canons: they only come into their best above base ISO.
Ray
They are great compliments to each other. That's why I have them both. ;D
-
???
All I can see is 2 reasonably similar, soft looking images where 1 (I think the 6400 iso) has less shadow noise than the other and the other one holds a bit more highlight detail (because it was so much under-exposed, obviously)
Both images were exposed the same way - 1/30s, f/2. Also, "Under-exposure" is a subjective term and as such not useful.
ISO is not an exposure parameter - it only tells the camera how much to boost the signal. By applying the high ISO 6400 boost the camera loses the highlight details that would not be lost if a more proper ISO were used instead. The dynamic range which has been compressed into this (ISO 100 out of camera) image is a good sample. An inferior camera would have to sacrifice one or the other end.
-
???
All I can see is 2 reasonably similar, soft looking images where 1 (I think the 6400 iso) has less shadow noise than the other and the other one holds a bit more highlight detail (because it was so much under-exposed, obviously)
No offence but personally I wouldn't use them as an example for anything...
Then you aren't paying attention. First of all, the discussion is about DR, not resolution so comments about 'softness' are irrelevant. Second, shadow noise is the same since electronic read noise is the same for the two ISO being used and exposure is the same between the two shots. Third, there is no 'underexposed' here; both shots have the same exposure; the difference is that the ISO 100 capture has enough DR to reveal highlight details that are blown in the ISO 6400 shot, while capturing the rest of the scene with the same level of noise as the ISO 6400 shot.
The point is that the camera had enough DR that the photographer could expose for the highlights at ISO 100, and still have enough latitude to bring up the shadows by six stops in post.
I suspect you have some fundamental misconceptions about how digital capture works.
-
They are great compliments to each other. That's why I have them both. ;D
Exactly; me too.
I think what's interesing though is that the Sony Exmor sensors are increasingly able to cover both bases in one camera. This is what all cameras/sensors should aspire to - well their users do anyway! I expect Canon to catch up on the low-ISO end sooner or later. But MFD will never catch up on the high-ISO end, if it stays stuck with CCD sensors.
Ray
-
Hi,
Now that we have seen a decent demo of DR on an APS-C sensor, it would be interesting to see a similar demo on an MF sensor. I have not seen that many.
Here is one on the Leica S2 and the Nikon D3X based on images courtesy of Lloyd Chambers: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
Best regards
Erik
Then you aren't paying attention. First of all, the discussion is about DR, not resolution so comments about 'softness' are irrelevant. Second, shadow noise is the same since electronic read noise is the same for the two ISO being used and exposure is the same between the two shots. Third, there is no 'underexposed' here; both shots have the same exposure; the difference is that the ISO 100 capture has enough DR to reveal highlight details that are blown in the ISO 6400 shot, while capturing the rest of the scene with the same level of noise as the ISO 6400 shot.
The point is that the camera had enough DR that the photographer could expose for the highlights at ISO 100, and still have enough latitude to bring up the shadows by six stops in post.
I suspect you have some fundamental misconceptions about how digital capture works.
-
Then you aren't paying attention.
SNIP
I suspect you have some fundamental misconceptions about how digital capture works.
That's a hall-of-fame comedy comment.
On the subject of digital capture Yaya is one of the most knowledgable people I know [apart from the Hasselblad guys :)]
Nick-T
-
I suspect you have some fundamental misconceptions about how digital capture works.
Thanks for the complement...Appreciated! And BTW shadow noise in these two examples is NOT the same....
-
Thanks for the complement...Appreciated! And BTW shadow noise in these two examples is NOT the same....
Yeah, that was uncalled for. I was however responding to the agressive tone of your reply.
Yes, there is more pattern noise in the ISO 100 shot. You have pushed the shadows another 5+ stops to expose it; so now we're talking about an 11+ stop push of the original capture? Please. BTW the difference is simply the pattern noise; since it's coherent across the frame, very easy to correct in post.
