Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony DSC-F828  (Read 17041 times)
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #80 on: December 27, 2003, 02:20:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Fabio,

I'd be surprised if the ISO 200 G3 image is better than the ISO 400 Sony image.  

Try doing a noise reduction and resample the Sony image to 4MP and compare to a NR G3 image see if you like the G3 images better.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #81 on: December 29, 2003, 05:41:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suppose when you are talking about enlargements past 16x20 or so I am a "die hard" 6x7 MF and LF fan.
Matthew,
I don't think it's helpful to be a diehard on any issue. It's better to have an open mind. Of course MF and LF is more suitable for the big enlargements. But when you examine the reasons for this, the extra detail is surprisingly not always the major factor.

I believe studies or polls on this issue have shown that the significant and very noticeable lack of grain of the MF enlargement, plus the greater tonality, often counts for more than the extra detail.

In other words, if it were possible to remove the grain from a 35mm film without sacrificing detail and also somehow impart greater tonality to the image (more subtle transitions from one shade to the other), a 24x36 enlargement from that 35mm film would generally be preferred to the same size enlargement of the same scene from an MF film which had had grain artificially added to simulate 35mm.

Now, when it comes to enlarging digital images, the best of the DSLRs are essentially grain/noise free. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a 24"x30" enlargement from the tiny 22mmx15mm D60 sensor showed less grain (in areas that are supposed to be 'clean', such as the sky) than the same size enlargement from 4x5 film. So, in effect, a good digital camera already has built in, one of the major factors why MF is preferred for big enlargements.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to disparage the larger format. For any enlargement that relies upon fine detail for its major impact (and that's almost an oxymoron), the larger the camera format the better.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2004, 10:09:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

If that 35-350 lens isn't a coke bottle, I'd be very surprised.  I'm sure it's slow as molassas too.

The 4/3 lenses I mentioned are top-notch, the equal of the best Canon L zooms.

I'm not saying there will be no place for Canon full-sized sensors, I think for landscape photography they will do very well, but I suspect the majority of 35mm applications will go to APS and 4/3 sized sensors.
Logged
Fabio Riccardi
Guest
« Reply #83 on: January 05, 2004, 12:57:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Did anybody get the fact that F828 ISO values are wrong? (ISO is a standard, isn't it?)

That its sensitivity is about half than it should be?

That to get the same exposure (time/aperture) values that you would get on a 10D at ISO 100 you need to use ISO 200 on the F828?

That ISO 64 is actually ISO 32?

That other popular digicams (Canon G5) do exactly the opposite?

That G5 ISO 50 corresponds to F828 ISO 200?

What do you think are the implications on noise and image quality?

 - Fabio
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #84 on: January 09, 2004, 08:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Even if the 828 is limited to ISO 100 (probably 200 at least works reasonably well), its lens is about two stops faster than the Canon kit lens or typical amateur level zooms. So in this realm, one might be able to achieve the same shutter speeds as working with 35mm film or the 300D at about four times the ISO: 400 or even 800. that sounds fast enough to go well beyond "either bright light or a tripod".
 
BJL,
You've forgotten the whole purpose of this thread, ie. the ISO ratings for the F828 are wrong[/i].

I suspect the reasons for this are as follows. Such a small photodiode that the F828 uses is typically going to be very, very noisy, especially in the shadows. To overcome this, Sony have adopted the technique of 'flooding' the sensor with light. At the same time, they've made the sensor quite insensitive so the highlights are not blown. This way they achieve the maximum DR the small pixel is capable of, whilst reducing (comparatively) the effects of the other sources of noise (thermal, dark current, photonic etc).
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad