Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 40D And Nikon D300 Cameras  (Read 22985 times)
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2008, 08:45:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't.
Then I can't decypher your

nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters

Quote
I worked with the files provided by someone else, my own approach would have been to use the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for all the files.  The person who created the files used the cameras' metering systems and let the chips fall where they may

Well, this is a good explanation for why the comparison was worthless.

Quote
The ISO 400 file from the D3 looked comparable to the ISO 1600 files from the 5D and D300 using Capture One (with all NR and sharpening disabled).  Since the D3 files were exposed 2/3 of stop to the right I subtracted that and came up with just over a one stop better performance if they had all been taken at the same shutter speeds, ISO. etc.

1. A *correct* comparison needs to involve several images with exposure bracketing and selecting those, which are the closest to each other in the raw result, relative to the saturation points.

2/3 stop means almost 60% more light. As the noise is due to the lack of light (the reason for using ISO 1600), the different exposures result naturally in different levels of noise.

This can not be compensated for by substracting the 2/3 EV from the compared ISOs.

2. I'm afraid taking samples from the wall was a grave error. The wall does not look smooth. The face of the sculpture appears more suitable (and darker anyway, that's the point). There the D3 image looks much better than the 5D, which in turn looks much better than the D300.

Facit: instead of the mumbo-jumbo, thorough analysis of comparable images is required to make a qualified statement.
Logged

Gabor
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 10, 2008, 02:12:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Then I can't decypher your

nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters

"...third party converters profile files for DSLRs independently of the camera manufacturers, and Nikon has no more input than Canon does in this regard (nothing they include in the file to instruct their own RAW converter how to apply NR and sharpening is applied by third party converters)."  That is self-explanatory; there are no instructions in the files directing third party converters (like ACR and Capture One) to apply NR.

Quote
Well, this is a good explanation for why the comparison was worthless.

Perhaps for the purposes of evaluating noise, what they do demonstrate though is that detail is not being sacrificed to attain lower noise -- that was really the point I was making with that comparison, and I believe it does show that.  Ironically, many people looked at these very shots at DPR and based on different conversions and out of the camera JPEGs drew conclusions about the relative merits of the cameras.  My own impression is close to yours in that regard -- mostly worthless.  That said, nearly everything I have come across online comparing various cameras IQ in general and noise in particular has been similarly worthless; the best I have seen to date in that regard is the DIWA tests I offered earlier in this thread.

Quote
2. I'm afraid taking samples from the wall was a grave error. The wall does not look smooth. The face of the sculpture appears more suitable (and darker anyway, that's the point). There the D3 image looks much better than the 5D, which in turn looks much better than the D300.

Have you actually measured the differences?  I just now took a series of measurements from the neck area of the sculpture and looking at the red, green, luminosity, and colors std. deviation there is negligible difference between the 5D and D300; the blue channel does show a noticeable difference in that area but in the area above the sculpture's right eye they are almost identical even in the blue channel.

Regarding my choice to measure the wall, one problem with the face of the sculpture is that it is hard to distinguish noise from tonal ramps that exist there.   The wall on the other hand is relatively free of detail and has no significant tonal ramps where I measured it.  Here is the D3 ISO 200 file with no changes and converted using NX (NR was turned off in the camera, and there appears to be no sharpening either):  http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/myp...//D3-ISO200.jpg  Any detail you see on the wall from the ISO 1600 files is false, and is in fact noise.

My reason for offering my time and effort to this thread is that the suggestion has been made that the lower noise in Nikon's D300 is accomplished by some sort of trickery (and the implication is that Canon is doing it without trickery); and that is unsubstantiated.  Oh well, people will believe whatever makes them most comfortable.  All I really know is that my D300 delivers very good high ISO noise performance and overall IQ, and I can adjust the NR in all the converters to taste (even in NX, although Capture One actually does a better job with its NR), detail is reasonably good up to ISO 1600 but starts to suffer after that.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2008, 02:13:41 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
meyerweb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2008, 09:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't help but thinking that if it's this difficult to quantify the difference in noise between these two cameras, and there's this much disagreement between people who have attempted to be careful in their comparisons, that it makes sense to pick one of these cameras based on criteria other than noise.  Unless, I suppose, the vast majority of your work is low-light, high-ISO. In which case you should do your own tests and figure out which YOU prefer.

I haven't done hands-on comparisons of the two bodies myself. From looking at many shots on the 'net, my take is that the D300 does have somewhat more intrusive noise reduction, and higher noise with NR turned off (at high ISOs).  But both the D300 and 40D are SOOO much better than even the best DSLR of not very long ago it's hardly worth worrying about.

My old 10D is essentially useless at ISO 1600. The 40D and 300D are both remarkably good at 1600 and 3200. I have more important things to wory about at this point.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad