As suspected, D4 not as clean as D3S

RichA 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.

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

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.

On 3/3/2012 12:47 PM, RichA wrote:
On Mar 3, 12:03 am, (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/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.

--
Floyd L. Davidsonhttp://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Then why is there more "visible" noise in the D4 images on Dpreview?

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/141858950

And why do you persist in bull****ting and complaining, about cameras
that you have no intention of ever using. Do you really believe that
anyone spending real money on a camera would consider YOUR opinion.

--
Peter

On 2012-03-03 09:47:39 -0800, RichA said:


Then why is there more "visible" noise in the D4 images on Dpreview?

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/141858950

The thing which is most interesting is your on-again off-again love
affair with DPreview.
In one breath you deride them as toadies incapable of providing
anything but opinions favoring their advertisers. In the next, you use
test images from their tests which you claim as biased, as the
foundation for one of your arguments.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

RichA wrote:
Then why is there more "visible" noise in the D4 images on Dpreview?

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/141858950

You don't seem to be able to tell what is "more" and
what is not.

I personally can't tell from those image if there is
more noise or not. All I can tell is that the images
are *clearly* not comparable by visual inspection. They
are not taken with exactly the same light, they are not
normalized to the same pixel dimensions, and visual
inspection cannot determine differences that close
anyway.

The worst part is that the D4 image actually *doesn't*
look noisier! Look at the letters where it says
"Thursday", and notice that there is more contrast in
the D4 image than in the D3S image. But the big clue
that the images are not comparable is the different
shadows/reflections that show up from the face of the
watch.

The point of course is that your original claim is
nothing but an emotionally ignorant rant. If instead we
look at the work done by people with credibility who have
actually *measured* noise in ways that is comparable...
the graphs I referenced done by Marianne Oelund
distinctly show how the D4 compares to the D3S, without
requiring viewer judgment of what they are seeing.

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

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

RichA wrote:
Then why is there more "visible" noise in the D4 images on Dpreview?

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/141858950

You don't seem to be able to tell what is "more" and
what is not.

I personally can't tell from those image if there is
more noise or not. All I can tell is that the images
are *clearly* not comparable by visual inspection. They
are not taken with exactly the same light, they are not
normalized to the same pixel dimensions

That is a B.S. tactic. "Normalized." Take a 500,000 pixel area from BOTH
cameras, the D3s is CLEANER. If you can't see it in the images, you are
blind.

Rich wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

RichA wrote:
Then why is there more "visible" noise in the D4 images on Dpreview?

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/141858950

You don't seem to be able to tell what is "more" and
what is not.

I personally can't tell from those image if there is
more noise or not. All I can tell is that the images
are *clearly* not comparable by visual inspection. They
are not taken with exactly the same light, they are not
normalized to the same pixel dimensions

That is a B.S. tactic. "Normalized." Take a 500,000 pixel area from BOTH
cameras, the D3s is CLEANER. If you can't see it in the images, you are
blind.

Learn something about it before you spout off.

I can't see it in the images because it isn't there!
One is bigger than the other, so how do you compare?
One clearly has shadows/reflections that the other does
not have. How do you compare them? The one you say is
noisier clearly has more contrast than the other, how do
you compare them?

Well, in fact there *are* ways to make *valid*
comparisons. And when that is in fact done... the D4
images that have been seen so far are cleaner than D3S
images. The images also confirm what Nikon has said.

Your "take a 500,000 pixel area" idea is hilarious. The
simple fact is that if you take the best images you can
of a scene and then print them both at some large size
(the same size for images from both cameras)... that
will provide a useful visual test, and it will verify
what the scientific tests, on normalized images, are
showing.

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

On 4/03/2012 4:43 p.m., Rich wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

wrote:
Then why is there more "visible" noise in the D4 images on Dpreview?

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/141858950

You don't seem to be able to tell what is "more" and
what is not.

I personally can't tell from those image if there is
more noise or not. All I can tell is that the images
are *clearly* not comparable by visual inspection. They
are not taken with exactly the same light, they are not
normalized to the same pixel dimensions

That is a B.S. tactic. "Normalized." Take a 500,000 pixel area from BOTH
cameras, the D3s is CLEANER. If you can't see it in the images, you are
blind.
No it isn't.

If you scale the D3s image to 4928 pixels on the long side, it's very
clear that there's more image noise in the D3s sample.
here (converted from original raw files):
http://i39.tinypic.com/2v26yxu.jpg
This also reveals another problem with DPReview, there is someone there
who is "on the ****" (colloquialism = "likes to have a drink,
understatement"), and wasn't very careful with hiding their tracks.
This might explain their sloppy test technique:
The D3s sample was taken with the 85mm f1.4 d @ f8
The D4 sample was taken with the new 85mm f1.4 "g" @ f11
The camera settings were different (D3s image even has high ISO NR
toggled on and other differences), but result from raw would depend on
what software they used for raw conversion. It seems that some
sharpening was applied to the D3s image (not by me in scaling).
I could go further into this, and do another raw conversion, removing
all "camera settings", but I can't be bothered wasting any more time.
I've seen enough to show that the comparison shots between camera models
at DPReview aren't very useful.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
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.

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.

Not so. With an AA filter the results will be more accurate, but will
appear /less/ "sharp". This has been explained many times.

They argue that people who buy a DSLR without an AA filter will
forever be plagued with moire and aliasing, when the truth is that
these affect only a tiny proportion of images, in all probability less
than 1%, and can be easily avoided or, in extremis, dealt with in
post-processing.

The way they talk, you would think that 99% of images were thus
affected when the truth is the complete opposite.

With the higher resolution of the sensor, you will be less likely to see
aliasing, so if your experience is with top-end high megapixel cameras,
and others are comparing their results using lower megapixel count
cameras, it's hardly surprising that aliasing is more of a problem for
them.

Some of the effects produced by aliasing /cannot/ be removed by
post-processing, without compromising the rest of the image.

In any case, you now have the choice with the D800E - to have a camera
with "no" anti-alias filter, should you prefer the results.

David

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
Not so. With an AA filter the results will be more accurate, but will
appear /less/ "sharp". This has been explained many times.

But always in theory, and never on the basis of images that tell a
very different story to the ones that theorists peddle.

Plenty of published images tell the tale.

Perhaps one day you will be able to own some of the professional grade
equipment that you pontificate about. Perhaps then you will be able
to tell us the truth based on what you see, rather than what your
precious theories tell you might be the case, but isn't.

Not for the first time, I caution you about extrapolating your limited
experience of using junk zoom lenses on an obsolete consumer-grade
DSLR into areas that are far beyond your practical knowledge of
photography. Of course your *theoretical* knowledge knows no bounds,
but when applied to the real world, it is just plain wrong.

You don't seem to appreciate that aliasing is /more/ likely on lower
resolution sensors, and therefore the choice of AA filter strength was
arguably more important in the past than is is today, as the sensor's
resolution approaches and perhaps surpasses that of the lens.

As I already said, if you prefer images without an anti-alias filter, that
is your prerogative, and with the Nikon D800E you can now fulfill that
desire, so there is no need for your personal attacks.

Cheers,
David