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
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's not what I see. (OTOH these samples aren't standardised to output size, so aren't particularly useful) These are all just jpegs, both Canon and Nikon still apply some high ISO NR to jpeg even with NR Off, so in total it's a pretty meaningless result (except for those who'd shoot jpeg at high ISO of course - and for them, Canon's in-camera NR looks much nicer than Nikon's, even though Canon's default jpeg sharpening is much higher) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
Me wrote in :
On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's not what I see. NR in the RAW images? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
On 5/10/2012 4:34 p.m., Rich wrote:
Me wrote in : On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's not what I see. NR in the RAW images? I didn't scroll down to see the raw images. Now I have done so, I still don't see more noise in the red channel in the D600 than the D800, but less. TBH I don't think that DPR's comparisons have ever been a hell of a lot of use, as they aren't scaled to output size - hence subject to the usual mistake of making hysterical comments about high iso noise when viewing at 1:1 pixel scale. Even between different brands (ie 5dIII and D600) there's bugger-all difference. The 5DIII looks like it's got a bit less noise in the red channel, and a bit more in the green. If you see more or different, then perhaps it's my monitor - I'm not using my calibrated system to view, just gamma corrected "near enough" for normal use. It's of passing interest only - they're (D800/600 and 5DIII) effectively the same. You can toggle to the 5D II, compared to the 5D III, the III is a little better, unsurprising as QE is improved from 33% to 49%. But it's still bugger-all, you'd have to be very fussy to prefer D800 vs D600, or 5DIII vs 5DII at the sensor level, a few more pixels here, a minor improvement at high ISO there, meh - not enough difference to be able to say that technical quality would favour any of them over the other when it came to a real photograph. Low ISO raw DR might (and as you should know -actually would) be where there would be a significant difference between brands. Then it depends whether you need that DR or not in post-processing. If you don't heavily post-process, then you don't need it - it's only nice to have as a fall-back if you botch exposure. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
On 10/5/2012 10:40 PM, RichA wrote:
On Oct 5, 4:32 pm, Me wrote: On 5/10/2012 4:34 p.m., Rich wrote: Me wrote : On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's not what I see. NR in the RAW images? I didn't scroll down to see the raw images. Now I have done so, I still don't see more noise in the red channel in the D600 than the D800, but less. TBH I don't think that DPR's comparisons have ever been a hell of a lot of use, as they aren't scaled to output size - hence subject to the usual mistake of making hysterical comments about high iso noise when viewing at 1:1 pixel scale. There is a basis to the hysterical comments and it comes down to real- life versus the studio. You take a shot of a well-lit studio scene at high ISO and they tend to look good. Then you take a shot at night in a city and all of a sudden, things look a lot worse in parts of it. Part of the cause being the vast range of contrasts between the lights of the city and the shadows. So, fixating on noise might not be completely unjustified. You are right. There is a major difference between shooting under studio conditions and outside. I have made so much of the world as I can, my studio. I tend to shoot higher ISO than most. Early on I learned that the noise at higher ISO was significantly more viable under low, or high contrast lighting conditions, than even lighting. Last Saturday I was shooting a roller derby, and was experimenting between using flash and high ISO. I have only one image that may be usable, out of over 700. I will be going to an FX format, I looked at the D600, but rejected it for many reasons, despite that it would be a lower cost and lower weight alternative. -- Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 12:56:50 -0400, PeterN
wrote: : On 10/5/2012 10:40 PM, RichA wrote: : On Oct 5, 4:32 pm, Me wrote: : On 5/10/2012 4:34 p.m., Rich wrote: Me wrote : : : On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote: : http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 : : Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's : not what I see. : : NR in the RAW images? : : I didn't scroll down to see the raw images. : Now I have done so, I still don't see more noise in the red channel in : the D600 than the D800, but less. TBH I don't think that DPR's : comparisons have ever been a hell of a lot of use, as they aren't scaled : to output size - hence subject to the usual mistake of making hysterical : comments about high iso noise when viewing at 1:1 pixel scale. : : There is a basis to the hysterical comments and it comes down to real- : life versus the studio. You take a shot of a well-lit studio scene at : high ISO and they tend to look good. Then you take a shot at night in : a city and all of a sudden, things look a lot worse in parts of it. : Part of the cause being the vast range of contrasts between the lights : of the city and the shadows. So, fixating on noise might not be : completely unjustified. : : : You are right. There is a major difference between shooting under studio : conditions and outside. I have made so much of the world as I can, my : studio. I tend to shoot higher ISO than most. Early on I learned that : the noise at higher ISO was significantly more viable under low, or high : contrast lighting conditions, than even lighting. Last Saturday I was : shooting a roller derby, and was experimenting between using flash and : high ISO. I have only one image that may be usable, out of over 700. Such a low capture rate says that both flash and available light produced unacceptable results. Available light is what it is, and you obviously needed high shutter speeds for a fast sport. But what caused the flash side of the experiment to fail? Just not enough light reaching the scene? Or something more subtle? : I will be going to an FX format, I looked at the D600, but rejected it : for many reasons, despite that it would be a lower cost and lower weight : alternative. So presumably you're headed for a D800, or are you contemplating a change of brands? I guess you could opt for the latter if your current lens inventory is mostly FX-incompatible. What are you coming from, a D300 or a Dxxx? Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
On 10/7/2012 3:57 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 12:56:50 -0400, PeterN wrote: : On 10/5/2012 10:40 PM, RichA wrote: : On Oct 5, 4:32 pm, Me wrote: : On 5/10/2012 4:34 p.m., Rich wrote: Me wrote : : : On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote: : http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 : : Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's : not what I see. : : NR in the RAW images? : : I didn't scroll down to see the raw images. : Now I have done so, I still don't see more noise in the red channel in : the D600 than the D800, but less. TBH I don't think that DPR's : comparisons have ever been a hell of a lot of use, as they aren't scaled : to output size - hence subject to the usual mistake of making hysterical : comments about high iso noise when viewing at 1:1 pixel scale. : : There is a basis to the hysterical comments and it comes down to real- : life versus the studio. You take a shot of a well-lit studio scene at : high ISO and they tend to look good. Then you take a shot at night in : a city and all of a sudden, things look a lot worse in parts of it. : Part of the cause being the vast range of contrasts between the lights : of the city and the shadows. So, fixating on noise might not be : completely unjustified. : : : You are right. There is a major difference between shooting under studio : conditions and outside. I have made so much of the world as I can, my : studio. I tend to shoot higher ISO than most. Early on I learned that : the noise at higher ISO was significantly more viable under low, or high : contrast lighting conditions, than even lighting. Last Saturday I was : shooting a roller derby, and was experimenting between using flash and : high ISO. I have only one image that may be usable, out of over 700. Such a low capture rate says that both flash and available light produced unacceptable results. Available light is what it is, and you obviously needed high shutter speeds for a fast sport. But what caused the flash side of the experiment to fail? Just not enough light reaching the scene? Or something more subtle? At the start I must say, it was a combination of my failures and the wrong equipment. The following combined to contribute to my high failure rate. My camera, a D300 can produce reasonable images at f1600. I was shooting at f6400, with my 70-200mm f2.8. for my first row location I had too long a lens. I forgot to turn down the ISO for many of the the flash shots. The others had harsh shadows. I was shooting mostly to get a feel for a sport that I had never seen. The opposing team didn't show up, so they ran a scrimmage. Since both sides were from the same team, they weren't playing for anybody to get hurt. (As an example of how friendly the "match" was, the head referee proposed to one of the team members at halftime.) : I will be going to an FX format, I looked at the D600, but rejected it : for many reasons, despite that it would be a lower cost and lower weight : alternative. So presumably you're headed for a D800, or are you contemplating a change of brands? I guess you could opt for the latter if your current lens inventory is mostly FX-incompatible. What are you coming from, a D300 or a Dxxx? I have FX and DX lenses. I am undecided between a D800 and a D4/ For most of what I do the D800 will be fine. The D4 has the advantage of a much higher shutter speed, and two disadvantages: Weight and money. Bob -- Peter |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
PeterN wrote:
