Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D700 IQ  (Read 46288 times)
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #80 on: August 20, 2008, 01:40:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, at a given print size yes, since you have 2.25 times less pixel in DX mode than in FX mode, you need to "enlarge" more, and the noise will therefore be more visible.

If you are talking about pixel quality, then the DX and FX modes are of course identical.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I recall, Thom Hogan wrote that there is a noise problem with both the DX and 5:4 crop modes on the D3.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 20, 2008, 03:05:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I recall, Thom Hogan wrote that there is a noise problem with both the DX and 5:4 crop modes on the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tony,

Ah, OK. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I really haven't used the DX mode of the D3 a lot (don't see much value to it), but never noticed any problem.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Conner999
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #82 on: August 20, 2008, 07:12:25 AM »
ReplyReply

It may be due to the kicking-in of the electronics required to 'crop' the sensor (for lack of a better term) for DX or 5:4 (boosting the denominator of the S/N ratio).

That and/or an effect the cropping mechanics has on the effectivity of in-camera NR (vs 24x36 FF)

 
Quote
Tony,

Ah, OK. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I really haven't used the DX mode of the D3 a lot (don't see much value to it), but never noticed any problem.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 07:13:01 AM by Conner999 » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #83 on: August 20, 2008, 10:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It may be due to the kicking-in of the electronics required to 'crop' the sensor (for lack of a better term) for DX or 5:4 (boosting the denominator of the S/N ratio).

That and/or an effect the cropping mechanics has on the effectivity of in-camera NR (vs 24x36 FF)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I heard back from Thom this morning, and he wrote:

"I saw additional hot pixel production and a slight buildup in noise on my original D3. Curiously, I donít see it now with updated firmware."

It appears that the problem has been resolved.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #84 on: August 20, 2008, 08:08:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The cropped FF cameras have at least as bright future beside FF, as the FF cameras have beside MF backs. I don't see any reason to make a sharp division between the sensors of P&S and the MFDBs (fakes all together) just through the middle of the 1.5x or 1.6x croppers.

In fact, I have *never* seen a solid reasoning, how the problem of the lack of overall sharpness could be solved on FF, as opposed to the cropping cameras using the cream of the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree there's no doubt that the cropped format is generally sharper at the edges when using lenses designed for full frame. This has always been one of the two main advantages of APS-C, the other being the longer reach with telephoto lenses.

As the pixel density of full frame models reaches that of the cropped format, the 'longer reach' advantage no longer applies. In fact, in one sense, the full frame with equal pixel density begins to have the advantage when using long telephoto lenses. It's much easier to locate your target (a small bird in the foliage) when using (for example) a 400mm lens as opposed to a 640mm lens.

However, the greater resolution fall-off at the edges with 'full frame' might not be as significant as you think. Whilst every part of the composition is important to some degree, the corners and edges tend to be away from the central focus of interest. But I admit, there are always exceptions.

The other factors affecting edge resolution are the quality of the lens and the choice of aperture. For equal DoF, you are using the equivalent lens with APS-C at one stop wider aperture, or more. Edge resolution is generally worse the wider the aperture.

Consider also the generally mediocre performance of Canon wide-angle lenses compared to their better lenses. Whilst it is true you could expect better edge performance from a 50/1.4 on a 40D at F8, than you would get from the same lens on a 5D at the same aperture, this is not a sensible comparison. The composition, FoV and DoF would be different.

The comparison should be between a 28mm (or 30mm) lens at F5 (on the 40D) and the 50mm lens at F8 on the 5D. Then, the differences in edge sharpness between the two images might not be significant. It would be interteresting to do the test.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 08:19:48 PM by Ray » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #85 on: August 20, 2008, 10:34:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, the greater resolution fall-off at the edges with 'full frame' might not be as significant as you think. Whilst every part of the composition is important to some degree, the corners and edges tend to be away from the central focus of interest. But I admit, there are always exceptions.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think the edges of the frame are more important than you are suggesting -- at least to me.