On the subject of digital capture Yaya is one of the most knowledgable people I know [apart from the Hasselblad guys :)]
Nick-T
Being a sales/product manager (albeit a very proficient one) does not necessarily translate into technical expertise about digital electronics.
-
Being a sales/product manager (albeit a very proficient one) does not necessarily translate into technical expertise about digital electronics.
Of course it doesn't. Job title aside Yair DOES have technical expertise, I know I have spoken with him.
I suspect if you knew him you wouldn't be so quick to insult him, especially if you knew about that incident on the metro in Spain, and the special forces thing. (But I digress)
Nick-T
-
ejmartin,
(perhaps it is time for you to step out of the shadows and tell us who you are and what you do? It seems silly to talk to a nickname...)
There is a huge difference between expertise and experience...although with experience (sometimes) comes expertise. I'm not sure if the opposite is true
Anyway this is the medium format & large sensor section and we are wasting bandwidth and people's time arguing about some snapshot images taken with a thumbnail size sensor.
-
ejmartin,
(perhaps it is time for you to step out of the shadows and tell us who you are and what you do? It seems silly to talk to a nickname...)
Who am I? Emil Martinec; I am a physics professor at the University of Chicago. I don't think my identity is a secret here.
Anyway this is the medium format & large sensor section and we are wasting bandwidth and people's time arguing about some snapshot images taken with a thumbnail size sensor.
The topic of discussion was the D800; the D7000 that took the linked images is essentially a cropped version of the D800 sensor, approximately the same size pixels, the D800 simply scales up the sensor size with the same (or slightly better) pixel performance. It is therefore reasonable to infer the properties of the D800 from those of its little brother.
-
Emil,
the D7000 that took the linked images is essentially a cropped version of the D800 sensor
Yeah, for the purposes of this discussion. D7000 4.75 microns, D800 4.85 microns
Photosite read noise very close:
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#D7000_14,D800_14
Regards,
Bill
-
since i started this a few days ago it has morphed into math and physics. i have learned quite a bit. the d800, even in their wildest dreams, will not bring about the death of mf digital, but do you think prices will drop for mf digital backs in the future?
-
... do you think prices will drop for mf digital backs in the future?
If anything, I expect the opposite: MF gear will move a bit further up the scale of lower volume and higher price. As 35mm format becomes accepted as "good enough" for some part of what previously required MF, and so some photographers choose 35mm where in years past they would have chosen MF, two things happen:
1. Reduced demand for MF makes the economies of scale worse, so prices go up even for gear with equal unit production costs.
2. MF makers shift their emphasis towards the higher quality part of their product range, to be clearly above what 35mm can match, maybe with things as simple as higher sensor resolution, which also pushes demand for lenses of ever higher resolution, ever more precisely aligned bodies and AF systems, and so on, so the gear becomes more expensive to make too.
We have already seen signs of this, with the prices of lenses and bodies often significantly higher now than in the film era.
P. S. of course any talk of the D800 or even D800E killing off DMF is either wild hyperbole or siliness, if only for only trivial reason: 80>36. That is, along with all the other much debated differences, resolution clearly does also contribute to a good number of camera purchasing choices, as shown by the higher prices of the higher resolution backs.
-
P. S. of course any talk of the D800 or even D800E killing off DMF is either wild hyperbole or siliness, if only for only trivial reason: 80>36. That is, along with all the other much debated differences, resolution clearly does also contribute to a good number of camera purchasing choices, as shown by the higher prices of the higher resolution backs.
The D800 will do what the 20+MP 35mm cameras did which was to kill off the 22MP MFDB. You have not been able to buy a Phase or Leaf 22MP back for years. All you can do is find them on the secondhand market for a few hundred dollars.
Anyone interested in a bridge?
-
If anything, I expect the opposite: MF gear will move a bit further up the scale of lower volume and higher price.
I agree that's what the economics favor. It's a bit like the unfortunate spiral of mass transit fares in my city; prices go up, so ridership goes down, so prices go up, so ... and we don't even get higher quality buses :(
P. S. of course any talk of the D800 or even D800E killing off DMF is either wild hyperbole or siliness, if only for only trivial reason: 80>36. That is, along with all the other much debated differences, resolution clearly does also contribute to a good number of camera purchasing choices, as shown by the higher prices of the higher resolution backs.
It will be interesting to see how rapidly the Exmor sensors move up in resolution; they have gone from 12 to 16 to 24MP on APS-C. The latter, scaled up to 35mm format, would have 54MP. That by itself wouldn't yield a camera comparable to MF unless they engineered the pixel's base ISO to be somewhere in the 25-50 range to get the saturation capacity up, which seems unlikely since it would compromise the high ISO performance. Also, usual caveats apply -- smaller pixels have more crosstalk, lenses need tighter tolerances on smaller formats, etc etc.
-
Emil,
I studied Physics at UC Berkeley and then worked at LBNL. None of that really helped me understand some of the camera and file stuff until I actually worked with it, using the different cameras, digital backs, and software applications that are available. I'm not at all saying I know more than you, however sometimes I read your stuff and just wished you actually used some of the gear. Yes, Yair is a representative of a company but he actually takes real pictures using the stuff we talk about. As much science as I have been around, I really go by experience more than anything when it comes to gear. Most theory's fit ideal circumstances - the kind you can set up neatly in a lab, but out in the wild, its rare to find such ideal circumstances and there are a lot of surprises. A lot of you can make decisions by looking at dark current and read noise values, but I get my hands on the stuff and test it. And probably all of its moot, because none of you will ever be trying to do use these products for anything real anyhow. It's all just a fun exercise to push data around. I try my best to not talk about stuff I haven't personally used. I'll probably end up with a D800E and if so then I'll be able to make some real comparisons to my different digital backs.
Regards,
Eric
-
Hi,
How would a sensor be engineered to keep ISO down? I got the impression that FWC is pretty constant and is going down in proportion to pixel area.
Are there developments in the circuit technology increasing FWC?
Finally, it seems that Nikon and Pentax gets better performance out of the Exmoor than Sony themselves, according to DxO. Do you have a reasonable explanation for this? I can presume that some of the disadvantage Sony seems to have comes from their 12 bit processing pipeline. CGA may also be different, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
I agree that's what the economics favor. It's a bit like the unfortunate spiral of mass transit fares in my city; prices go up, so ridership goes down, so prices go up, so ... and we don't even get higher quality buses :(
It will be interesting to see how rapidly the Exmor sensors move up in resolution; they have gone from 12 to 16 to 24MP on APS-C. The latter, scaled up to 35mm format, would have 54MP. That by itself wouldn't yield a camera comparable to MF unless they engineered the pixel's base ISO to be somewhere in the 25-50 range to get the saturation capacity up, which seems unlikely since it would compromise the high ISO performance. Also, usual caveats apply -- smaller pixels have more crosstalk, lenses need tighter tolerances on smaller formats, etc etc.
-
Eric,
I'm not at all saying I know more than you, however sometimes I read your stuff and just wished you actually used some of the gear.
Hmmm, I seem to recall that Emil does know his way around a camera.
Emil's Image Galleries (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/)
:)
Bill
-
Hi Eric,
I've never made the claim that my professional qualifications have anything to do with my photographic interests, other than that a physics education is useful training in analytical skills. As far as cameras go, I've probably used fewer than most folks here but analyzed files from more cameras than most here, and not just to verify some formulas about S/N ratios and such (I left off doing that quite a while ago). I have been involved for some time in developing open source image processing software (the RawTherapee project); don't claim that it's the best thing out there but it's an interesting work in progress (and also fun). It does involve digging into the raw files to see what issues have to be dealt with to produce quality output from a wide variety of image files.
Bill, the website is waaaay out of date; been too busy to refresh it for far too long.
-
Emil,
Bill, the website is waaaay out of date; been too busy to refresh it for far too long.
The same is true of my galleries; but people do forget that in addition to our interest in photography technology, we are photographers.
Regards,
Bill
-
Hmmm, I seem to recall that Emil does know his way around a camera.
Emil's Image Galleries (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/)
Amazing, it would seem that it is possible to talk about camera performance while being either a physics professor or a high end back camera sales person and still be able to practice the art of photography. ;D
Photography has always been about art and science. I don't understand why we praise Ansel Adams for his excellence in terms of film technology and processing but show less respect for digital photographers interested in understanding the tools in depth and optimizing their usage... even if they end up spending more time on the latter.
As far as the D800 goes, I have come accross these images... I am not sure why anyone would ever need more details that this for fashion, but what do I know. ;)
http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How would a sensor be engineered to keep ISO down? I got the impression that FWC is pretty constant and is going down in proportion to pixel area.
if I recall tiny P&S sensors have ISOs like 50 (by DxO saturation based measurement, Panasonic LX3 for example, pitch 2µm)...
-
I studied Physics at UC Berkeley and then worked at LBNL. None of that really helped me understand some of the camera and file stuff until I actually worked with it, using the different cameras, digital backs, and software applications that are available. I'm not at all saying I know more than you, however sometimes I read your stuff and just wished you actually used some of the gear. Yes, Yair is a representative of a company but he actually takes real pictures using the stuff we talk about. As much science as I have been around, I really go by experience more than anything when it comes to gear. Most theory's fit ideal circumstances - the kind you can set up neatly in a lab, but out in the wild, its rare to find such ideal circumstances and there are a lot of surprises. A lot of you can make decisions by looking at dark current and read noise values, but I get my hands on the stuff and test it. And probably all of its moot, because none of you will ever be trying to do use these products for anything real anyhow. It's all just a fun exercise to push data around. I try my best to not talk about stuff I haven't personally used. I'll probably end up with a D800E and if so then I'll be able to make some real comparisons to my different digital backs.
Regards,
Eric
that was already discussed a lot in topics devoted to writings of a certain PhD, mr Dubovoy...
-
The D800 will do what the 20+MP 35mm cameras did which was to kill off the 22MP MFDB. You have not been able to buy a Phase or Leaf 22MP back for years. All you can do is find them on the secondhand market for a few hundred dollars.
Anyone interested in a bridge?
Unfortunately the 22 MP backs still cost a few thousands of dollars second hand, but if you have one for a couple of hundreds I'm interested ;-). Leaf still sells a 22MP back, the Leaf Aptus-II 5, we'll see for how long. Personally I think the 22 MP second hand prices are too high, especially for the P25+, but that is because I value resolution as the most important feature of MF. When people are still able to sell them for those prices one cannot really say it is too high for real, the market sets the price. When the Aptus-II 5 becomes discontinued and not replaced with a new 22 MP back then I think we'll see some further drop in the second hand prices.
-
Hi,
How would a sensor be engineered to keep ISO down? I got the impression that FWC is pretty constant and is going down in proportion to pixel area.
Are there developments in the circuit technology increasing FWC?
If the DxO data are to be believed, saturation count from the D3s to the D4 went up 40% even though pixel area went down 35%, and base ISO went from 200 to 100, all while keeping the quantum efficiency the same (see the DxO-derived figures at sensorgen.org). So there must be some leeway in how one designs the pixels; however, I'm no expert on the details of the electronics and so don't know what the limiting factors are. I don't know if there is enough leeway to provide a further doubling of saturation count, which is what it would take to reach the photon gathering capacity of, say, the P65+.
-
this question is directed at yaya and others who work for mf digital back manufacturers. imo the top end digital backs from the mf manufacturers in the hands of photographers who give a damn about their work and will not compromise will always produce superior images, despite all the advertising by dslr companies to the contrary. unfortunately most people put convenience first, so how do you as a company of high end and high priced mf digital backs bring in new young blood to purchase your product when they could purchase 2 or 3 dslr bodies and lots of glass and get very good results. are there enough people out there to make purchases of high end digital backs to keep all the manufacturers in business every year?