I have FX and DX lenses. I am undecided between a D800 and a D4/ For most of what I do the D800 will be fine. The D4 has the advantage of a much higher shutter speed, and two disadvantages: Weight and money. I assume you actually mean frame rate, not shutter speed. They both have a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. The D4 has a much higher frame rate, but there's more to it that just the maximum FPS. The buffer in the D4 is large, and it can rattle off 40 or so frames in successfion before it so much as burps. And even when it finally does slow down it's still reasonably quick. The D800 not only runs out of memory in a hurry, it was slow to start with and goes down to a snail's pace when the buffer has filled up. If you typically use high speed continuous shooting to catch sports action, the difference between the D4 and the D800 is huge. Otherwise, the D4 is a bit better at high ISO's. The phenominal dynamic range of the D800 is at IS0 100, and doesn't really get involved when shooting typically low light events. Other advantages of the D4 are that it is a more rugged camera, and in particular the shutter mechanism will last a lot longer for someone using high frame rates. I use an MB-D12 grip with the adapter for the EN-EL18 battery that also fits the D4. I don't know exactly what the weight is that way, but the two cameras are then about the same size and I certainly don't notice any difference in weight. The big advantage of the D800 of course is the 36MP image, which allows a lot of cropping and/or greater enlargement for printing. But that has a drawback too, because the NEF files are 40-50MB each, while the D4 files run about half 22MB. Processing 700 shots takes a lot time and compute power... I probably use the D800 twice as much as the D4, but event photography is exactly the reason I have a D4. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
On 10/7/2012 5:43 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote: I have FX and DX lenses. I am undecided between a D800 and a D4/ For most of what I do the D800 will be fine. The D4 has the advantage of a much higher shutter speed, and two disadvantages: Weight and money. I assume you actually mean frame rate, not shutter speed. They both have a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. The D4 has a much higher frame rate, but there's more to it that just the maximum FPS. The buffer in the D4 is large, and it can rattle off 40 or so frames in successfion before it so much as burps. And even when it finally does slow down it's still reasonably quick. The D800 not only runs out of memory in a hurry, it was slow to start with and goes down to a snail's pace when the buffer has filled up. If you typically use high speed continuous shooting to catch sports action, the difference between the D4 and the D800 is huge. Otherwise, the D4 is a bit better at high ISO's. The phenominal dynamic range of the D800 is at IS0 100, and doesn't really get involved when shooting typically low light events. Other advantages of the D4 are that it is a more rugged camera, and in particular the shutter mechanism will last a lot longer for someone using high frame rates. I use an MB-D12 grip with the adapter for the EN-EL18 battery that also fits the D4. I don't know exactly what the weight is that way, but the two cameras are then about the same size and I certainly don't notice any difference in weight. The big advantage of the D800 of course is the 36MP image, which allows a lot of cropping and/or greater enlargement for printing. But that has a drawback too, because the NEF files are 40-50MB each, while the D4 files run about half 22MB. Processing 700 shots takes a lot time and compute power... I probably use the D800 twice as much as the D4, but event photography is exactly the reason I have a D4. Thanks, Yes I did mean frame rate. -- Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
D800 has less red channel noise than D600. How?
Me wrote:
On 5/10/2012 4:34 p.m., Rich wrote: Me wrote in : On 5/10/2012 1:19 p.m., RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 Toggle the top left dropdown to "NR Off" and look again, because that's not what I see. NR in the RAW images? I didn't scroll down to see the raw images. Now I have done so, I still don't see more noise in the red channel in the D600 than the D800, but less. TBH I don't think that DPR's comparisons have ever been a hell of a lot of use, as they aren't scaled to output size - hence subject to the usual mistake of making hysterical comments about high iso noise when viewing at 1:1 pixel scale. *If* you buy a high megapixel camera to print the same old sizes than before, you need to scale to a common "output size". And you'd be wasting money. And likely pixels. If you buy it to actually produce larger prints, you need to scale to different output scales --- in fact, if you keep the same ppi in your prints as with the old camera, then dpreview's doing just the right thing. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is the D600 overpriced? | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 50 | October 8th 12 03:37 PM |
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 84 | September 27th 12 09:31 PM |
Nikon D600 | Me | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 22nd 12 10:43 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 63 | July 10th 12 02:07 AM |
Red channel to BW | ned | Digital Photography | 3 | July 19th 04 02:05 AM |