Quote
The other factors affecting edge resolution are the quality of the lens and the choice of aperture. For equal DoF, you are using the equivalent lens with APS-C at one stop wider aperture, or more. Edge resolution is generally worse the wider the aperture.


As has already been discussed, shutter speed is a factor.  If you are stopping down one stop more, you are either losing shutter speed or increasing ISO -- it's a trade-off and not nearly as clearcut an advantage for the larger format as many assume.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #86 on: August 21, 2008, 01:01:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think the edges of the frame are more important than you are suggesting -- at least to me.

As has already been discussed, shutter speed is a factor.  If you are stopping down one stop more, you are either losing shutter speed or increasing ISO -- it's a trade-off and not nearly as clearcut an advantage for the larger format as many assume.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Those are stunning images, Tony. I agree, there are exceptions. Edge resolution is defintely important in some situations and my main gripe with the Sigma 15-30 zoom is that it is plainly not sharp in the corners, even at F16, using the 5D.

However, I doubt that the Canon EF-S 10-22 is sharp at the corners either.

Below is an image I took a few weeks ago on a trip down the Daintree River, North Queensland, using the 40D. Lens was the Canon 100-400 at 400mm and F8. Shutter speed was 1/500th and ISO 1600.

Notice how sharp the corners are   .

[attachment=8008:attachment]
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #87 on: August 21, 2008, 06:36:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Tony

Love the black and white; biased opinion (of course) but still think it jumps off the screen. In a good way.

Rob C
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #88 on: August 21, 2008, 10:57:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edge resolution is defintely important in some situations

Quote
I admit, there are always exceptions

Ray, I don't know your world, but in my one corner to corner sharpness is a requirement in the normal case.

Quote
I doubt that the Canon EF-S 10-22 is sharp at the corners either

Quote
Below is an image I took a few weeks ago on a trip down the Daintree River, North Queensland, using the 40D
I don't understand what you want to communicate. The issue was, that FF lenses, which are not sharp edge to edge on FF, are sometimes stellar on cropping cameras.

You have just demonstrated, that the above consideration is valid (although I do not see that as an argument for the continued existence of cropping cameras).

Quote
The comparison should be between a 28mm (or 30mm) lens at F5 (on the 40D) and the 50mm lens at F8 on the 5D
It is amusing, how you are trying to transform everything on some strange ways in order to make a comparison for an outcome to your expectation. I am waiting for your way of turning a painting into something in order to prove, that a P&S is better for landscapes than Monet.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 10:58:57 AM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
mikeseb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 482



WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 21, 2008, 11:17:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Being a Kentucky transplant, married to a Kentucky woman and all as I am, I am not averse to horseflesh (no wife jokes please); except when the pummelled carcass has begun to ripen, as perhaps it has done with this thread....

Geesh folks. Do you not all have jobs or something?

 
Logged

michael sebastian
Website  |  Blog
bluekorn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #90 on: August 21, 2008, 12:11:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Being a Kentucky transplant, married to a Kentucky woman and all as I am, I am not averse to horseflesh (no wife jokes please); except when the pummelled carcass has begun to ripen, as perhaps it has done with this thread....

Geesh folks. Do you not all have jobs or something?

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks Mike,
I was going to suggest a forum specifically designated for the aggrieved but lacked the nerve. And again, I'm very appreciative. I've been able to gleen a beginner's understanding of sensors and of the relationship between sensors and the various uses of lenses. Best of shooting to all.
Peter
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #91 on: August 21, 2008, 12:33:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, I don't know your world, but in my one corner to corner sharpness is a requirement in the normal case.

Gabor,
As one who has taken many thousands of shots with cropped format DSLRs before using a 5D, it's my experience that the advantages of full frame, compared with the cropped format, outweigh the disadvantages, although I accept that the 40D is better than the 5D in some respects because it's new technology.

I recall only one occasion when I returned to a scene to retake the shots with a 20D as a result of the 5D shots being spoiled due to vignetting and poor resolution at the edges. On that occasion I'd used a TS-E 24mm for stitching purposes and had ignored the red marks on the lens which warn of unacceptable sharpness when shifting too far.

Quote
I don't understand what you want to communicate. The issue was, that FF lenses, which are not sharp edge to edge on FF, are sometimes stellar on cropping cameras

That's true. My point is, the lenses that are not acceptably sharp from corner to corner tend to be wide-angle lenses used at wide apertures. Wide angle capability also happens to be the main disadvantage of the cropped format, so one advantage is somewhat mitigated by another disadvantage.

Quote
It is amusing, how you are trying to transform everything on some strange ways in order to make a comparison for an outcome to your expectation. I am waiting for your way of turning a painting into something in order to prove, that a P&S is better for landscapes than Monet.

If I've written anything in this thread which you think is not factual, or at least a reasonable opinion, please mention it specifically. Perhaps I can learn something.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #92 on: August 21, 2008, 06:09:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As the pixel density of full frame models reaches that of the cropped format ...
Is that happening? Is it going to happen?
What I see over the last five or six years is little or no change in the pixel spacing ratio, with roughly a doubling of pixel count in a wide variety of SLR formats:
- 4/3 from 5MP then to 10MP (and that was reached 18 months ago while APS-C was still at 10MP, so another bump is probably due);
- APS-C from 6MP then to 10MP and 12MP (and up to 14.6MP from Pentax/Samsung);
- 35mm from 11MP (and Kodak's 13.5MP) then to 12MP and 22MP (and soon Sony's 24.7MP).

So for sensor resolution in l/mm as indicated by pixel spacing, at best the highest resolution 35m model at a certain time matches most but not all APS-C models (like the Kodak 14/N and 6MP DX models both at 8 microns.)

Actually one gap is closing in the opposite sense: the gap in pixel count between the highest in APS-C models and that of the lower priced 35mm models. That gap is currently "negative" due to a push in the low light performance direction in 35mm format.

One sensor resolution gap that shows no sign of disappearing is that between 35mm and 4/3; these very different formats seem to serve quite different purposes, especially when it comes to telephoto lenses.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #93 on: August 21, 2008, 11:21:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is that happening? Is it going to happen?
What I see over the last five or six years is little or no change in the pixel spacing ratio, with roughly a doubling of pixel count in a wide variety of SLR formats:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point! This has certainly been the case with Canon, although the time frame between the introduction of the D60 and the 450D (representing a doubling of pixel count) is slightly greater than the time frame between the introduction of the 1Ds and 1Ds3 which also represents a doubling of pixel count (almost).

The incremental jumps in pixel count from Canon I find a bit annoying, especially when they appear so close together, as with the announcement of the 450D not long after the 40D was available in the shops.

Perhaps Nikon will change this paradigm. Is it not a fairly safe bet that the successor to the D3 will be 24mp? That respresents not quite the same pixel density as the D300, but as close as matters. I don't think anyone could reasonably quibble about the difference between 24mp and 27mp. One has to remember that the Nikon DX format is slightly larger than the Canon cropped format.

One should also bear in mind that as pixel counts increase in both formats, such increases become less relevant without a corresponding increase in lens quality.

I think the survival of the cropped formats will therefore depend on the development of DX and EF-S lenses which actually do have a higher MTF response than most FF 35mm lenses, as is the case with the Zuiko lenses.

I'm very impressed with the quality of the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8, except for its autofocussing accuracy.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #94 on: August 22, 2008, 12:19:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps Nikon will change this paradigm. Is it not a fairly safe bet that the successor to the D3 will be 24mp? That represents not quite the same pixel density as the D300, but as close as matters.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is the 1Ds MkIII the successor to the 1D MkIII?  The D3 competes with the 1D MkIII; the inevitable Nikon 24MP FX DSLR (which we have good indications of based on an accidental firmware upgrade released for the D3 that had JPEG quality settings based on 24MP files) will compete with the 1Ds MkIII and the Sony A900; it will not replace the D3, instead the "D3s" will replace the D3, but I'm fairly certain they will both use the same sensor.

I expect that this hypothetical 24MP FX DSLR will undoubtedly cost $5000 or more -- after all, Nikon isn't going to sell it for less than the D3 -- so this is not the camera I'm waiting for unless my finances improve dramatically.  No, I'm waiting for another year or so when I expect a consumer version will appear, not unlike what the D700 represents vis-a-vis the D3 -- Nikon (and Canon) will be compelled to release lower cost high MP DSLRs in order to compete with Sony's less expensive A900 which is currently projected to cost $3000.

The problem with resolution using these high pixel pitch DSLRs will not be the lenses, my Nikkor 14-24 does very nicely on my D300 and I'm sure it will do just as nicely on a high MP FX DSLR that has slightly larger pixel pitch (edge performance notwithstanding).  Likewise, the Nikkor 24-70 has very impressive MTF numbers and I'm sure Nikon designed these lenses with a higher MP future in mind.  The problem is that you will not see any improvements in resolution on a 24MP FX DSLR past f/11 over a 16 MP FX DSLR due to [a href=\"http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm]diffraction limitations.[/url]  For landscape and product photography this will be a huge barrier and will not require higher MTF then many top end Nikkor lenses can already deliver, it will require lenses that have tilt capability in order to expand the DOF.  Not coincidentally, Nikon has introduced three lenses with this soon to be essential tilt capability.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2008, 12:21:09 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #95 on: August 22, 2008, 03:00:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is the 1Ds MkIII the successor to the 1D MkIII?  The D3 competes with the 1D MkIII; the inevitable Nikon 24MP FX DSLR (which we have good indications of based on an accidental firmware upgrade released for the D3 that had JPEG quality settings based on 24MP files) will compete with the 1Ds MkIII and the Sony A900; it will not replace the D3, instead the "D3s" will replace the D3, but I'm fairly certain they will both use the same sensor.

I'm looking at this from the aspect of format size. Canon have doubled the pixel count of their full frame sensors over a period of approximately 6 years.

Nikon seem about to double the pixel count of their FF sensors a year or so later than their first FF model was announced, perhaps a bit longer. I've got no idea if they will duplicate that (no doubt expensive upgrade) with a cheaper version like the D700, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were to.

I'm hoping that the Sony 24mp version will be the budget model because I already have a few Minolta lenses, but I don't have any Nikon lenses, so that's a problem for me.

Quote
The problem with resolution using these high pixel pitch DSLRs will not be the lenses, my Nikkor 14-24 does very nicely on my D300 and I'm sure it will do just as nicely on a high MP FX DSLR that has slightly larger pixel pitch (edge performance notwithstanding).  Likewise, the Nikkor 24-70 has very impressive MTF numbers and I'm sure Nikon designed these lenses with a higher MP future in mind.  The problem is that you will not see any improvements in resolution on a 24MP FX DSLR past f/11 over a 16 MP FX DSLR due to diffraction limitations.

As I understand, sensors with a higher pixel density but equal pixel count compared with a larger format, always need a sharper lens in order to deliver the same image detail.

When maximum DoF is sought and one is shooting at apertures that begin to be noticeably affected by diffraction, it's not an issue. Any good lens at F16 with a 5D will deliver approximately equal total image resolution to an equivalent focal length lens on a 450D at F10. The 450D needs higher resolution from the lens, because of its greater pixel density, and it gets it, when used within the range of apertures affected by diffraction.

The problems begin when a wide aperture and shallow DoF are required for the composition. From the Canon perspective, you are then comparing (for example) a 450D with 50mm lens at F1.8, with a 5D and 85mm lens at F2.8. In these circumstances instead of the 450D getting the required higher resolution from the lens, that it needs, it's getting lower resolution.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #96 on: August 22, 2008, 10:52:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the survival of the cropped formats will therefore depend on the development of DX and EF-S lenses which actually do have a higher MTF response than most FF 35mm lenses, as is the case with the Zuiko lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed! My guess is that eventually lens resolution will be the main limit to the resolution in any given format, so it comes down to the extent that lens designs scaled down from 35mm format by 1.5x, 1.6x or 2x can reduce the length scale of aberrations and so increase l/mm of resolution. There does seem to be some l/mm advantage to smaller format, smaller image circle lens designs.

