 |
 | 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 / September 2006Why Nikon's D50 is "the best"
At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur The D50 does have a much lower dark current generation than practically any other DSLR, it also has much lower amplifier glow. The d50 uses a modified Sony ICQ413 CCD sensor, which has inherently low dark current. This sensor also has relatively large pixels for good sensitivity. Compared to a 300D the D50 has a much better overall SNR. The D50 is not the same as a D70/70s as indicated by this review (in Japanese, but the pictures on the last page tell the story): http://www.eanet.com/kodama/astro/blog/hn200510-nikonreview.pdf The D50 has a completely revised, low noise processing system, that gives it an almost unbeatable SNR and DR. SNIP > ...has a completely revised, low noise processing system, that > gives it an almost unbeatable SNR and DR. Is that the same as; "it uses a post-processing noise reduction"?  SignatureBart > SNIP > > ...has a completely revised, low noise processing system, that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Bart It would be interesting if Nikon asked Sony to expand the pixel count of that sensor and make it around 11 meg....Of course, they'd need a new batch of lenses. I will agree with you, I have recently purchased a D-50 and i love it, still getting used to it and how it works, but getting better, after so many years of point and shoot, its nice to go back to SLR, I still have my first SLR, a cannon AE-1 and yes, still works, but since digital came out, film has gotten less use here, still have some, but not as much, when you can shoot over 250 shots on a 1 gig card, at max res. and 36 on a roll of film, theres no contest, and with the wife 4x6 photo printer, can select the ones we want to print, and print right off the memory card. > At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The D50 has a completely revised, low noise processing system, that > gives it an almost unbeatable SNR and DR. Just to add my opionion: Pentax *ist (I've the DL one but it's the same for all the other models) uses the same Sony CCD of D50. A part it's cheaper than Nikon, the color look more 'natural'. D50 colors are too 'warm' (and you can't change this settings), IMHO of course! I dont think they are too warm, looks pretty good to me so far, could be setting your in, and lighting your in or using, but not too warm here. > Just to add my opionion: Pentax *ist (I've the DL one but it's the same for > all the other models) uses the same Sony CCD of D50. A part it's cheaper > than Nikon, the color look more 'natural'. D50 colors are too 'warm' (and > you can't change this settings), IMHO of course! > At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The D50 has a completely revised, low noise processing system, that > gives it an almost unbeatable SNR and DR. This page shows the D50 has better long exposure low light performance than a D70, but that is far from better than "practically any other DSLR." The D70 versus D50 astro performance has been known for some time. The read noise, for example is almost double the Canon cameras, and the full well is lower. e.g. see: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-nikon-d50 I'll put up the dark current analysis soon (few days maybe). Compare to the 1DII: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2 which has full well of 79,900 versus the D50 at 30,500 versus 20D at 50,000 electrons. Read noise at ISO 800: D50: 7.5 electrons, versus 1D Mark II at 4.0 electrons, 20D 4.8 electrons. Even the Canon S70 has 4.3 electron read noise at iso 400 (I was impressed by that). Roger >> At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Even the Canon S70 has 4.3 electron read noise at iso 400 > (I was impressed by that). OK, check this: Digital Cameras and Long Exposure Times: Noise and Dark Current Comparisons http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/long-exposure-comparisons The D50 didn't do as well as you claimed. (this is the beginning of the writeup, but the pictures tell the story.) Roger > >> At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur > >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Roger That's interesting. A completely different result than the other test. I wonder why? In any case, it's unlikely you ever use an normal image after doing what you did to it in terms of brightness adjustment. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/66172441 > In any case, it's unlikely you ever use an normal image after doing > what you did to it in terms of brightness adjustment. Except for the specific case of astrophotography, which was the basis for the argument in your initial post. That's why SNR and dark current are so important for astrophotographers... the signal has to be significantly boosted to get a good exposure. Not that any of it really matters, because I'm told the Canon 20Da is about all you could ask for in prosumer astrophotography, and better than any of the competition. Perhaps not strictly by SNR or dark current, but because of its ability to see wavelengths that other cameras filter out. Nor did your initial post siggest anything other than the fact that the Nikon D50 outperformed both the D70 and the Canon 300D, each of which were introduced more than a year before the D50... Will > > In any case, it's unlikely you ever use an normal image after doing > > what you did to it in terms of brightness adjustment. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Will Speaking of the 300D. Strip out the IR filter and it handily outperforms the 20Da (discontinued) for astrophotography on objects like diffuse nebula. The 20Da was a nice but expensive out of box solution. >>>>At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur >>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > what you did to it in terms of brightness adjustment. > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/66172441 It only gets worse as the exposure time increases. I'll have some 30 minute comparisons up soon. Roger Roger, I would be very interested to see your analysis of the Sony 10.2 megapixel sensor. I've used the D200, own a Sony A100, and the Nikon D80 has just arrived for test review. Generically similar sensors, different processing, some on-sensor differences too - but all really pretty challenged by noise (and tackling it well or badly using the processing). David > Roger, I would be very interested to see your analysis of the Sony 10.2 > megapixel sensor. I've used the D200, own a Sony A100, and the Nikon D80 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > David I'm currently analyzing data on a D70 and D200, if that helps. I should have them done in a few weeks. Roger > At least when it comes to some things. This is from sci.astro.amateur > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The D50 has a completely revised, low noise processing system, that > gives it an almost unbeatable SNR and DR. IMHO the D50 was created to give very high quality point and shoot images with all the advantages of an SLR. That's why so many people like it. While Nikons other DSLR's tend to get better ratings, they require a bit more tweaking to get a really good image, again, IMHO. |
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.