 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Nikon D200 versus Canon 30D, one question
For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D is no D200 or even comparable. -Rich Anyone can buy a hammer but not everyone can build a house. Ergo for 99.9% of photographers their photographic results will not differ at all were they able to obtain either one of these excellent cameras. >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting >made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D >is no D200 or even comparable. True Rich, the 30D has much less noise at high ISO's than does the D200 and provides a migration path to the 5D and all the benefits of full frame. ***************************************************** "Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods." Tim Page in "Dispatches" by Michael Herr >>For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >>Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > D200 and provides a migration path to the 5D and all the benefits of > full frame. And the failings? >>For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >>Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >D200 and provides a migration path to the 5D and all the benefits of >full frame. Maybe the 30D it better when it comes to noise over D200, but I would not use the term "much", because it's not. And the noise is now a bit different: The Canon have more color-noise, and the Nikon have more noise in the luminance, resembling grany B&W. I'm shooting a lot if high ISO pics (as a concert photog), and I say that people who always discussing noise between DSLRs are missing the point. There is NO problem with the new DSLR concerning high ISO when it comes to practical use. The little difference is leveled in post-processing anyway. And you can't discuss noise with people that have just read the test shootings and graphs on dpreview.com. It's just numbers. Regards, -espen http://www.seland.org/  Signaturehttp://www.seland.org/ >Maybe the 30D it better when it comes to noise over D200, but I would >not use the term "much", because it's not. It's very easy to manipulate the apparent level of noise in a well-exposed image, or with noise-reduction. Two cameras could have noise that doesn't look all that much different, and the difference becomes greater as you under-expose (push) them. >And the noise is now a bit >different: The Canon have more color-noise, and the Nikon have more >noise in the luminance, resembling grany B&W. Noise doesn't have any color in the RAW capture. It only has color when a RAW converter gives it color. Any differences in chromaticity come from the converter (and are determined as well by the WB). >I'm shooting a lot if high ISO pics (as a concert photog), and I say >that people who always discussing noise between DSLRs are missing the >point. There is NO problem with the new DSLR concerning high ISO when >it comes to practical use. The little difference is leveled in >post-processing anyway. Then details are leveled, too. Noise reduction reduces image, too. >And you can't discuss noise with people that have just read the test >shootings and graphs on dpreview.com. It's just numbers. True, but I can push my 20D shots to ISOs in the millions and still see some gross image detail. Nobody even talks about stuff like this with other cameras. I'll assume, until I see the same from other cameras, that it isn't happening there. And frankly, Nikon does not include the data in the RAW files that canon does to help push images, like the black pixels, and the blackpoint offsets in the RAW data. Canon JPEGs tend to have poorly rendered shadows, with a green swiss-cheese cast over them, if boosted. This does not exist in the RAW data. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > True, but I can push my 20D shots to ISOs in the millions and still see > some gross image detail. Nobody even talks about stuff like this with > other cameras. I'll assume, until I see the same from other cameras, > that it isn't happening there. You're the only person I've ever seen describe performing such a test, or express an interest in doing it, so a plausible alternative explanation for why you've not seen it is simply that no one has tried it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >You're the only person I've ever seen describe performing such a test, or >express an interest in doing it, so a plausible alternative explanation >for why you've not seen it is simply that no one has tried it. Are you one of those people who only does their photography where there is light? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> You're the only person I've ever seen describe performing such a test, or >> express an interest in doing it, so a plausible alternative explanation >> for why you've not seen it is simply that no one has tried it. > > Are you one of those people who only does their photography where there > is light? Typically, yes, or else where I can provide some. I prefer not to underexpose. It's never occurred to me to see what things look like if I underexpose by 5 stops or whatever; it has no real relevance to me. If you'd like, I can shoot a Macbeth chart grossly underexposed for you and provide a link to the D2x raw file. It doesn't seem very interesting to me, but you've come up with some pretty interesting stuff before, so hey, whatever. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Maybe the 30D it better when it comes to noise over D200, but I would >>not use the term "much", because it's not. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >other cameras. I'll assume, until I see the same from other cameras, >that it isn't happening there. That is interesting. How many stops underexposed can you go with a scene of normal contrast before you can't derive any image from it? Is it the same for all ISOs? The most I could do with a P&S with a 2/3rds CCD was 9 stops under. At that point, the image looked like what you described the Canon's as-greenish, seeming to be made up of just a few thousand pixels that happened to "turn on." -Rich >That is interesting. How many stops underexposed can you go with >a scene of normal contrast before you can't derive any image from it? That depends on what you want to see. Fine detail disappears pretty quickly. Large B&W text, binned to greyscale, de-banded a bit, and downsampled, I can read to about ISO 4,000,000. At 16,000,000, I can see that there is text, but I can't read it, as banding artifacts have as much amplitude as the B&W text. For an image of a bird, acceptable results max out at about ISO 40,000 in color. I have to do the RAW conversion somewhat manually for this, though. The camera's JPEGs are useless at those levels, and the RAW converters all seem to treat the shadows as a footstool for the image. >Is it the same for all ISOs? The amount of under-exposure possible at all ISOs on the 20D is hard to exactly quantify, as the "noise floor" has different characteristics at different ends of the ISO scale. The bottom of ISO 1600 is better to look at to me, because the noise at ISO 100, relative to the max unclipped signal, is blotchier (lower frequency). It is only about 45% of the standard deviation of ISO 1600 noise, but it is mostly readout noise, whereas ISO 1600 is mostly photon shot noise (other than the banding and obligatory quantization). Quantization takes a greater toll in ISO 100 shadows, as it shifts blotchy noise by up to 1/2 a RAW value, while at ISO 1600, the shot noise gets quantized on a more pixel-to-pixel basis and is less prominent. Extreme ISO 100 under-exposure is really pointless with the 20D (if you don't need the headroom for unclipped light sources), because ISO 1600 actually renders the bottom 1/16 of the sensor's dynamic range orders of magnitude cleaner than ISO 100 does. ISO 1600 has the highest *absolute-signal* to noise ratio, 7x better than ISO 100, pushed to the same exposure index (not even counting the posterization). If that type of cleanliness were possible in a 16-bit ISO 100 readout, the camera would be capable of taking single pictures with tremendous DR. >The most I could do with a P&S with a >2/3rds CCD was 9 stops under. At that point, the image looked like >what you described the Canon's as-greenish, seeming to be made up >of just a few thousand pixels that happened to "turn on." That sounds like the blackpoint is a bit high. One benefit of Canon RAW data is that they do not blackpoint it before writing; the blackpoint is in the metadata. That means that you can blackpoint it wherever you want, and you can downsample or bin the RAW image before clipping the bottom, making the noise average closer to true black than with cameras that clip at the blackpoint (all data is greater than or equal to 0; and half of all blackframe pixels will be 0 if clipped at the true blackpoint, even more if it is raised), which result in a bottom that intrudes slightly into the lower end of the signal's DR. I've done a few stops under with my Sony F707 at ISO 400; very noisy, but cleans up a bit with median filtering and then downsampling. I don't think I ever really gave a good look at its ISO 100's bottom end. Now that the subject has come up, I'll give it a try. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>That is interesting. How many stops underexposed can you go with >>a scene of normal contrast before you can't derive any image from it? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >as much amplitude as the B&W text. For an image of a bird, acceptable >results max out at about ISO 40,000 in color. Do you have these million+ ISO images posted anywhere? I've seen some high ones before, but not that high. -Rich >>>That is interesting. How many stops underexposed can you go with >>>a scene of normal contrast before you can't derive any image from it? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Do you have these million+ ISO images posted anywhere? I've seen some >high ones before, but not that high. The millions ones are not pretty, and I am still perfecting my de-banding process. I'll find the one of the ISO 40,000 bird and link to it, when I find it on my other computer. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>That is interesting. How many stops underexposed can you go with >>>>a scene of normal contrast before you can't derive any image from it? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >de-banding process. I'll find the one of the ISO 40,000 bird and link >to it, when I find it on my other computer. And you're using IRIS to do the work on these? -Rich >And you're using IRIS to do the work on these? I use IRIS partly, but it really doesn't have most of the conventional editing tools, so much of the work has to be done in PS with layers, etc. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>And you're using IRIS to do the work on these? > > I use IRIS partly, but it really doesn't have most of the conventional > editing tools, so much of the work has to be done in PS with layers, > etc. I downloaded Iris since you mentioned it a while back. Not an intuitive program. http://astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm scroll down to tutorials, most of those seem to have to do with compiling multiple images & abstruse noise reduction techniques... that could be useful but it's hard to even just open a file correctly. Any clue how to use this thing are welcome. > >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > D200 and provides a migration path to the 5D and all the benefits of > full frame. Whatever those benefits supposedly are. The 30D does not have much less noise nor has any reviewer said so. In fact, most reviewers have not had a chance to do much testing on the 30D at all. So far, the 30D is vaporware. There have been a few samples exhibited at shows, but there are none for sale yet. The D200 has far more features than the 30D, is better built, and has higher resolution. It is the primary reason that the price of the 5D has been dropping like a stone. Any reviewer who has seen both cameras says that the 30D cannot possibly compete with the D200. This is not to say that the 30D probably will not be a good camera. If you already have a bunch of Canon lenses it probably is not a good idea to go switching to Nikon. Nevertheless, the 30D is probably not a viable competitor for the D200. As for a migration path to the 5D, why not just get 5D if that is what you want? What, it will be cheaper to buy a 30D first? >> >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >As for a migration path to the 5D, why not just get 5D if that is what >you want? What, it will be cheaper to buy a 30D first? The odd thing is that the Canonites were complaining (when it was first announced) that it was just a mildly warmed over 20D. Its like the D70s compared to the D70. Though you could probably make the case that the spotmeter alone is worth the $300 premium over the 20D. -Rich In article <1142916673.632854.162580@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, cjcampbell wrote: >> >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 30D at all. So far, the 30D is vaporware. There have been a few samples > exhibited at shows, but there are none for sale yet. Huh? There certainly are 30Ds on sale. The US was the last market to get them, they have been on sale in Aus for quite some time, and are certainly available in the UK. > For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting > made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D > is no D200 or even comparable. > -Rich Well then I guess your mind is made up and you are going to buy the D200? Let us know when you get it. Scott >> For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Scott Reading not a strong suit, huh? > > For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > > Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Let us know when you get it. I got mine last night. Whee! (I've been shooting a Fuji S2, and had Nikon film gear, so it was an easy choice for me). For those trying to get a D200 and frustrated by camera store waiting lists -- check the Best Buy web site. Find the D200, and look for "Select preferred store availability" in the gray box to the left. Enter your zip code, and it will show you which Best Buy stores have a D200 in them. I notice this morning that the store I bought from last night no longer has one :-). (They had another one when I left). I wouldn't recommend Best Buy as a camera store generally, but their D200 is a legit American version of the camera with full Nikon warranty, so what's to not like? SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > For those trying to get a D200 and frustrated by camera store waiting > lists -- check the Best Buy web site. Find the D200, and look for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > D200 is a legit American version of the camera with full Nikon > warranty, so what's to not like? I tried exactly that approach a while back when I was looking to buy a D70. I had reservations about Best Buy, since they are practically the dictionary definition of "suck", but I figured, why not? So I looked up which stores had them in stock, and found one not all that far away (in suburban terms, that means about an hour's drive). Went there. Stood there wandering around for over half an hour trying to get some employee to help me. Saw no sign of a D70. Finally a guy stopped long enough to help me, though he made it clear from the start that I was bothering him. He had never heard of a Nikon D70. Had no idea what it was, or what an SLR might be, but suggested that I had been misled, as he knew all about digital cameras and there was no such thing as a D70 or an SLR. He suggested that I look at one of the P&S models, and said that all the best cameras were on display and that if I didn't see it there, it's because it's not as good. I asked if he could look up the D70 on the computer to see if they had one. He refused, saying that there was no such thing and that I should look at the good cameras on the display shelf. Then he left, clearly annoyed with me for wasting his time. I knew I shouldn't have bothered. Best Buy sucks, and any store where you have to deal with salespeople for any purpose other than giving them money and getting your product sucks. Salespeople suck. Stores are dead; long live the internet. I got the camera from Amazon the following week. (B&H still didn't have any.) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting > made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D > is no D200 or even comparable. Check back when you actually own a camera and have extensively used it. Give us a break, Rich. You are now way beyond "tiresome" with your goofy posts. >> For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Give us a break, Rich. You are now way beyond "tiresome" with your goofy >posts. And yet you read it anyway. >>For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >>Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Give us a break, Rich. You are now way beyond "tiresome" with your goofy > posts. Amen. Yet he can count on a few newbies biting, as well as the usual suspects. Have to hand it to him, tho; same old troll trotted out in new clothes, continues to get strikes: hook, line and ......... C'mon, folks, bring back Orville if we can't do better than this! SignatureJohn McWilliams > >>For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > >>Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > C'mon, folks, bring back Orville if we can't do better than this! Trouble is, he is sometimes right. I really cannot see any reason for preferring a 30D unless you already have a bunch of Canon glass. As for avoiding Rich, I am unfortunately stuck with Google Groups while I am in the Philippines, so I have no kill file ability or any of the other niceties of a good news group reader. And Google only shows who last replied to the thread, not who started it. > >>For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > >>Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > C'mon, folks, bring back Orville if we can't do better than this! On second thought, Rich can't really be any worse than all the nuts who replied with claims that the 30D produces better pictures than the D200, despite the fact that they have never seen a picture taken with a 30D. So, we have camera-less Rich arguing with camera-less 30D owners. It is high comedy. >On second thought, Rich can't really be any worse than all the nuts who >replied with claims that the 30D produces better pictures than the >D200, despite the fact that they have never seen a picture taken with a >30D. Maybe that's because Canon has stated that the 30D is exactly equivalent to the 20D as far as imaging is concerned. Same sensor; same readout. It's just a 20D with more features. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>On second thought, Rich can't really be any worse than all the nuts who >>replied with claims that the 30D produces better pictures than the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to the 20D as far as imaging is concerned. Same sensor; same readout. >It's just a 20D with more features. Its inclusion of a spot meter makes the effort worthwhile, IMO. Plus, larger LCD (although looking at these 2.5"+ things makes me a bit uncomfortable, they are just a bigger target for damage). Popular Photography outlined the changes: -Larger rear lcd 2.5" instead of 1.8" -Better shutter, good for 100k shots -True spotmeter 3.5% -Faster startup -Error message diagnostic advice -Direct print button (who uses this stuff?) -Picture styles (yuck! P&S rubbish) Faithful, portrait, landscape) -ISO can be set in 1/3 increments -File management folder can hold 9999 images -RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs >-RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs Well, that would be (JPEG) renders; not a whole lot to do with exposure per se. Only a RAW RGB histogram would show exposure. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> -RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs > > Well, that would be (JPEG) renders; not a whole lot to do with exposure > per se. Only a RAW RGB histogram would show exposure. I've been wondering how many hostages we'd have to take to get Nikon and Canon to add that. It's really long past time we should have it. Do the manufacturers really think we're buying these cameras and then shooting JPEGs? Give me that, and a proper focusing screen, and I'll be happy for quite a while yet. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >I've been wondering how many hostages we'd have to take to get Nikon and >Canon to add that. It's really long past time we should have it. Do >the manufacturers really think we're buying these cameras and then >shooting JPEGs? I don't know if they'd even understand the usefulness. Their minds are engrained in film emulsion, I think. Canon's RAW converters don't even recognize that there are greyscale highlights in the red channel still, when the green clips. I don't suppose they'd figure out they need a RAW RGB histogram, and that it shouldn't be white balanced, all in one decade? They'd probably put the mono-luminance histogram from DPP on the back of the camera, as a first step. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>-RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs > >Well, that would be (JPEG) renders; not a whole lot to do with exposure >per se. Only a RAW RGB histogram would show exposure. Can you explain how that will work? You have to convert raw into "something" to present it in a display histogram. -espen Signaturehttp://www.seland.org/ > >>-RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can you explain how that will work? You have to convert raw into > "something" to present it in a display histogram. Not so, there are four channels coming from the CCD, two are close to the same as so could be combined as one (the two green channels) It is this raw data that we really don't want to clip and Iit would be very easy to show a histogram of it. Scott >> >>-RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >data that we really don't want to clip and Iit would be very easy to >show a histogram of it. Ok, I see now. But I don't think the raw vs jpeg histograms would be much of a difference. -espen Signaturehttp://www.seland.org/ > Ok, I see now. But I don't think the raw vs jpeg histograms would be > much of a difference. The JPEG can clip when you have more than a full stop of actual headroom in the raw data, so it could be a pretty significant difference. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Ok, I see now. But I don't think the raw vs jpeg histograms would be > much of a difference. There could be due to the color depth of RAW being 12-bit and the JPEG depth being 8-bit. Further, RAW would have no color-profile selected, at least, I would hope it wouldn't affect the histogram. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >Ok, I see now. But I don't think the raw vs jpeg histograms would be >much of a difference. You'd be surprised how much different they could be. First of all, the native WB of digitals is not white light; not even close. The natural light balance is typically 2x red, 1 part green, and 1.5x parts blue, in the real world, to make white, in the RAW data. A white object shot under the syun is cyan-ish blue int he RAW data, a magenta object in white light, or a white object in magenta light is white in the RAW data (R=G=B). This means that RAW converters, including the JPEG engines in the cameras, multiply red by about 2x in the RAW data, and blue by 1.5x, and throw away (clip) any highlights from the red, green and blue that go higher than about 1 stop below the maximum value for green, if the camera is set to normal contrast for JPEGs. That means that the red channel generally clips about 2 stops lower in the JPEG, the green one stop lower, and blue, 1.5 stops lower. That is for daylight; for tungsten blue loses more; for deep shade, red loses more. In addition to this, the color filters in the camera do not separate colors exactly into RGB as we know them; many colors come out very unsaturated in the capture, and their saturations are boosted in the conversion process, multiplying and clipping the channels even further. It is quite possible that a red flower that clips in the JPEG, which might make one take the next shot at a lower exposure, could have actually been shot 2 stops higher without clipping the RAW data. The difference can literally be tremendous. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Only a RAW RGB histogram would show exposure. > > Can you explain how that will work? You have to convert raw into > "something" to present it in a display histogram. No... you have to convert it into something to display the image review, but a histogram could be made from the raw data almost as easily as from a JPEG. You just have to deal with having two green channels, and normalize the data from linear into something more meaningful to us. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>-RGB histogram for individual colour channel exposurs >>Well, that would be (JPEG) renders; not a whole lot to do with exposure >>per se. Only a RAW RGB histogram would show exposure. >Can you explain how that will work? You have to convert raw into >"something" to present it in a display histogram. Except for the fact that RAW data only has one color channel for each pixel (with Bayer cameras, of course), RAW data is still very much an image. It is a bit awkward looking, as is, because the differing sensitivities of the channels, and differing colors of the subjects cause a checker-like pattern. A non-RGB, greyscale RAW histogram could be taken directly from the greyscale RAW image. Using it for a review image is probably not a good idea, though. The independent positions of a bayer matrix can be represented as 4 separate images with 1/4 the total MPs; 1 red, 2 green, and 1 blue. From these, you can generate an RGB histogram easily. The review image could be the JPEG for all I care, but it should only flash where the *RAW* data is clipping. and should probably flash alternating between black and white, magenta, cyan, yell, red, green, or blue, to show which channels are clipping in that spot (so you can change light color, as well as EC, to perfect the next exposure). Of course, if the review image were white-balanced, but still linear, it would be a lot easier to see if the image were under-exposed, because under-exposure is much more dramatic without the gamma adjustment. It would not be as convenient, however, for reviewing the composition. Of course, a button that cycled through the modes could do everything. So, in summary, what I'd like to see is a true RAW RGB histogram with no white-balance applied, just the RAW data, perhaps with the blackpoint already subtracted to avoid confusion and make better use of the LCD space (this is already subtracted in the RAW data of some cameras). The Review could be the JPEG, but the flashing should represent real RAW clipping, not JPEG clipping. A highlight could clip in a JPEG that is still 2 to 3 stops away from clipping in the RAW data (like a red flower in cool lighting). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting > made are idiotic. And, yet, you're making them. Very telling. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting > made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D > is no D200 or even comparable. Uh, but it does produce nicer images. No, it isn't weatherproof. But shoot a few high ISO pix and get back to me. Not that the D200 is bad; it's quite nice. But they are comparable cameras. And if you want access to some very nice smal and light pro quality lenses, like the 70-200 F4 L, then you only have one choice. And if you ever do want to go FF, well, you know... > -Rich >> For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> -Rich Leica lenses? >> For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> -Rich No one actually wants to "go FF", you know.... They buy the camera that does what they need it to do, like MF, you know ..... or P&S or whatever, thats why any arguement about sensor size is down right ridiculous, everyone should buy the camera that does what they "need", if that is FF then fine, if that is a tiny weeny P&S then that is fine too. Do you get it now? Sure needs may change later on but by then we will all want LF-SLR or not?? snipped >No one actually wants to "go FF", you know.... They buy the camera that does >what they need it to do, like MF, you know ..... or P&S or whatever, thats >why any arguement about sensor size is down right ridiculous, everyone >should buy the camera that does what they "need", if that is FF then fine, >if that is a tiny weeny P&S then that is fine too. Do you get it now? Sure >needs may change later on but by then we will all want LF-SLR or not?? Wrong. I bought my first dSLR (20D) planning to go full frame even before I got it. That was why I picked Canon. Canon had full frame in it's line as was committed to it. I never wasted money on EF-S lenses and except for 2 lenses bought nothing but L glass. I got a 5D several months ago. The 20D was just a stop gap and learning tool for a cheaper FF from Canon. Why I knew I wanted full frame? I want lenses to behave as the focal length stated. Some of us thing beyond, just what we need to do. ***************************************************** "Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods." Tim Page in "Dispatches" by Michael Herr > Why I knew I wanted full frame? I want lenses to behave as the focal > length stated. > > Some of us thing beyond, just what we need to do. and some of us just use MF, where 50mm is wide lens. B. > > Why I knew I wanted full frame? I want lenses to behave as the focal > > length stated. > > > > Some of us thing beyond, just what we need to do. > > and some of us just use MF, where 50mm is wide lens. I think you have missed the point. There are a lot of lenses for 35mm cameras that are designed for a 35mm sized image, big surprise there. If you have a FF camera then you are using the lens as intended. Scott They were designed for film. Some seem to work find with FF digital, others apparently do not. >> and some of us just use MF, where 50mm is wide lens. > I think you have missed the point. There are a lot of lenses for 35mm > cameras that are designed for a 35mm sized image, big surprise there. > If you have a FF camera then you are using the lens as intended. no, you aren't. And it especially applies to wide lenses. B. >>> For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >>> Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it now? Sure needs may change later on but by then we will all want LF-SLR > or not?? OK, first the definition: FF means a sensor designed to match the size a typical 24 x 36mm piece of film, and a sensor that takes full advantage of all those lenses, flashes, and accessories that were designed and built over the last several decades around that format. Secondly, if FF sensors had appeared first, would anyone opt, voluntarily for a smaller sensor? The argument over sensor size is not ridiculous, and it is pretty much the same as an argument over film size. More film=greater image quality, same, in general, for sensors. If what you say is true, then APS film should have ruled the world. >>>> For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >>>> Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > in general, for sensors. If what you say is true, then APS film should > have ruled the world. If what you say is true then you would be using a large format digital. People will still buy what will do the job for them, I personally have no need for LF, MF or even FF but an APS-C sized D-SLR and a 5MP P&S meet my needs. >OK, first the definition: FF means a sensor designed to match the size a >typical 24 x 36mm piece of film, and a sensor that takes full advantage of >all those lenses, flashes, and accessories that were designed and built over >the last several decades around that format. You are right that my wide angles are designed for fullframe 35mm. Anything else (normal and telelenses, flashes and other accessories) don't know anything about the difference between DX and fullframe. Oh, yes, the F100 screen in my D1 is a little bit different from the D1 screen. Big deal. >Secondly, if FF sensors had >appeared first, would anyone opt, voluntarily for a smaller sensor? Of course. Given the choice between a $3000 5D and a $1200 30D, do you really expect everybody to go out and buy the 5D while ignoring the 30D? Without the 350D and the 30D, the 5D would Canon's entry level DSLR. Do you really think that nobody would start making DSLRs that cost less than $3000 even if it means a smaller sized sensor? >The >argument over sensor size is not ridiculous, and it is pretty much the same >as an argument over film size. More film=greater image quality, same, in >general, for sensors. If what you say is true, then APS film should have >ruled the world. No, there is a trade-off. Smaller sizes are cheaper and more convenient, but offer less quality. For film, 35mm is the smallest general purpose format. For digital DSLRs it is either 4/3 or APS-C. Digital compacts have even smaller sensors. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Secondly, if FF sensors had appeared first, would anyone opt, voluntarily > for a smaller sensor? The argument over sensor size is not ridiculous, > and it is pretty much the same as an argument over film size. More film= > greater image quality, same, in general, for sensors. If what you say is > true, then APS film should have ruled the world. I can't believe you would use that crappy little toy of a 24x36 sensor instead of a real man's medium format one. I mean, why settle? Those absurd tiny 35mm-format sensors will always be lame by comparison. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com lower noise and resolution? According to some, even the 5D doesn't match the D200s resolution. So I guess you have to make a choice as to which camera attribute is most important. As for FF, well, you'll be buying another body in either case and Nikon is still making SLR lenses, just like Canon. > lower noise and resolution? According to some, even the 5D doesn't > match [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > body in either case and Nikon is still making SLR lenses, just like > Canon. According to who? The resolution tests I've seen published show the 5D to have more resolution and lower noise than the D200. Can you point to a source that contradicts that statement? >> lower noise and resolution? According to some, even the 5D doesn't >> match [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have more resolution and lower noise than the D200. Can you point to a > source that contradicts that statement? And guess what, some users will find that the ever so slightly lower noise and resolution of the D200 are perfectly acceptable for their needs. What I don't understand is why you would buy a 5D when there are digital MF cameras out there that will produce higher resolution and less noise? >> lower noise and resolution? According to some, even the 5D doesn't >> match [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >have more resolution and lower noise than the D200. Can you point to a >source that contradicts that statement? Most of what I've read has said what you are saying, some have said the opposite. However, none that I've seen have said either was that much better. So I'm wondering, if the D200 is very close to the 5D when it comes to resolution, where do people get the idea the 8 meg camera (30D) is anywhere close? -Rich >Most of what I've read has said what you are saying, some have said >the opposite. However, none that I've seen have said either was that >much better. So I'm wondering, if the D200 is very close to the >5D when it comes to resolution, where do people get the idea the >8 meg camera (30D) is anywhere close? Obviously, except for difference in AA strength, resolution is going to be proportional to the square root of the MP, but that depends on what the lens can deliver, as well. When you start going to 10 and 12 MP (or even 8) in an APS sensor, you need a sharp lens to take full advantage, otherwise you are over-sampling (which, to some degree, is not a bad thing, but using a soft lens with a 12 MP sensor can mean a very excellent 3MP image, downsampled; better than a 3MP crop from the same sensor can ever be). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > > Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting > > made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D > > is no D200 or even comparable. > > Uh, but it does produce nicer images. Does it? How many 30D pictures do you have? >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting >made are idiotic. The D200 is NOT a 5D and never will be and the 30D >is no D200 or even comparable. The D200 is better built, and more feature-rich, but if the feature you need most is low noise and high detail in low-light situations, the 30D is a better choice. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the > >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need most is low noise and high detail in low-light situations, the 30D > is a better choice. Really? Got any 30D pictures to prove that? >> >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Really? Got any 30D pictures to prove that? The 30D has the same imaging chain as the 20D. The 20D, except for some slight banding, is almost photon-noise limited at ISO 1600. I've already seen many 30D/20D comparisons from Australians who already have the 30D; no difference to be seen. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> >For an extra $300, the cost of a cheap lens, who wouldn't buy the >> >Nikon instead of the Canon? In fact, comparisons that keep getting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Really? Got any 30D pictures to prove that? I'll go out tomorrow and shoot 800 and 1600 ISO shots through both of them and post the results. It should be interesting. -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.