A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 5th 12, 10:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

John A. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:06:48 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:14:58 -0900,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/5/2012 10:35 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
I just bought a Canon 7D instead of a 5DMkIII ... and I noticed
moire in many of the images I found on the web. However, this
was very minor. It also means Canon makes really good lenses.
I'm not worried!

I fail to see how that indicates Canon makes really good
lenses,

if they didn't, at that resolution, there would be no detail
above the Nyquist frequency.

but otherwise 1) they *do* make very good
lenses, and 2) you've demonstrated for yourself that
Bruces claim that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable is not correct.


Actually the moire instances I mention do prove his point:
they were all essentially negligible. One would have to pixel peep
to be bothered by them ... they were mostly very low contrast
color moire which would have succumbed to a bit of postprocessing
in PS that would not have bothered the artistic rendition
(i.e. convert to YUV and blur the U or V or both, just in the afflicted area.)

Thanks for your support, Doug, but I never claimed that moire was
"negligible".

It isn't possible to have a civilised discussion with people who twist
my words and argue against something I never said, which is why Floyd
L Davidson will be staying in my kill file for an extremely long time.

Hiding from reality doesn't change it.

"Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only
occasionally and can easily be avoided." -- Bruce

Which is to say: Bruce said moiré negligible!

Negligible would mean avoiding it is unnecessary.


Would you kindly look the word up in a dictionary.


Assuming you can't or won't...

http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...eneg·li·gi·ble
[neg-li-juh-buhl]
adjective
so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or
disregarded

That's not the same as "can easily be avoided." If it's negligible you
can safely neglect avoiding it.


Okay, you read the words and still don't understand.

If it can easily be avoided, it is negligible. Period.

Got that?

He is saying it should not be considered, and that
means it is negligible.


And ...

If he said "a stalled car in the middle of an otherwise empty highway
is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can easily
be avoided" would you say that he was claiming such an occurrence
would require no adjustment to the path of your car - that the
presence of that stalled car can be safely neglected?


Such occurance should not affect which car you buy or
which road you drive.


... BINGO!

But regardless, the presense of that stalled car can
safely be neglected by everyone! The highway is
otherwise empty, therefore no cars need be concerned
because they are all somewhere else. It's a fact, just
the same, that traffic jams in New York City have
negligible effect on my driving for the same reason: I
ain't there!


Playing genie of the lamp, are we? Okay. The highway is empty but for
your car and the stalled one, which is ahead of you in one of the
lanes used for going the direction in which you are traveling. Do you
just shrug and stay in your lane (neglecting it), or do you make note
of which lane the stalled car is in and make sure you are not in it
(not neglecting it)?


You switched the goal post. Before it was *your* stalled car
on the otherwise totally empty highway. Bit difference.

Regardless of silly analogies that do not demonstrate the actual
problem, what he said was that moiré is so uncommon as to be
negligable. Live with it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #32  
Old March 6th 12, 02:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

On 3/5/2012 9:53 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter, where have you been?



Probably spending days in front of his computer in his underclothes,
rarely venturing outside, rarely experiencing fresh air or sunlight.
There is a core of people doing the same thing, spouting nonsense and
pet theories that they will never put to the test because they can't
afford any of the equipment they criticise or comment on, and wouldn't
know how to use it if they could. Theorising is all they have left,
and their sole motivation is to make others unhappy with equipment
they own or are considering buying.

Jealousy is a strong driver of such behaviour - if you can't afford it
or understand it, diss it. Leica users have to put up with this sort
of crap all the time, always from people who cannot afford Leica gear,
don't know how to use it, or most often both.


As for moire, no one is arguing that you
can experience moire without an AA filter, but the question is, how much
is too much and is trading off 20% linear resolution from EVERY image
worth eliminating a small risk of moire?



The shooters whose images are at greatest risk from moire are fashion
photographers. Most top fashion shooters use medium format digital
cameras.

Some of those cameras have the option of AA filter/no AA filter. Some
don't even offer an AA filter as an option. In practice, the vast
majority of fashion photographers are shooting images all the time
with no AA filters.

But how can this be, if moire is such a problem? Answer: it isn't.

Moire is a very minor problem that occurs only occasionally and can
easily be avoided. However, it is being whipped up on online forums
into something far worse by a group of profoundly ignorant people who
simply haven't a clue about what they are talking about.



So sayeth one who has continually failed to produce an image.

--
Peter
  #33  
Old March 6th 12, 09:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

Rich wrote:
nospam wrote in news:040320120926345162%
:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate
from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed.


actually, it's you who is wasting breath, because you haven't an
inkling of a clue about what you're talking about.

They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more
detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that
show the complete opposite.


bull****.

if you have images that prove longstanding signal theory is wrong, by
all means present them. quite a few people will be interested in seeing
such evidence, far more than just the readers of this newsgroup. you
could turn the entire industry on its head. you'd be famous.


There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter,


Resolution that is swamped by artifact noise is worthless.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

  #34  
Old March 6th 12, 03:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

In article
,
RichA wrote:

"Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered
a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter
in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the
glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them.
I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if
the problem was that dire.


just because you can't tell doesn't mean it's not there.
  #35  
Old March 6th 12, 03:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_16_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,116
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
"Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered
a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter
in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the
glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them.
I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if
the problem was that dire.


Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths?
Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA
filtering is needed?

Don't forget that the effects of aliasing may not show up as obviously on
natural scene objects as they would on objects with a fine, regular
pattern.

David

  #36  
Old March 7th 12, 04:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Rich[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,081
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

"RichA" wrote in message
.
.. []
"Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've
convered a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the
IR filter in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part
of the glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot
with them. I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at
this point if the problem was that dire.


Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths?
Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA
filtering is needed?

Don't forget that the effects of aliasing may not show up as obviously
on natural scene objects as they would on objects with a fine, regular
pattern.

David



I shot city stuff too, no evidence of moire, and I used a variety of
lenses. I'll try to shoot some fine, repeating detail at varying
distances and see what happens.
  #37  
Old March 7th 12, 07:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

RichA wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:15*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Rich wrote:


There have *BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter,


Resolution that is swamped by artifact noise is worthless.


"Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen?


Why do people have to keep explaining the same concepts to you again and
again and again??

Start with something called "moire".

I've convered
a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR.


You've bull****ted about dozens of cameras and have little credibility
as to which ones you might actually use.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

  #38  
Old March 7th 12, 07:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

David J Taylor wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
"Swamped?" Under what circumstances would that happen? I've convered
a half-dozen cameras (Nikon) to IR. When you eliminate the IR filter
in a Nikon, you also get rid of the AA filter which is part of the
glass stack. I've yet to see any moire in any images shot with them.
I'd have expected at least something to have shown up at this point if
the problem was that dire.


Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths?
Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA
filtering is needed?


You don't need actual information when you have faith as a substitute.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

  #39  
Old March 7th 12, 10:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_16_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,116
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S


"Rich" wrote in message
...
"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

[]
Did you measure how well your lenses performed at those wavelengths?
Perhaps the point spread function is sufficiently greater that less AA
filtering is needed?

Don't forget that the effects of aliasing may not show up as obviously
on natural scene objects as they would on objects with a fine, regular
pattern.

David



I shot city stuff too, no evidence of moire, and I used a variety of
lenses. I'll try to shoot some fine, repeating detail at varying
distances and see what happens.


So you didn't actually measure whether an AA filter was needed or not,
once the camera was near-IR sensitive. When you shoot your tests, be sure
to include the results with a non-converted camera as well.

David

  #40  
Old March 9th 12, 02:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:02:25 +1300, Me wrote:

On 3/03/2012 6:03 p.m., Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Downsize the D4 images or whatever, but the output from the D3S is
still the best of any DSLR.

http://tinyurl.com/7mmbmkq


Perhaps your subjective opinion is... eerrrrrr, less that valid?

Here's something a little less difficult for you the
analyze. See if you can tell us in what way it supports
your bull**** opinion?

http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO200snr.gif
http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/TestIm/ISO3200snr.gif
http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/Te...SO12800snr.gif

What you are most interested in, since you probably
don't know, is where the graphs show different cameras
in each ISO at the -6 EV and lower. Specifically the
D3S is the light green color, while a normalized to 12
MP D800 graph is in red and a normalized to 12 MP D4
graph is in blue.

In all cases, but particularly at ISO 200, the D4 and
D800 both have better SNR than the D3 and D3S.

This information (collated by Marianne Oelund, Bill Claff, and others)
just ain't going to "get through". The forums on DPReview are full of it.
I'd hoped the 5dIII would have been near enough to 36mp to quell
inter-brand BS on what "perfect pixel density" is. Dammit, now the
Canon 5DII apologists will be arguing for exactly what they argued
against when Canon had more pixels.


Have you ben following the conversations on those DP Review boards?
It's hilarious. Apparently, Canon has introduced the camera the
Nikonians want while Nikon has introduced the camera the Cannonites
want. Neither side is pleased with their company's introduction. For
me, the 5D III is what I was looking for. Same resolution but vastly
improved metering and AF, as well as better sealing. 22MP is plenty
for me, and those 75M Nikon files could be a bit much. I'll be
upgrading to the III in about 6 months.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
As suspected, it's crap Bowser Digital Photography 3 December 9th 10 07:03 PM
What is the best way to clean lenses Dave Digital SLR Cameras 12 January 13th 06 11:24 AM
how to clean a lens pug brian Digital Point & Shoot Cameras 13 November 14th 05 09:08 PM
SUSPECTED FRAUD WARNING! Frank Malloway Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 6 July 4th 03 09:17 PM
SUSPECTED FRAUD WARNING! Frank Malloway 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 July 3rd 03 04:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.