Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on February 25, 2014, 02:58:01 am
-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/25/nikon-announces-flagship-d4s-professional-dslr?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_2
Cheers,
Bernard
-
ISO numbers are getting uncomfortably large, how about starting to use the good old logarithmic DIN again? 400 000 ISO would be 57 DIN, yes?
(edit: ASA changed to DIN… Trying to be too clever at this age...)
-
I thought ASA and ISO were the same values. Wasn't it DIN that had the small numbers? So 15DIN = 25ASA from memory, and went up one number for each third of a stop. So 50 ASA/ISO would be DIN18, 100ISO would be DIN21 etc. ISO 400,000 would be DIN57, would it?! Lost count.....
-
Dang! DIN it is !!!!!!!
too old...
-
ASA=100*2(DIN-21)/3
-
At a guess, the official range 100-25,600 could be fairly close to what ISO 12232 recommends as "ISO speed latitude", with 100 being about the well-saturation based minimum or "Ssat" value, and 25,600 being around the upper limit based on barely acceptable 10:1 SNR in the mid-tones, "Ssnr10". Basic photon counting says that beyond about 25,600, the mid-tone SNR level will be horribly low at full 16MP resolution, but down-sampling to about 1MP or less for publishing in the sports section of a newspaper or website could give quite usable results. Roughly, a 16-to-1 downsampling could increase the per-pixel Ssnr10 speed by a factor of 16; with low enough read noise from the sensor, SNR=10:1 just needs about 100 photons counted per pixel (not per photosite). In this context, note the new "small raw option".
ISO numbers are getting uncomfortably large, how about starting to use the good old logarithmic DIN again? 400 000 ISO would be 57 DIN, yes?
Yes, I like to think in terms of "stops above ISO 100", so the official range of 100-25,600 is like "0 to 8 stops" and the expanded range of 50-409,600 is "-1 to 12". The former German DIN standard is roughly this, but in one-third stop increments, counting from a bit below ISO speed of 1.
P. S. To combine two previous comments, the exposure index scales are ISO = ASA =100*2(DIN-21)/3 and "stops above ISO100" = (DIN-21)/3.
-
Another note: the maximum frame rate stays at 11fps as in the D4, due I guess to the mechanical speed limits of Nikon's mirror-flipping technology. This is "only" the same as the frame rate with subject tracking continuous AF offered by the $650 Sony A6000 with the 179 PDAF points of its 24MP "APS-C" sized sensor. Given that high frame rate action shooting with continuous AF subject tracking is one of the major remaining advantages of SLRs over mirrorless system cameras, it would be fun to see a test of Nikon D4s vs Canon 1D-X vs Sony a6000 on fast moving subjects. More so when Sony gets it latest on-sensor PDAF technology into a 35mm format FE mount body.
-
More so when Sony gets it latest on-sensor PDAF technology into a 35mm format FE mount body.
it is there already - the only difference is the coverage... a6000 pdaf sensels (or rather CFA filters modified for PDAF purposes) cover more space in A6000 than they do in NEX6 or A7... otherwise there is no difference.
-
It looks like ISO 51200 pushed 3 stops further, hehehehe.
-
At a guess, the official range 100-25,600 could be fairly close to what ISO 12232 recommends as "ISO speed latitude", with 100 being about the well-saturation based minimum or "Ssat" value, and 25,600 being around the upper limit based on barely acceptable 10:1 SNR in the mid-tones, "Ssnr10". Basic photon counting says that beyond about 25,600, the mid-tone SNR level will be horribly low at full 16MP resolution, but down-sampling to about 1MP or less for publishing in the sports section of a newspaper or website could give quite usable results. Roughly, a 16-to-1 downsampling could increase the per-pixel Ssnr10 speed by a factor of 16; with low enough read noise from the sensor, SNR=10:1 just needs about 100 photons counted per pixel (not per photosite). In this context, note the new "small raw option".
Yes, I like to think in terms of "stops above ISO 100", so the official range of 100-25,600 is like "0 to 8 stops" and the expanded range of 50-409,600 is "-1 to 12". The former German DIN standard is roughly this, but in one-third stop increments, counting from a bit below ISO speed of 1.
To carry out the analysis further, I assumed the full well of the D4s to be 100,000 e-, which is a generous guess. Each doubling of ISO reduces the electron count by a factor of 2. SNR (considering only shot noise) is the square root of the number of electrons. Values for the SNR at the maximal electron count and at the midtones (18%) are shown.
Examples of various SNRs are shown in Figure 13 of Emil's treatise (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html#SNR-DR).
Bill
-
Another note: the maximum frame rate stays at 11fps as in the D4, due I guess to the mechanical speed limits of Nikon's mirror-flipping technology. This is "only" the same as the frame rate with subject tracking continuous AF offered by the $650 Sony A6000 with the 179 PDAF points of its 24MP "APS-C" sized sensor. Given that high frame rate action shooting with continuous AF subject tracking is one of the major remaining advantages of SLRs over mirrorless system cameras, it would be fun to see a test of Nikon D4s vs Canon 1D-X vs Sony a6000 on fast moving subjects. More so when Sony gets it latest on-sensor PDAF technology into a 35mm format FE mount body.
I very much doubt that the possible customers of D4 or 1DX (photojournalists, sports/action photographers, war/crisis photo reporters) would consider …Sony A6000 for an alternative. In fact, I don't doubt it… I'm pretty sure they won't… ??? Neither those who would choose an "A6k" (street, all around, travel, ….my aunt (!)) would ever choose a D4 or 1DX…. the rich ones may consider a DF (and the even richer a Leica M), but D4 and the like, …no way! :P ;D
-
I very much doubt that the possible customers of D4 or 1DX (photojournalists, sports/action photographers, war/crisis photo reporters) would consider …Sony A6000 for an alternative.
Of course not; that's why I used the word "fun":
it would be fun to see a test of Nikon D4s vs Canon 1D-X vs Sony a6000 on fast moving subjects.
This would just be a look at how one aspect of technology that formerly contributed to the great advantage to high end DSLRs is being reduced by newer technologies; it does not come close to nullifying all the advantages in low-light/high-speed photography that come from a larger sensor format, fast professional lenses for that format, Nikon's (and Canon's) expertise in high speed operation, etc. It might however hint at the progress that could be coming when Nikon or Canon merge the best of on-sensor AF technology with their other assets to produce a high-end mirrorless system for integrated stills and video PJ/sports photography.
-
To carry out the analysis further, I assumed the full well of the D4s to be 100,000 e-, which is a generous guess. Each doubling of ISO reduces the electron count by a factor of 2. SNR (considering only shot noise) is the square root of the number of electrons. Values for the SNR at the maximal electron count and at the midtones (18%) are shown.
Thanks Bill; that 100,000e- is a reasonable if optimistic estimate, being about 2,000e- per square micron, whereas the measurements I have seen top out at about 1600. Also, thanks for linking to Emil's illustration, which suggests that at low as SNR=8 can be tolerable for reportage in extreme lighting situations.
One slight change though: if the exposure index is calibrated as the ISO defines, the mid-tone (image from an 18% gray card) is placed at 12.75% of maximum, not 18%, to allow room for the average reflectivity of a scene being a bit less than 18%. So overall, your values might be optimistic by up to one stop, but good enough to get the main idea: full resolution images might be tolerable for some news/sports reporting at up to EI=12,800 or even 25,600, but beyond that the files will be mainly good for use down-sampled from 16MP (or displayed at very high PPI for massive dithering). No criticism of that from me, as that is probably quite a useful and common usage with such a camera. For downsampling, each halving of linear resolution about quadruples the photon count per pixel, and so quadruples the EI at which a given SNR is achieved. So reducing by a linear factor of 16, to about 1MP, could make EI=409,600 tolerable.
-
it is there already - the only difference is the coverage... a6000 pdaf sensels (or rather CFA filters modified for PDAF purposes) cover more space in A6000 than they do in NEX6 or A7... otherwise there is no difference.
Yes, maybe the AF firmware technology is the same, and is ready for 11fps. But for whatever reason the A7 only goes to 6fps (the same as in the A99) whereas the A6000 tracks AF at 11fps.
Could it be that not enough of Sony's full 35mm format lenses can be "slewed" fast enough to keep up with the signals from the new AF system?
Or that Sony has not yet upgraded its focal plane shutter designs in the larger format to handle the higher frame rate, while it now has with the smaller, lighter shutter of the A6000?
-
ISO numbers are getting uncomfortably large, how about starting to use the good old logarithmic DIN again? 400 000 ISO would be 57 DIN, yes?
(edit: ASA changed to DIN… Trying to be too clever at this age...)
ISO numbers are bullsh*t just as Richter scale numbers: I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 people think that ISO 12000 is "a thousand times more light sensitive than ISO 100" and I know for a fact that 10 out of 10 people think that a Richter 10 earthquake is "twice as bad" as a Richter 5 earthquake.
Of course camera makers won't change the metric because it makes them look good: "Oh my god! It's ISO half a million! My old camera could only do 1600 and... now... it's A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER!!!"
-
ISO numbers are bullsh*t just as Richter scale numbers: I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 people think that ISO 12000 is "a thousand times more light sensitive than ISO 100" and I know for a fact that 10 out of 10 people think that a Richter 10 earthquake is "twice as bad" as a Richter 5 earthquake.
Of course camera makers won't change the metric because it makes them look good: "Oh my god! It's ISO half a million! My old camera could only do 1600 and... now... it's A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER!!!"
Well, one million ISO is thousands times more sensitive than 1000 ISO, as ISO uses a linear scale. Twice the sensitivity, twice the number, like from 200 to 400 ISO.
Richeter scale is logarithmic just like DIN sensitivity scale, except that DIN uses deciBels where 3 equals double (0.3 in straight logarithmic units), i.e. the numbers are multiplied by 10 (deci- in metric usage means one tenth). With Richter scale 0.3 is double and 1 is ten times the severity of the quake (basically speaking).
-
Well, one million ISO is thousands times more sensitive than 1000 ISO, as ISO uses a linear scale.
Using an ISO Exposure Index setting on a camera of one million instead of one thousand simply means that:
- In auto-exposure modes, it will choose a shutter speed one thousand times faster (or other equivalent combination of shutter speed and f-stop) so that the sensor receives one thousand time less light, and
- in default conversions to JPEG, a given level of light received by the sensor will be sent to an output brightness level one thousand times higher, to compensate for the above reduction in how much exposure the sensor gets, and so produce appropriate luminance levels in the final output.
This choice of exposure index is unrelated to whether the sensor is more sensitive in the sense of detecting light better, by counting a larger fraction of incoming photons and/or having less dark noise. Of course one expects and hopes that camera makers only increase the maximum ISO EI setting offered in response to improvements in sensor performance, but there is no direct or guaranteed connection.
Sorry to repeat myself, but the "ISO" setting on a camera is a measure of Exposure Index, which is not at all the same thing as the ISO speed of a sensor (or of film), as measured for example by the noise-based ISO standard Snoise40, which requires a SNR of at least 40:1 at mid tones (e.g. on gray card test shot). The ISO speed [Snoise40] of a camera with 7.2 micron pixel pitch and Bayer CFA like the D4s cannot be more than about 400, due to the basic quantum nature of light (Poisson distributed photon shot noise). The more generous measure Snoise10 (SNR of 10:1 at midtones) can be at most about 6400.
For more details on the persistent confusion of the multiple photographic measures with the letters "ISO" in their name, see my rant at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87439.msg711760#msg711760
-
There are many D4s samples at http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310 and some comparisons to D4 images taken side-by-side.
As expected, the 100% pixel view crops fall apart very obviously above about EI=6,400, but "web-sized" JPEGs look better, and fairly good up to EI=25,600 which is as far as the full-image samples go.
-
To carry out the analysis further, I assumed the full well of the D4s to be 100,000 e-, which is a generous guess.
The D4 has a full-well capacity of 120k e-, according to Marianne Oelund's (and others') measurements. I'd assume that D4s is at least that.
One of the ways they achieved this was by using a multiplexed readout. Two adjacent columns share a single readout, thereby reducing the amount of active electronics at the photosite.
-
There are many D4s samples at http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310 and some comparisons to D4 images taken side-by-side.
The problem with those samples is that it appears that the D4s samples have been heavily stepped-on with noise reduction while the D4 samples haven't. The D4s samples all have zero chroma noise, and a lot of smearing, all evidence of heavy noise filtering.
-
The problem with those samples is that it appears that the D4s samples have been heavily stepped-on with noise reduction while the D4 samples haven't. The D4s samples all have zero chroma noise, and a lot of smearing, all evidence of heavy noise filtering.
Agreed … not to mention that a number of the D4s samples seem to be out of focus (or is that just massive NR?). My only tentative conclusion from them is the negative one of confirming EI=6400 as a rough upper limit for images that are usable at full resolution -- with the caveat that due to the signs of heavy NR, the actual practical limit could be lower.
-
Agreed … not to mention that a number of the D4s samples seem to be out of focus (or is that just massive NR?). My only tentative conclusion from them is the negative one of confirming EI=6400 as a rough upper limit for images that are usable at full resolution -- with the caveat that due to the signs of heavy NR, the actual practical limit could be lower.
BJL,
What do you mean by image that "are usable at full resolution"? What output size does that correspond to?
Besides, I am still unclear about the value of debating very poorly captured samples that appear not to even have been optimally focused.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
BJL,
What do you mean by image that "are usable at full resolution"? What output size does that correspond to?
Besides, I am still unclear about the value of debating very poorly captured samples that appear not to even have been optimally focused.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree with the focus issues (which muddy the D4 vs D4s comparisons), but that will not make the noise look worse than with properly focussed images.
Actually, I did some more (still crude) testing, and might accept up to the maximum official ISO speed of 25,600 as giving "decent" results at full 16MP resolution, albeit with the help of significant NR in those JPEG samples.
Roughly what I by mean by "usable at full resolution" is how the 16MP files look at a typical combination of print resolution and viewing distance, like 200 to 300 PPI and 15" (not the nonsense of close scrutiny at 100% on a 125PPI screen).
My two quick and dirty tests on those 100% crop JPEGs are:
1) Display at 100% pixels on my 125PPI monitor, but view from 30": that gives about "3750 pixels per viewing distance", a bit beyond the resolution limit of my less than 20/20 vision, so my eyes are dithering the individual pixels a bit.
2) Display at 50% pixels, so about 250PPI monitor, and view from 15", which is about my minimum focusing distance these days.
Under those conditions, the 100% crops make it fairly clear that by the official maximum ISO exposure index setting of 25,600, there is quite visible noise, even after the heavy NR applied to those JPEGs, and the decline at EI=51,200 and above is obvious.
But this does not bother me! (It is due to fundamental limits of photon physics after all, not of the camera.) That 250PPI gives an image about 20" wide, and there are many cases where a smaller image and thus higher PPI is very useful with low-light photography. At 500PPI (25% on my screen, so downsized so 1232 pixels wide) corresponding to a 10" wide print, up to EI=102400 looks decent enough for many journalistic purposes, and that 1232 pixel wide is plenty for a news website (as opposed to a pixel-peeping website).
-
The D4 has a full-well capacity of 120k e-, according to Marianne Oelund's (and others') measurements.
Thanks; do you have reference for Marianne Oelund's work? I have heard her quoted with approval a number of times.
Of course, deeper wells have no effect on low light, high EI performance; they just lower the base-ISO speed, Ssat.
But the new data do require a slight update of the above calculations. The other useful number is the DXO measurement (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D4---Measurements) of the base-ISO speed of the D4 as 75. This means that at EI of 75, the image of a bra caed or mid-tones gives a signal of 12.7% of that 120,000 full well capacity, or 15,240e-. So at EI=11430, the gray card gives a signal 100e-, and the photon shot noise is sqrt(100) = 10, so the SNR is at best 10:1 (less with any noise added by the camera itself.)
Conclusion: the Snoise10 upper limit of the ISO speed latitude as defined by the ISO is at most 11430.
Pushing on to EI=25,600, the "mid-tone" electron count drops to 45 and the SNR at mid-tones to at best 7:1.
At 409600 it is about 2.8e- per photosite and mid-tone SNR at most 1.7:1.
Emil Martinec has an illustration of what SNR from 1:1 to 8:1 looks like at http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html#SNR-DR
-
Ordered mine!
-
One slight change though: if the exposure index is calibrated as the ISO defines, the mid-tone (image from an 18% gray card) is placed at 12.75% of maximum, not 18%, to allow room for the average reflectivity of a scene being a bit less than 18%.
Your point is well taken, but one does not have to expose according to the light meter reading and leave 0.5 EV of highlight headroom. I chose the 18% figure because that is what DXO uses in their tests.
Regards,
Bill
-
Your point is well taken, but one does not have to expose according to the light meter reading and leave 0.5 EV of highlight headroom. I chose the 18% figure because that is what DXO uses in their tests.
Regards,
Bill
Actually, the traditional 18% reflectivity standard is irrelevant to either the ISO sensor saturation based measure Ssat of minimum safe exposure index or to the DXO measurements of what it [wrongly] calls ISO sensitivity. Those measures are based on the illumination level reaching the sensor from a uniformly illuminated subject like a gray card and how much exposure is needed to send that signal to full well capacity, measures that do not know or care what combination of incident illumination and subject reflectivity are used to deliver that illumination level to the camera.
To quote DXO,
The saturation focal plane exposure Hsat is defined as the exposure (illumination multiplied by exposure time in lux.s) necessary to reach sensor saturation. ISO sensitivity is then defined by Ssat = 78/Hsat
--- http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/ISO-sensitivity
That factor of 78 is what ISO12232 specifies, and it is based on giving the exposure index that sends the uniform illumination level to 12.7% of saturation level, not 18%.
One that is understood, the DXO graph for "ISO sensitivity" show a minima value of 75 for the D4, occurring at EI setting of either 50 or 100, so 75 is the EI at which the light coming from any gray card or metered mid tone level is sent to 12.7% of full well capacity. The rest follows as in my more recent post above (http://ttp://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87570.msg714999#msg714999).
P. S. On the other hand, DXO also publishes graphs of SNR at 18% at various EI settings, but I cannot find their explanation of how those measurements are made: 18% of what? Can you point me to an explanation of those graphs? If one uses those "SNR 18%" graphs, one probably does get an idea of when the SNR for a subject of 18% reflectivity hits SNR thresholds like 20dB which is 10:1 as in the ISO Snoise10 measure of the upper end of the exposure speed latitude. (Of course, to judge low light performance, one should read the actual EI as given by the camera, because that measures how much illumination the sensor is getting in the DXO tests.) Just be aware that this DXO measurement will give a somewhat higher EI value than ISO Snoise10, by a factor of about 18/12.7.
P. P. S. the myth that a typical scene has an average reflectivity of 18% was debunked a long time ago, so there is no half stop "safety factor" or "underexposure" involved in the use of 12.7% in the ISO definition and DXO measurements. Still, measures at 18% are useful for comparisons between cameras.
-
Deception !
Altough slightly better than the D4, it seems to be inferior to the DF and D3S for low light.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D4s-sensor-review-Master-of-Darkness (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D4s-sensor-review-Master-of-Darkness)
Or go directly to the conclusion
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D4s-sensor-review-Master-of-Darkness/Conclusion (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D4s-sensor-review-Master-of-Darkness/Conclusion)
Have Nice Day.
Thierry
-
I tried D4s at maximum ISO, it does make a recognizable picture… Nothing much to e-mail home about (and attach files) , but I guess even a pointillistic picture is better than nothing...
-
Bill Claff is finishing up his measurements:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53278734
-
Bill Claff is finishing up his measurements:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53278734
I wonder what they smoke in DXO… http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D4s-versus-Nikon-Df-versus-Nikon-D4___945_925_767
-
Bill Claff is finishing up his measurements:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53278734
Done! :)
( http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D4,D4S (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D4,D4S) )
-
Done! :)
( http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D4,D4S (http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D4,D4S) )
Thanks Bill!
These data and those from DXO seem to indicate the same conclusion: that improvements in extreme low light, high EI ("ISO") samples from the D4s are primarily due to better NR processing, perhaps in the production of raw files, or just in the raw-JPEG conversions used for the comparisons. (Not that better out-of-the-camera JPEGs aren't a good thing for sports/PJ usage!)
To anyone who has seen evidence of the reported improvements in low-light performance, can you comment on how the files were produced? (E.g. were they in-camera JPEG's or ...)