Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples  (Read 23154 times)
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #160 on: February 23, 2010, 09:48:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll give Ray one thing --- he's elevated being an MF antagonist almost to an art form!  

I've watched him do this now for what, maybe 3 or 4 years?  His tactic has evolved to where he now strings it out over a week or so. He asks what appears to be an honest question with the implication he really wants to hear perspectives from real world users -- of course that is the bait.  Then the kinder real world users begin offer their views and Ray usually strings this out with thank yous or follow-on questions to get and keep as many helpful folks involved as possible.  Only then he starts to indicate his doubts, and begins asking for proof.  Proof is offered and always rejected, sometimes politely and sometimes not so, until such point the helpful start to get frustrated. Then his truer form begins to show and he strikes, spewing the same demand for comparative proof of a file from whatever MF back you are using and a D3x... And that exchange always comes down to a comment like, "your example means nothing until you show me a carefully executed direct comparison taken with your back and a D3x," then he usually adds, "haven't you seen the D3x review at DxO?" -- and posts the link.  Every time. And every time it works...

The good part is we finally have his comment from this thread where he's clearly admitted that MF is not attractive to his circumstances -- so all we have to do the next time he invades an MF thread is link back to his comment here:

Quote from: Ray
For me personally, the significantly additional cost of MFDB combined with the significantly extra weight (taking lenses into consideration), offset by a significant lack of flexibility with regard to performance at high ISO and its much slower frame rates, do not make the MFDB package attractive to me, in my circumstances and for my purposes.

PS: Did you note that everything is "significant" to him except his circumstances and purposes?

Cheers,
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 10:59:54 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #161 on: February 23, 2010, 10:53:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Against my better judgement, I read this whole entire thread.  I did learn something new: apparently, the Nikon D3X craps out golden eggs.  
Logged
brentward
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #162 on: February 23, 2010, 11:17:57 AM »
ReplyReply

WOW! That ignore user button really shortened this thread and at the same time made it some how better.
Logged

___________________________________
brentwardphoto
splashpour.com
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #163 on: February 23, 2010, 02:14:22 PM »
ReplyReply




                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 660


WWW
« Reply #164 on: February 23, 2010, 05:17:57 PM »
ReplyReply

ted gives up.  

again.  

« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 05:18:34 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #165 on: February 24, 2010, 11:21:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as

(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)

noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.
Eric,

Your point about the cutoff for shadow noise in determining dynamic range is a good one, but MFDBs do not necessarily have larger pixels than DSLRs. For example, the Phase One P65+ has 6 μ pixels, while the Nikon D3s and D3x pixel sizes are 8.34 μ and 5.95 μ respectively. For a given sensor size, increasing the pixel count will decrease the per pixel DR as defined above, but the DR for a given print size will often not suffer, since downsizing of the higher pixel count image will decrease noise through pixel averaging. This factor is taken into account in the DXO normalization for print size and is discussed at some length by Emil Martinec.

For dynamic range in the print at a given size, the number of photons collected over the entire image is the main determinant of total shot noise. The P65+ has a sensor area of 53.9 x 40.4 mm, about 2.5x the area of the full frame Nikon D3x. If fill factor and read noises were comparable between the two sensors, the P65+ would collect 2.5 times the number of photons as the D3x. Since SNR varies as the square root of the number of photons collected, the SNR ratio would be sqrt(2.5) = 1.5 times better for the P65+. This difference in sensor area is significant, but would not lead to the astoundingly greater DR claimed by some for MFDBs. The greater image quality claimed by these proponents is likely related to factors other than DR.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad