Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 87
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Why make the α200, if you couldn't improve it.

    Well, just doing the mere comparison between the two SONY Alphas ... I think Coldrain has some serious reconsideration this week, on this low-cost beauty. LOL

    Good job!
    I`m glad that this comparision is userful for you . Thank you !

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Here is an English translated version of the link Coldrain supplied in his last post:

    http://translate.google.com/translat...%3Den%26sa%3DG


    Okay, even after the English translation, I'm still not understanding it all. From the sounds of it they tested the D3 at ISO 6400 to the 40D at ISO 2400???

    Is this to make up for the less pixel density of the sensors (full frame vs. crop sensor)?

    The next question is, is this really a fair comparison considering that the exposure could be vastly different between the two images?

    Im still a little confused about it all, and I will have to read it again at my lunch break, but for now, I really should get to work.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by VTEC_EATER View Post
    Here is an English translated version of the link Coldrain supplied in his last post:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.astrosurf.com/~buil/nikon_test/test.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev =/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.astrosurf.com/%25257Ebuil/nikon_test/test.htm%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG


    Okay, even after the English translation, I'm still not understanding it all. From the sounds of it they tested the D3 at ISO 6400 to the 40D at ISO 2400???

    Is this to make up for the less pixel density of the sensors (full frame vs. crop sensor)?

    The next question is, is this really a fair comparison considering that the exposure could be vastly different between the two images?

    Im still a little confused about it all, and I will have to read it again at my lunch break, but for now, I really should get to work.
    They did not test at ISO 6400 and 2400.

    No need for that google translation confusion, read the blue texts which are english translations of the french texts.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Okay, I re-read the article, and from the sounds of it, Nikon does noise reduction of some sort on long exposures, like 30 seconds, to remove hot pixels. This could cause problems in astro-photography where a star could be erased because the camera thinks its a hot pixel.

    While his tests seem valid, I may try this out myself tonight to take a look at 100% crops with the D300. Most of the technical jargon I did not understand, and really do not care much about, but the end result is what I'm interested in.

    I would be curious as to what is required for the Nikon camera to use its processing to remove hot pixels. Would it be strictly up to the exposure time? And at what time does it say "turn on hot pixel filtering."

    Hmm... Ill try some tests tonight.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    The article mentions 1 sec and up. I do not know what the exact behavior is of the Nikon cameras, a study of the "RAW" pixels can tell a lot though.

    Like in your RAW example, chroma noise filtering is clearly visible.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain View Post
    The article mentions 1 sec and up. I do not know what the exact behavior is of the Nikon cameras, a study of the "RAW" pixels can tell a lot though.
    I will try a few tests tonight at various shutter speeds and see what comes up, but Im guessing that I will need speeds of over 1 second to actually get images of stars on a pitch black night without turning up the ISO to 3200. So comparing images with shutter speeds faster than 1 second will probably be an exercise in futility.

    Like in your RAW example, chroma noise filtering is clearly visible.
    But how can you really prove that there is chroma noise filtering in the RAW image? Because you don't see much of it? Its kind of a tough thing to prove unless you were the software programmer for Nikon during the development of the D300.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Prove? Just using one's analytical capacity is enough, really.

    We already KNOW there should be chroma noise (that is just what cameras do... when a red, or green, or blue diode pixel delivers a wrong result, the pixel will get too red, too green or too blue, resulting in an odd colour.... chroma noise). Look at the A700's output.

    Similar with the D200 and Sony A100/Pentax K10D... same CCD sensor generation, same manufacturer. Yet the A100/K10D show chroma noise, the D200 does not.

    Either... the D200 gets its chroma noise filtered, or the A700/K10D get chroma noise added.

    And there still are the tell tale signs of chroma noise filtering (the light/dark dithering we see in D200/D300 images).

    I will demonstrate this filtering using my 350D, first showing RAW, then showing RAW with chroma noise filtered.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain View Post
    The article mentions 1 sec and up. I do not know what the exact behavior is of the Nikon cameras, a study of the "RAW" pixels can tell a lot though.

    Like in your RAW example, chroma noise filtering is clearly visible.
    Earlier cameras were 1 second, as in my old D70 and the still current D40. I haven't checked all other models, but the current value is 8 seconds in the D80, D200, and D300. There are odd occasions to use an exposure that long, but most people don't run into it much. It's mostly a non-factor except for the 1% or so into astro photography.
    Eric Lund
    Nikon D200
    Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
    Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
    Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain View Post
    We already KNOW there should be chroma noise (that is just what cameras do... when a red, or green, or blue diode pixel delivers a wrong result, the pixel will get too red, too green or too blue, resulting in an odd colour.... chroma noise). Look at the A700's output.
    But there is chroma noise in my RAW image. The reds areas have a distinct pink/purple chroma noise, the blue areas have a greenish chroma noise, and the black areas have a bluish chroma noise.

    The tests performed by DPReview also show the D300's chroma noise in its RAW files. Unfortunately, I can not direct link their images so I will give the link for people to check out for themselves:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page18.asp

    The RAW image tests clearly show the D300 with chrominance noise present. Also, when compared to the A700's images, you can clearly see that the Nikon is not using noise reduction algorithms to clean anything up. No smudges, no dithering. So, its pretty hard to say that the D300/D3 performs noise reduction no matter what.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichlund
    Earlier cameras were 1 second, as in my old D70 and the still current D40. I haven't checked all other models, but the current value is 8 seconds in the D80, D200, and D300.
    Yes, this is true. The camera says it will not perform long exposure noise reduction on images with a shutter time of less than 8 seconds. However, I do want to try a few tests to see if there is some of this noise reduction at speeds shorter than 8 seconds, or if there is noise reduction performed even when you have the setting turned off. For some reason, I just can not believe that the images on the other site are accurate. Those 100% crops are terrible from the D3, and clearly look like noise reduction was turned on. I will post my results.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    These are the very exciting obligatory test images, shot with tungsten light, in RAW with a Canon EOS 350D and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC, at 33mm, f8, and white balance in the RAW converter (DPP 3.2) set to 2500 K in these scaled photos, and set to daylight in the 100% crops.

    No noise reduction set, the RAW converter's sharpening set to 1 out of 10, only PP done is standard bicubic resizing in Photoshop CS2 and saving as JPEG with ProJPEG.
    Metering was done on a mid-tone.

    ISO 1600 was shot with camera set to ISO 1600, 1/4th sec exposure.
    ISO 3200 was shot with camera set to ISO 1600, 1 f-stop underexposed, 1/8th sec exposure.
    ISO 6400 was shot with camera set to ISO 1600, 2 f-stops underexposed, 1/15th sec exposure.

    Do take note of that a correct white balance correction (2500 kelvin) would have a huge impact on the range of the RAW data, and that this would inhibit a good assessment of what the chroma noise reduction does. That is why I chose a daylight WB setting, which to my knowledge is pretty neutral for sensors.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •