Sensitivity of the new generation camera's.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
[]
Nobody except a genuine dolt cares about a single
apostrophe out of place in the Subject: header of a
Usenet article. It clearly communicated the intended
information, which is the *only* purpose of that header.

If it had been in any way ambiguous. If it had not
communicated the necessary information. Or if it had
been for a different venue (a newspaper, magazine, PhD
thesis or even just a high school term paper) there
might be a problem. On Usenet???? *Don't be a dolt!*

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Were I writing (or speaking) in a foreign language, I would appreciate
correction on any mistakes I made. Therefore, I see many such corrections
as an attempt to be helpful, and not worth getting upset about.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
[]
Nobody except a genuine dolt cares about a single
apostrophe out of place in the Subject: header of a
Usenet article. It clearly communicated the intended
information, which is the *only* purpose of that header.

If it had been in any way ambiguous. If it had not
communicated the necessary information. Or if it had
been for a different venue (a newspaper, magazine, PhD
thesis or even just a high school term paper) there
might be a problem. On Usenet???? *Don't be a dolt!*

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Were I writing (or speaking) in a foreign language, I would appreciate
correction on any mistakes I made. Therefore, I see many such corrections
as an attempt to be helpful, and not worth getting upset about.

Okay, be a dolt.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2010-12-17 01:59:51 -0800, "David J Taylor"
said:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
[]
Nobody except a genuine dolt cares about a single
apostrophe out of place in the Subject: header of a
Usenet article. It clearly communicated the intended
information, which is the *only* purpose of that header.

If it had been in any way ambiguous. If it had not
communicated the necessary information. Or if it had
been for a different venue (a newspaper, magazine, PhD
thesis or even just a high school term paper) there
might be a problem. On Usenet???? *Don't be a dolt!*

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Were I writing (or speaking) in a foreign language, I would appreciate
correction on any mistakes I made. Therefore, I see many such
corrections as an attempt to be helpful, and not worth getting upset
about.

David

Bruce wasn't trying to be helpful to a non-English speaker. It is
highly unlikely he was even aware of that fact, or even cared. In fact
Bruce was fanning a potential flame war, and has been somewhat
successful.
He was just making a a pedantic ass of himself. He actually thought the
OP was Rich, an alleged English speaker, not the actual writer, Ben
Brugman. who it seems is not a native English speaker.

Read Bruce's original comment again;

"
Just a side issue, but what's with the apostrophe in the subject line?

Surely someone as well-educated as Rich should know that a plural
doesn't require an apostrophe? If it is meant to indicate the
possessive, what is he talking about? A camera's what?"

You might have noticed that Bruce's only post in this thread was the
one in which he picks on the blameless (this time) Rick, and he has
since chosen not to reenter the fray, perhaps because he recognized he
aimed at the wrong target, and was being an ass.

The meaning of the OP was quite clear to all those who attempted to
provide a sincere answer.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Hello all,

Thanks for all your replies.
Thanks for the reference to the site:
http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/197|0/%28appareil2%29/680|0/%28appareil3%29/441|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon

This did give some insight to the noise on D70 and D7000. And it does a fine
job when comparing two camera's.
I did use dpreview.com for the comparising, but over time they have adjusted
and improved their measurment and their representation so direct comparison
is not realy available.

From the above site I 'conclude' that on pixel level, the noise of the D7000
has improved by almost two stops compared to the D70.
From dpreview I compared an iso 1600 picture of the D70 with an iso 12800
picture of the D7000. When both are reduced to the same size, they appear to
have about the same level of noise. This is done on a single picture by eye
and some judgement on my side, so this is not very scientifically. Even with
the 'same' pictures on dpreview it depends on which part of the picture you
are comparing the results will differ. Some objects look sharper and more
clearly defined in one picture, other objects look better in another
picture. And I would like to compare a iso 400 and iso 800 D70 picture with
the D7000 pictures, but they are not available on dpreview.

So my 'rough' conclusion to noise is that the D7000 has about 3 stops of
improvement compared to the D70 when judged on the same size of pictures.
Any conformation or different opinions about these 3 stops?

What I think I noticed was that noise does not appear to be random over the
pixels, but it looks that the blodges of noise are larger than pixels. So
reducing the number of pixels might have a limited effect.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx I guess that since the OP originated in the Netherlands, English is not
xx a first language for Ben and he might have expressed himself clearer in
xx Dutch. He might have had a better idea of apostrophe usage.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is correct that I am Dutch. And indeed English is not my first language.
Sorry to have made an error which gave so much debate.
I'll try to avoid this mistake the next time.

All thanks for your time and attention,
Ben Brugman

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010121702490550073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
[]
Bruce wasn't trying to be helpful to a non-English speaker. It is highly
unlikely he was even aware of that fact, or even cared. In fact Bruce
was fanning a potential flame war, and has been somewhat successful.
He was just making a a pedantic ass of himself. He actually thought the
OP was Rich, an alleged English speaker, not the actual writer, Ben
Brugman. who it seems is not a native English speaker.

Read Bruce's original comment again;

"
Just a side issue, but what's with the apostrophe in the subject line?

Surely someone as well-educated as Rich should know that a plural
doesn't require an apostrophe? If it is meant to indicate the
possessive, what is he talking about? A camera's what?"

You might have noticed that Bruce's only post in this thread was the one
in which he picks on the blameless (this time) Rick, and he has since
chosen not to reenter the fray, perhaps because he recognized he aimed
at the wrong target, and was being an ass.

The meaning of the OP was quite clear to all those who attempted to
provide a sincere answer.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

I agree that Bruce wasn't trying to help the OP, I was simply saying that
were I to be corrected for making a mistake in a foreign language, I would
actually appreciate a correction. But not if it were couched in a
derogatory fashion, of course.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote:

I agree that Bruce wasn't trying to help the OP, I was simply saying that
were I to be corrected for making a mistake in a foreign language, I would
actually appreciate a correction. But not if it were couched in a
derogatory fashion, of course.

I would expect that if you are engaged in meaningful
communications with a person who speaks English as a
second or third language that you would be polite enough
to make every effort to understand what they were
actually trying to communicate. I wouldn't expect you
to interrupt them with corrections for *any* errors in
language use, much less meaningless ones.

That is the exact same respect for the individual you
would demand for yourself if speaking to another native
speaker. We *all*, native speakers included, write and
speak in something typically other than perfect English.
Nobody but a real dolt sprinkles their conversations
with language corrections!

On Usenet it is a *far* more common problem that the
English is good enough, but what is communicated is
illogical or even simply inaccurate. Why would anyone
want to read an article that uses perfect English but
has false facts and invalid logic?

That last, by the way, rather describes your responses
in this thread. Think about which is of longer lasting
importance to *your* reputations, proper English or
valid logic!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"ben brugman" wrote:
From the above site I 'conclude' that on pixel level, the noise of the D7000
has improved by almost two stops compared to the D70.

Here's a bit of data that might just boggle your mind.
It certainly set me up in my chair, I tell you that!

This is all tabulated from http://www.sensorgen.info.
Unfortunately they don't have data for a D70, and I'm
not sure what relation there might be to any of these
cameras (or that it would make any difference).

The chart is laid out from left to right in order of the
release date of the camera. The second labeled QE is
the Quantum Efficiency of the sensor. Each following
line is the Read Noise in "electrons" for that ISO value
in the far left column.


22/07/3 16/11/6 01/12/8 14/10/9
16/09/4 01/07/8 14/04/9 15/09/10

Model D2H D2X D40 D700 D3X D5000 D3S D7000
QE 15 23 24 38 35 35 57 48

200 12.4 14.7 10.8 15.2 4.7 5.8 25.0 3.0
400 14.2 12.4 8.0 9.1 4.2 4.0 12.7 3.0
800 10.6 13.8 9.0 5.8 3.8 3.6 7.4 3.0
1600 11.9 13.3 10.6 5.3 4.1 2.1 5.4 2.9
3200 11.7 12.6 16.3 6.0 3.7 2.6 3.7 3.8
6400 12.2 - - 6.0 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.6
12800 - - - 6.0 - - 3.0 4.6

The read noise values at ISO 3200 are interesting, as
they more or less indicate evolution in the high ISO
capability of Nikon cameras. It isn't a direct
relationship though, just a general one. With the
exceptions of the D40 and the D5000, it's just a case of
lower number with later release dates. For ISO 6400 it
looks like a plateau was reached in 2009 and has been
maintained for a year and a half.

But look at the noise figures for ISO 200 and ISO 400!
In particular compare the two most recent models. The
D3S, clearly the champion model in the entire line, has
significantly larger read noise values than any recent
model. It also exhibits the more common tendency to
have decreasing values as the ISO increases. The most
recent camera, the D7000 has almost uniform read noise
across the ISO range, comparable to the D3X except the
D7000 is 25% lower than the D3X.

What I get from this is that Nikon's sensors have been
continuing to evolve, though we can't really tell what
they are doing different. But what if the next
generation, the D4 model expected sometime next year, also
has uniformly low noise across the same ISO range as the
D3S! While that won't give it more ISO sensitivity, it
would certainly improve the dynamic range significantly.
Indeed, it would increase it enough to warrant a 16 bit
ADC! And that would make the increased dynamic range actually
useful (i.e., increase the number of stops with 8 or more
values within one stop).

I have no idea if Nikon can find a 16 bit ADC that is
either fast enough or has a high enough SNR, but if they
can't now it is a sure thing in the relative near
future. Hence much as the D2X would have benefited from
a 14 bit ADC, but was 12 bits to maintain the needed
speed and that model was followed by the D3 with 14
bits, a new D4 at 14 bits might be followed soon enough
by a D4S with a 16 bit ADC. Or it might wait 4-5 years
for a D5 model.

For photographers, we do live in interesting times!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

I have no idea if Nikon can find a 16 bit ADC that is
either fast enough or has a high enough SNR, but if they
can't now it is a sure thing in the relative near
future.

Two points.

1. Fast enough isn't a problem. Many of us would have no problem waiting 10
times as long for readout for a clean 13 bits of data (i.e an extra two
stops of DR at ISO 100). It'd need to have a fast mode for people in a rush,
of course. But landscape folks would be fine with even a 4 or 5 second
readout time.

2. Getting 11 stops of DR in what's essentially a consumer product is
already pretty amazing. It may simply be unreasonable to ask for more. Just
my intuition here. I'm not holding my breath. Another problem is that it's
not something that the advertising folks are going to be amused by. More
megapixels sells. Higher dynamic range? Only to engineers. Sigh.

3. Most landscape film photography is shot on Velvia. With all of 5 stops of
DR. Maybe we should shut up and take some pictures.

--
David J. Littleboy
Who has been doing other things than photography of late, sigh.
Tokyo, Japan

On 2010-12-17 03:59:53 -0800, "David J Taylor"
said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010121702490550073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
[]
Bruce wasn't trying to be helpful to a non-English speaker. It is
highly unlikely he was even aware of that fact, or even cared. In fact
Bruce was fanning a potential flame war, and has been somewhat
successful.
He was just making a a pedantic ass of himself. He actually thought the
OP was Rich, an alleged English speaker, not the actual writer, Ben
Brugman. who it seems is not a native English speaker.

Read Bruce's original comment again;

"
Just a side issue, but what's with the apostrophe in the subject line?

Surely someone as well-educated as Rich should know that a plural
doesn't require an apostrophe? If it is meant to indicate the
possessive, what is he talking about? A camera's what?"

You might have noticed that Bruce's only post in this thread was the
one in which he picks on the blameless (this time) Rick, and he has
since chosen not to reenter the fray, perhaps because he recognized he
aimed at the wrong target, and was being an ass.

The meaning of the OP was quite clear to all those who attempted to
provide a sincere answer.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

I agree that Bruce wasn't trying to help the OP, I was simply saying
that were I to be corrected for making a mistake in a foreign language,
I would actually appreciate a correction. But not if it were couched
in a derogatory fashion, of course.

Cheers,
David

So?
What else was Bruce's intent, if not to be derisive of Rich?
It was obvious he never had any intent to be a helpful English tutor.
He thought he had caught Rich in a glaring mistake, and he had to be
the first to point that out, but he was wrong.

All he succeeded in achieving was to demonstrate, he is every bit an
ass as Rich is.

Remember there is a fair amount of interchange between most of the
regulars in the photo newsgroups, and some of us, myself included,
occasionally make silly mistakes with word usage, typos, and
punctuation errors. For the most part our meaning and intent is clear,
but we are open to the snide remark, sometimes with humorous intent
from those in the groups who do that sort of thing. ( I have been known
to make a fool of myself by pointing out such word usage errors, only
to include a stupid error of my own.)
I regularly see typos involving apostrophe usage where the ";" key has
been hit, giving us things such as "don;t" instead of "don't", what has
happened is obvious and not worth pointing out.

In Bruce's case there was no humorous interchange, or being helpful. He
was simply being an ass.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/17/2010 11:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:


Remember there is a fair amount of interchange between most of the
regulars in the photo newsgroups, and some of us, myself included,
occasionally make silly mistakes with word usage, typos, and punctuation
errors. For the most part our meaning and intent is clear, but we are
open to the snide remark, sometimes with humorous intent from those in
the groups who do that sort of thing. ( I have been known to make a fool
of myself by pointing out such word usage errors, only to include a
stupid error of my own.)
I regularly see typos involving apostrophe usage where the ";" key has
been hit, giving us things such as "don;t" instead of "don't", what has
happened is obvious and not worth pointing out.


One of my most common and embarrassing typos is instead of: "does not,"
I type "doe snot."


In Bruce's case there was no humorous interchange, or being helpful. He
was simply being an ass.



--
Peter