Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: D800 hyperbole  (Read 39503 times)

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #80 on: March 23, 2012, 03:15:54 pm »

... I consider the RAW image to be an extremely detailed set of notes, and Photoshop a terrific paint brush, figuratively speaking.  ;D

+1

The file or negative scan is just raw material.
The raw must be cooked, means the information which is in it and which you have seen in the scene must be unveiled.
As we know grandmaster AA did a lot of magic stuff in the darkroom - which is photoshop today.

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #81 on: March 23, 2012, 04:49:10 pm »

?



Over the 5DIII see DxO results
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #82 on: March 23, 2012, 04:53:17 pm »

Well for next Christmas I hope the IQ180+ has one of theses sensors in it! Larger of course
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #83 on: March 23, 2012, 05:03:52 pm »

Awhile back I heard via the "grapevine" that Phase "might" be coming out with more "inexpensive" (whatever that means)  CMOS sensor cameras or backs (?) in the future along with their backs with CCD sensors...while this is just hearsay and speculation...I wouldn't be surprised given the advances in CMOS sensors. Eleanor

Well for next Christmas I hope the IQ180+ has one of theses sensors in it! Larger of course
Marc
Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13640
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #84 on: March 23, 2012, 06:22:16 pm »

Just set up this quick comparison between the D2x, D3x and D800:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/792%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/485%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/207%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon

You've got to wonder how some of us managed to shoot with a D2x as little as 5 years ago...  ;) As an example, the following Flickr set Chinese images were shot with a D2x with only 10 stops DR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157594364221841/

So OK, we now have incredibly good sensors, but I feel that we should not over stress the value for our photography more today than we did back then.

For Canon shooters also, what really matters is the abilities of a camera relative to the intended usage. I am sure that the 5DIII will fare very well for most actual usage and deliver results aligned with the needs, just like the D2x was able to deliver excellent images 5 years ago.

Nobody looking at amazing prints shot from a 5DIII file will care about the fact that it was shot with a body that is a bit behind the curve.

If I were a Canon shooter I am not sure I would really consider switching.

Cheers,
Bernard

rickk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #85 on: March 23, 2012, 07:17:52 pm »

Bernard -- Thanks for another reminder of your fine images from Jiuzhaigou and elsewhere in Sichuan.

And I'll second your thoughts about not over stressing the role of the new hardware.

While I am looking forward to using a modern body for my lenses left over from F-mount Kodaks,
there is still plenty of mileage left in the image archives from the 14n, Fuji S2, Canon 10D and original 5D,
not to mention more transparencies than I'll ever get around to scanning.
Reprocessing a lot of old files with the new capabilities in LR4 and ACR7 may be as much fun as a new capture device.

Regards,

Rick
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #86 on: March 24, 2012, 01:32:17 am »

Hi,

My understanding is that there is little difference between CMOS and CCD regarding image quality, it is just different circuit design. The main differences are:

- CMOS has additional electronics in each pixel, making the sensel smaller (advantage CCD). This also means that a CMOS sensor without microlenses has worse fill factor than CCD.
- CMOS can be read out nondestructively, allowing for "correlated double sampling" (advantage CMOS)
- CMOS can have much lower read out noise, D800 advantage in DR comes from this (advantage CMOS)
- CMOS now has useful live view

Color is only affected by the CGA (Color Grid Array) and not by circuit technology.

Most of the advantage Nikon has in DxO mark probably comes from the low readout noise, that really helps dynamic range but also high ISO.

Canon seems to have some issues with their CMOS sensors, readout noise is quite high and they seem to have worse noise characteristic than Nkon. It seems that Nikon simply cuts away some noise, while Canon is less aggressive, making Canon better for some astronomic work.

The Nikon D800 sensor is developed and made by Sony. Most of the advantage is coming from Sony's design with an ADC (Analog Digital Converter) for each column of the sensor.

In my view and experience DR may be a bit overrated. I never had problems with lack of DR on any of my cameras. Also, all the advantage in DR is in the shadows. Highlight DR is same on all cameras, except if they under expose intentionally. Fujifilm has some technologies to extend highlight DR, by having extra pixels assigned for highlight.

My guess is that MF digital has advantages in three areas:

- A larger sensor can collect more photons, always an advantage. Shot noise is reduced. Helps with DR but not that much (around one stop).
- The lenses are less stressed for MTF. MTF for an ideal lens drops almost linearly with pixel size, so larger pixels mean better MTF
- The CGA may have better characteristics, especially if it is designed without much concern for high ISO

Best regards
Erik


Forgive my ignorance here.... but how can this new Nikon CMOS sensor out perform a medium format CCD sensor like that in the IQ180 which is supposed to have "better ?" pixels??  I'm really curious, being the owner of the Phase P65+, which it also beat in the new DXO tests... I'm wondering if the D800 and D800e will have creamy smooth files at base iso like medium format sensors too.....thanks, Eleanor

« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 07:03:35 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #87 on: March 24, 2012, 11:12:03 am »

Thanks Erik...and one more question...when comparing my Leica M9 and Sony NEX7 both at base iso and both with same Leica lens...50 lux....the M9 files have that smooth look all over the file, including mid tones.  The Sony files have a slightly " grainy" look at 100 percent.  Because of this I would choose to shoot landscape with my 18 megapixel Leica over my NEX7 with 24 mp ...both using Leica lenses.  Is this difference a ccd vs. CMOS issue!  Thanks! Eleanor


Hi,

My understanding is that there is little difference between CMOS and CCD regarding image quality, it is just different circuit design. The main differences are:

- CMOS has additional electronics in each pixel, making the sensel smaller (advantage CCD). This also means that a CMOS sensor without microlenses has worse fill factor than CCD.
- CMOS can be read out nondestructively, allowing for "correlated double sampling" (advantage CMOS)
- CMOS can have much lower read out noise, D800 advantage in DR comes from this (advantage CMOS)
- CMOS now has useful live view

Color is only affected by the CGA (Color Grid Array) and not by circuit technology.

Most of the advantage Nikon has in DxO mark probably comes from the low readout noise, that really helps dynamic range but also high ISO.

Canon seems to have some issues with their CMOS sensors, readout noise is quite high and they seem to have worse noise characteristic than Nkon. It seems that Nikon simply cuts away some noise, while Canon is less aggressive, making Canon better for some astronomic work.

The Nikon D800 sensor is developed and made by Sony. Most of the advantage is coming from Sony's design with an ADC (Analog Digital Converter) for each column of the sensor.

In my view and experience DR may be a bit overrated. I never had problems with lack of DR on any of my cameras. Also, all the advantage in DR is in the shadows. Highlight DR is same on all cameras, except if they under expose intentionally. Fujifilm has some technologies to extend highlight DR, by having extra pixels assigned for highlight.

My guess is that MF digital has advantages in three areas:

- A larger sensor can collect more photons, always an advantage. Shot noise is reduced. Helps with DR but not that much (around one stop).
- The lenses are less stressed for MTF. MTF for an ideal lens drops almost linearly with pixel size, so larger pixels mean better MTF
- The CGA may have better characteristics, especially if it is designed without much concern for high ISO

Best regards
Erik


Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

billh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #88 on: March 24, 2012, 11:39:24 am »

D800-800E comparison

Roll your cursor over the image to change from D800 to D800E

http://julian.marmotandweasel.com/photos/d800-d800e_test.html
Logged

nairb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #89 on: March 24, 2012, 12:46:19 pm »

Wow. It's going to be so nice to not feel like I need to rub my eyes when processing files anymore.
Logged

Michael LS

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
    • http://michaelshafitz.zenfolio.com/
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #90 on: March 24, 2012, 02:02:11 pm »

Scenario:
"Somewhere, deep inside Canon "skunkworks", a place so secret, even the
people who work there don't know it exists, a 48mp, no AA filter Ultra-Sensor
is being readied to reclaim "Top Dog" status in the full frame dslr world."

Well, probably. Anyway, for now, this is the Nikon shooter's day in the sun. We
shall enjoy it, as "all glory is fleeting", especially in the technology world that
is a never-ending creative destruction force. Besides, increasingly, the
line between "Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/etc/etc shooter" is becoming faded,
as photographers are buying into more than one system. It's all good...really
good, even if somewhat disconcerting as to where value and necessity lay.
But yes, undeniably Fun  ;)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 02:05:30 pm by Michael LS »
Logged
[url=http://michaelshafitz.zenfolio.com/

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #91 on: March 24, 2012, 05:46:29 pm »

Eleanor,

I don't know. Two observations I have is that the Leica has a larger sensor, so it will collect more photons. Most of the noise we see is coming from statistical distribution of noise, it's normally called shot noise. Doubling sensor area should reduce noise by about 40 percent. My guess is that shot noise on Leica at 100 ISO would correspond to shot noise on NEX-7 at 50 ISO.

The other issue is that Leica doesn't have AA-filter while the NEX-7 has AA-filter. So the NEX needs more sharpening, that also increases noise.

Not much, but this is the explanations I can come up with.

The enclosed diagram from DXO-mark shows about one stop advantage of M9 over NEX-7.


Best regards
Erik


Thanks Erik...and one more question...when comparing my Leica M9 and Sony NEX7 both at base iso and both with same Leica lens...50 lux....the M9 files have that smooth look all over the file, including mid tones.  The Sony files have a slightly " grainy" look at 100 percent.  Because of this I would choose to shoot landscape with my 18 megapixel Leica over my NEX7 with 24 mp ...both using Leica lenses.  Is this difference a ccd vs. CMOS issue!  Thanks! Eleanor


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #92 on: March 24, 2012, 06:36:48 pm »

Thanks for this very helpful explanation Erik.  All makes sense!  Now I'm wondering if the new Nikon D800e will have creamy smooth files at the base iso...similar to the M9??  Guess time will tell! Eleanor


Eleanor,

I don't know. Two observations I have is that the Leica has a larger sensor, so it will collect more photons. Most of the noise we see is coming from statistical distribution of noise, it's normally called shot noise. Doubling sensor area should reduce noise by about 40 percent. My guess is that shot noise on Leica at 100 ISO would correspond to shot noise on NEX-7 at 50 ISO.

The other issue is that Leica doesn't have AA-filter while the NEX-7 has AA-filter. So the NEX needs more sharpening, that also increases noise.

Not much, but this is the explanations I can come up with.

The enclosed diagram from DXO-mark shows about one stop advantage of M9 over NEX-7.


Best regards
Erik


Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #93 on: March 25, 2012, 03:37:51 am »

I'm not completely sure, but I could imagine the "game changer" properties of these new high-res DSLRs might on the long run even change the mind of a filmosaurus like me. But its not only about resolution, noise, color depth and low ISO or overall technical IQ.
Its also about the overall style of the rendering of the world by such systems and the change in shooting style. My biggest concern is if and if yes -how- digital will change or even corrupt me as the kind of photographer I want to be.
I think I'll loan a D800 some time this year along with some Zeiss glass and do the testing for myself. I'll also definitely try some MFDB system before I'll do the switch to full digital.
Its pretty much clear that we are living in terrific times with a lot of choice and possibilities of how we want to work. But with the freedom of choice comes the burden of responsibility and the endless possibilities to screw up.
Exciting!

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #94 on: March 25, 2012, 08:09:56 am »

Over on Nikongear, Sten Rasmussen has had the opportunity to shoot the Nikon D800 versus the 5DMkIII using the same Nikon lens. While the Nikon seems better, the Canon is no slouch. He is shooting under conditions which really push a sensor - at night and sunrise. It's an on-going test so check it out.

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #95 on: March 25, 2012, 10:15:50 am »

Digital made me a better film photographer  ;)
Back to the Nikon interesting no doubt and surely a big seller for them. I've gone past being tired of the megapixel discussions they are tedious and almost irrelevant to most photographers. You certainly had reason to complain back in ye early digital days gasp all of 2 megapixels which was a bit of a joke really. You can be certain that for some people out there 36 megapixels won't be enough  ::)
Clearly there is a sales pitch that continues to this day and I'm surprised how many get suckered into it, no doubt the camera makers are loving every minute of it!

For the rest of us it's like using a flame thrower to "take out" a house fly, it's a tad over the top to say the least. I'm sure someone will take a fisheye lens shot and try to crop it to a 500mm one, or compare pixel peeping v various MF cameras etc. In a few years time folks will declare the mp wars are over when we hit 50mp, then someone will tell us we're missing out on all that resolution that 100mp offers.

Sorry to be the super sceptic that I am well known for. I used to get asked once in a while why I shoot 35mm film or APS-C digital for landscapes and not MF or FF DSLR's it's simply a case of "what you needs/want/want to carry/price etc" Great images happen even if they're not super high res. These discussions are merely distractions from what we should be doing, which is worrying about what we take pictures of, and a lot less about what we use to take pictures!

I'm guilty of wasting time in forums as much as most are, it's threads like this that remind me it's time to just "go out" and actually take some pictures, and I'm going to use my cheapest junky kit lens so that when I run into an American tourist with a big Canon full frame DSLR and L lenses :)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 10:20:58 am by barryfitzgerald »
Logged

David Hufford

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #96 on: March 25, 2012, 10:47:14 am »

.....In a few years time folks will declare the mp wars are over when we hit 50mp, then someone will tell us we're missing out on all that resolution that 100mp offers....

Until a man can count the hairs on a gnat's ass at 900 yards in the middle of a moonless night, we will never have enough resolution or low light performance.   ;D
Logged
*Never fall in love with anything that c

daws

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 282
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #97 on: March 25, 2012, 03:42:21 pm »

Until a man can count the hairs on a gnat's ass at 900 yards in the middle of a moonless night, we will never have enough resolution or low light performance.   ;D

Two words: shaved gnats.
Logged

alban

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #98 on: March 25, 2012, 04:33:23 pm »

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13640
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: D800 hyperbole
« Reply #99 on: March 25, 2012, 07:31:37 pm »

I mentioned above a comparison between the DxOMark scores of the D800 and D2x and marveled at the fact that we were already able to take exhibition grade images with the D2x back then although it did have clear DR and high ISO shortcomings.

I did another pass, comparing this time the D2x with the J1... to find out that they basically deliver near identical levels of performance... with the J1 providing a lot more DoF everything else being equal. If I were to stick to my 2007 views of the world, I would have no choice but to call the J1 the ultimate landscape camera.  ;)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/744%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/207%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon

We do live in a wonderful period of photographic evolution, do we not?

Cheers,
Bernard
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up