 |
 | 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 / October 2006Nikon D80 pictures, 400-1600 ISO
Canon images from their Rebel XTi/400 to follow. Only odd thing. When I converted the NEFs to JPEGS using PS at its highest quality setting, file size dropped a fair bit, and the files are considerably smaller than those of the in-camera JPEGs. Sharpness was set "hard" for the in-camera JPEGs. I'm going to re-shoot the Canon shots and put them up later because the Canon XTi I used only had the 18-55mm kit lens while the Nikon had its considerably better 18-70 DX lens. Also, notice the Olympus E-1 shot in comparison. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/nikon_canon_test_images It is not clear what you intend to show with these images. Side by side comparisons of sections from a D70 and D80 exposed at equivalent high ISOs would be more useful. In my experience the appearance of noise (as opposed to objective measurements) from the D80 at ISO 400 and above is less harsh and less pixellated than from the D70, more granular in appearance--kind of like film. This is via comparisons of raw files through the same Adobe converter with minimal image processing, cityscapes shot at nite with available light, same lens, etc. I should get a website. I cannot prove it but I believe the higher megapixel count in the D80 sensor yields a better appearing form of noise than the lower megapixel sensor but not necessarily less noise at high ISOs. Noise is easily discerned in sectional enlargements of D80 images at ISO400 and above, as with the D70, but it definitely is less off-putting in appearance than noise from the D70 sensor. Noise is an insignificant issue with this camera. The D70 technically exceeded the aesthetic capabilities of most of the cameraholics on this newsgroup and the D80 is an exponential improvement over the D70. My first few hundred snaps with the D80 yield prints that look like contact prints from a large format film camera. Noise is a non-issue. Dynamic range remains the bete noir of digital imaging. > It is not clear what you intend to show with these images. > Side by side comparisons of sections from a D70 and D80 exposed at [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > prints from a large format film camera. Noise is a non-issue. Dynamic range > remains the bete noir of digital imaging. If that were the case, why would anyone buy anything but a Fuji S3? > > Noise is a non-issue. Dynamic range > > remains the bete noir of digital imaging. > > If that were the case, why would anyone buy anything but a Fuji S3? He didn't say DR was the most important factor, so much so that it is the only reason to buy a camera... he said (paraphrasing) that it is the thing about digital that most users dislike or hate... the thing that still needs to improve the most. And surely this is where manufacturers intend to make developments, as this is easily the most heard complaint these days. The S3 pro may have DR covered, but it has plenty of faults of its own in performance, noise, and resolution. Canon and Nikon can both deliver relatively noise-free images (especially Canon, but I've not yet worked with the D2X, D200, and D80), and no one is complaining about a shortage of megapixels or resolution anymore. Canon users have full-frame 35mm options. The real sticking point remains DR. After that improves, I imagine we'd all like to see Bayer go away, without the sacrifices in resolution that foveon demands. But that's an argument for years from now. Will > > > Noise is a non-issue. Dynamic range > > > remains the bete noir of digital imaging. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Will Now, if only the makers could think of a way to do tri-color imaging, 3 CCDs, 3 colour filters, most accurate colour, best resolution. Too bad it's only practical in video cams. A radical way to do it would be have a bank of three sensors, and three lenses, but it would be awkward and heavy, not to mention no good for close-up work. > Now, if only the makers could think of a way to do tri-color imaging, 3 > CCDs, 3 colour filters, most accurate colour, best resolution. Too bad > it's only practical in video cams. > A radical way to do it would be have a bank of three sensors, and three > lenses, but it would be awkward and heavy, not to mention no good for > close-up work. Gee, a Bayer sensor IS 3-color imaging ;-). The problem with 3 separate sensor is alignment, which would be needed to approximately 0.1 pixel. So with 5 micron pixels (some DSLRs are in that range), alignment would be needed to 0.6 micron, which is mechanically impossible unless in a temperature controlled stable lab environment. Three sensors work in video cameras because the alignment specifications are so much easier. Roger >>>Noise is a non-issue. Dynamic range >>>remains the bete noir of digital imaging. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Will It is astounding to me that people complain about dynamic range with digital cameras. Even a tiny point and shoot digitals have higher dynamic range than any film. Look at Figure 5 at: Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images and Comparison to Film http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2 The problem people have is they don't understand their medium, their light meters, or how to process that large dynamic range. Roger |
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.