And as we talk, there is a leak from the Canon China web-site of Canon going to 15MP with a new EF-S 50D body. So we will soon have 14MP+ from Canon, Sony and Pentax, and I am predicting 14MP+ in the first Micro 4/3 bodies, to match up on MP with high end compacts.

To match the pixel pitch of that 50D's 15.1MP in 14.9x22.3mm, the bar has been raised for 35mm format to almost 40MP. And 14MP in 4/3 would push it to over 50MP.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #97 on: August 22, 2008, 11:28:30 AM »
ReplyReply

IMO the survival of the cropping design has nothing to do with lens development, nor with pixel density. The different formats (mobile phone, P&S, cropping, FF, MFDB) represent

- different sizes and weights,
- different prices,
- different image qualities.

These are reason enough to have all of them around, until a large format camera will be as small and light as a credit card (including the lens or its equivalent, of course).
Logged

Gabor
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #98 on: August 22, 2008, 12:17:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IMO the survival of the cropping design has nothing to do with lens development, nor with pixel density. The different formats (mobile phone, P&S, cropping, FF, MFDB) represent

- different sizes and weights,
- different prices,
- different image qualities.

These are reason enough to have all of them around, until a large format camera will be as small and light as a credit card (including the lens or its equivalent, of course).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gabor,
You've missed one important factor. The cropped format is not just a different format, it's a cropped format, the same as current MFDBs are cropped formats. They are in a different category to mobile phones, P&S and even Olympus 4/3rds.

In my view, the Olympus 4/3rds is the genuine, non-cropped format, with lenses to match, that can fill this niche. But it's okay with me if Canon and Nikon wish to continue competing with Olympus. I just wish that Olympus had struck up an agreement with Canon instead of Kodak. A Zuiko lens on a Canon cropped format body, would have been really something.  
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #99 on: August 22, 2008, 03:29:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IMO the survival of the cropping design has nothing to do with lens development, nor with pixel density. The different formats (mobile phone, P&S, cropping, FF, MFDB) represent

- different sizes and weights,
- different prices,
- different image qualities.

These are reason enough to have all of them around, until a large format camera will be as small and light as a credit card (including the lens or its equivalent, of course).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In practice you are quite likely right. The difference in lens resolution is just one most certainly persistent difference, along with other differences that are so far quite persistent: sensor and body cost, sensor resolution (l/mm again) and the minimum size and weight of bodies available in a given format. At least when one compares sufficiently different formats, which is why I often use the somewhat extreme example of 4/3 vs 35mm. Comparisons of relatively nearby formats like 4/3 vs EF-S are murkier.

But as you have probably noticed, there are many people who expect or at least hope for the current differences in sensor cost and resolution and body size and weight to be reduced to negligible levels once the 35mm DLSR makers work hard enough on it. It is harder to expect lens resolution differences to be eliminated, any more than it is likely that noise level differences at equal ISO speed for different pixel sizes will be eliminated.

Another question though is why SLR makers would want to work so hard on getting most or all of their customers to move to products that are inherently more expensive to make (i.e ones with larger sensors). The more common approach to increasing profitability is to get the mass market customers to accept products that are less expensive to make, and then pick the deeper pockets by also offering more expensive high end options at high profit margins.


P. S. To Ray: the distinction of EF-S and DX as "cropping" rather than just being a different, smaller format depends on how well suited the lens system available for them is. With a sufficient range of EF-S/DX lenses, along with longer focal length lenses that work quite well with both those formats and 35mm, "cropping" just become another word for "also compatible with some lenses designed for another, larger format". Pentax 35mm film cameras can also use Pentax MF lenses, but no-one calls them "cropping" on that basis. On the other hand, all currently available DMF systems are to varying degrees "cropping" as their lens systems have at best been minimally adapted to the FOV needs of sensor formats smaller than the MF film formats.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad