new DxOmark test results

[theguywitha645d]

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?

[ejmartin]

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.

[EricWHiss]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[bclaff]

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


Bill

[ejmartin]

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.

[bclaff]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

Hmmm, I seem to recall that Emil does know his way around a camera.
Emil's Image Galleries

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.  

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

[deejjjaaaa]

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)...

[deejjjaaaa]

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...

[torger]

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.

[ejmartin]

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+.

[david distefano]

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?