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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 5200 messy-looking high ISO images
On 9/02/2013 8:55 p.m., RichA wrote:
The interesting comparison (IMO) is between the D600 and D5200. It's not often that you have a comparison between the same "generation" of sensor and same megapixel count, but one Fx and the other Dx. With different "generation" sensors or between brands, there's usually enough difference in contrast, colour rendering, default sharpening, NR etc, so that it's hard to see what's going on. To my eyes, the D5200 studio shots (raw) look almost exactly as they should - ie at ISO 800, they are almost as good as the D600 at ISO 1600, but clearly much better then the D600 at ISO3200. The 24mp APS-c studio shots are (when adjusted to allow for the "one (and a bit)" stop advantage of FX, practically indistinguishable in every way - including detail at base ISO. In the field it might be a different story. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 5200 messy-looking high ISO images
On 10/02/2013 7:30 AM, Me wrote:
On 9/02/2013 8:55 p.m., RichA wrote: The interesting comparison (IMO) is between the D600 and D5200. It's not often that you have a comparison between the same "generation" of sensor and same megapixel count, but one Fx and the other Dx. With different "generation" sensors or between brands, there's usually enough difference in contrast, colour rendering, default sharpening, NR etc, so that it's hard to see what's going on. To my eyes, the D5200 studio shots (raw) look almost exactly as they should - ie at ISO 800, they are almost as good as the D600 at ISO 1600, but clearly much better then the D600 at ISO3200. The 24mp APS-c studio shots are (when adjusted to allow for the "one (and a bit)" stop advantage of FX, practically indistinguishable in every way - including detail at base ISO. In the field it might be a different story. It was surprising to see the test results. Is the pixel density becoming too much for a reliable sensor at high ISO. Be of interest to actually know what is causing the spots. It does not seem like dead pixels, they look different, I've had them and replaced my 5 year old camera after 70,000 plus actuations. Going back to the D700 FX at high iso and comparing the results with the D90 DX same Mp the results were chalk and cheese. I know a couple of people who use the D3200 and they are very happy with the results, but then again, don't push their cameras to the extreme, or have high expectations, bring a replacement a DX camera so they could use their older lenses. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 5200 messy-looking high ISO images
On 10/02/2013 11:57 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Feb 9, 3:30 pm, Me wrote: On 9/02/2013 8:55 p.m., RichA wrote: The interesting comparison (IMO) is between the D600 and D5200. It's not often that you have a comparison between the same "generation" of sensor and same megapixel count, but one Fx and the other Dx. With different "generation" sensors or between brands, there's usually enough difference in contrast, colour rendering, default sharpening, NR etc, so that it's hard to see what's going on. To my eyes, the D5200 studio shots (raw) look almost exactly as they should - ie at ISO 800, they are almost as good as the D600 at ISO 1600, but clearly much better then the D600 at ISO3200. The 24mp APS-c studio shots are (when adjusted to allow for the "one (and a bit)" stop advantage of FX, practically indistinguishable in every way - including detail at base ISO. In the field it might be a different story. So going FX buys you one stop or so of noise control and the ability to use wide angle lenses to their fullest ability. Still wondering if Nikon will fill the huge void between the ho-hum D600 body and the D800? If you need deep DOF at a given FOV, then there's no real advantage to FX, subject to how lenses perform, and subject to DR still being mainly limited by read noise at base ISO (less so these days with Nikon - since the D7000 at least) There's not much of a "product line-up" gap between the D600 and 800. An extra $1,000 gets you a few more pixels, a slightly better AF point coverage, a bit more metal, but not much else. Ergonomically the D600 is better - Ken Rockwell hits the nail on the head with his criticism of the D300/700/800 obscure and poorly executed menu-only accessible shooting banks, yet programmable and easily switchable user functions on the D7000 and D600. What's missing (IMO) is a faster frame-rate FX camera above the D800, and a pro Dx camera. Also missing is some better QA - or some more timely and appropriate response from Nikon when problems do arise. The D800 and D600 "issues" might be overblown on internet forums, but even if Nikon thinks so, their lack of response is pretty bad IMO. Canon did Nikon an almighty favour when they buried their heads in the sand over the 1D III focus issues. Nikon seem to be returning the favour. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 5200 messy-looking high ISO images
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:23:20 +1300, Me wrote:
: On 10/02/2013 11:57 a.m., RichA wrote: : So going FX buys you one stop or so of noise control and the ability : to use wide angle lenses to their fullest ability. Still wondering if : Nikon will fill the huge void between the ho-hum D600 body and the : D800? : : If you need deep DOF at a given FOV, then there's no real advantage to : FX, subject to how lenses perform, and subject to DR still being mainly : limited by read noise at base ISO (less so these days with Nikon - since : the D7000 at least) : There's not much of a "product line-up" gap between the D600 and 800. : An extra $1,000 gets you a few more pixels, a slightly better AF point : coverage, a bit more metal, but not much else. Ergonomically the D600 : is better - Ken Rockwell hits the nail on the head with his criticism of : the D300/700/800 obscure and poorly executed menu-only accessible : shooting banks, yet programmable and easily switchable user functions on : the D7000 and D600. : What's missing (IMO) is a faster frame-rate FX camera above the D800, "Above" in what sense? To maintain the D800's resolution at a higher frame rate would require a faster processor, wouldn't it? This would mean more power consumption, so maybe you'd need a D4-size body? : and a pro Dx camera. The much-discussed "D300 replacement", IOW? : Also missing is some better QA - or some more timely and appropriate : response from Nikon when problems do arise. The D800 and D600 "issues" : might be overblown on internet forums, but even if Nikon thinks so, : their lack of response is pretty bad IMO. Canon did Nikon an almighty : favour when they buried their heads in the sand over the 1D III focus : issues. Nikon seem to be returning the favour. The 1D3 fiasco was certainly an embarrassment for Canon, but they seem to have lived it down. I have to admit that I haven't paid much attention to Nikon's "issues" with the D800 and D600. (Why should I? I'm a Canonian.) But the D800 debuted with so much hype, not all of it Nikon's doing, that it's hard to see how they could have lived up to it without having to deal with a few embarrassing glitches. And let's face it: Nikon's competitors haven't exactly stepped up to the 36Mp challenge. Bob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 5200 messy-looking high ISO images
Robert Coe wrote:
The 1D3 fiasco was certainly an embarrassment for Canon, but they seem to have lived it down. I have to admit that I haven't paid much attention to Nikon's "issues" with the D800 and D600. (Why should I? I'm a Canonian.) Because every good Cannoneer, ah, Canonian should always aim for the weak spot of the enemy. :-) embarrassing glitches. And let's face it: Nikon's competitors haven't exactly stepped up to the 36Mp challenge. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/08...non120mpsensor Look at the date. And of course http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/08...nlargestsensor It is obviously not a question of "not capable", it's a question if it's worth it. There are few people who need a 36 MPix 35mm camera; and unless you're shooting medium format-like with it you're not using the resolution. OK, there ARE those who buy just for the bragging rights. ("I have about as many Gigahertz in my CPU as the D800 has Megapixels, eat your heart out!") -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Coolpix 5200 | Stormlady | Digital Photography | 3 | March 8th 05 03:04 AM |
nikon 5200 coolpix fotoblog | arunda online | Digital Photography | 0 | December 10th 04 12:39 PM |
Pentax 555 or Nikon 5200 | Giorgio Preddio | Digital Photography | 3 | June 28th 04 11:19 AM |
Pentax 555 or Nikon 5200 | Giorgio Preddio | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | June 28th 04 11:19 AM |
High quality high resolution images. Please see my new website! | Keith Flowers | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 13th 03 12:13 PM |