Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 09 Jun 2009 (Tuesday) 09:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Hi ISO performance – question

 
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 73
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Jun 10, 2009 01:24 |  #16

PIXmantra wrote in post #8081334 (external link)
...You seem to extract from the equation that inherently lower levels of sharpening applied during on-board processing (or off-board, via raw converter), do contribute with less noise and less detail. I do not see any major optical impairement on this test, though.

The hellacious amounts of noise reduction being employed, nowadays, by Nikon can also be verified in some Imaging Resource samples from Nikon D90, for instance.

The overall best performer, with best balance of detail and noise (albeit a relatively small or non-existent amount of Noise Reduction) is, without a doubt, the EOS 450D (or XSi), also shown in those crops.

PIX

Nope, what I'm saying is that you can't draw any conclusion one way or another from the tiny images on DPReview where some are in focus and some aren't. It's junk science. If you'd loosen up on taking your anti-Nikon bias to such extremes you'd show a lot more credibility.

You've done some very impressive work to develop your routines to vastly improve the output from the 1D MKIII, and from another similar thread it's clear that after your processing the results are even marginally better than from the D3 (the D3 showed some banding at extremely high ISO's).

I'm just happy that the two majors finally have cameras that compete head to head with respect to noise performance. Even DR is getting reasonable with both systems if you shoot RAW. Finally we're at the point where we can start choosing systems by body controls, AF performance, lenses, build quality and cost instead of sensor technology.

Competition is good for photographers.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
52,171 posts
Gallery: 192 photos
Likes: 9044
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jun 10, 2009 10:36 |  #17

With all due respect Bob, I think it was made clear that Pixmantra used the images from DPR, that "junk science" you refer to, as a means of establishing an unbiased third party and source for the images to view. Given that I think it' a little unfair to bash him for that choice... while at the same bashing him for his apparent bias. Pix even went so far as to chose examples that the reviewer felt made a case against Pixmantra's own Canon-centric opinion.

We can also look at our own non side by side comparisons of said cameras image files, but how do we inject non "junk science" into that mix? How far do we need to go to be allowed to form an opinion one way or another?

It is interesting to me to see the files at DPreview,.

If your only criterea is "which has less noise" as numerical terms measured by the test equipment and shown on the graph, the Nikon seems to win, but the images speak differently to different people, based on what is more important to them.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PIXmantra
Goldmember
1,193 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Florida, U.S.A.
     
Jun 10, 2009 13:26 |  #18

My bias, preferences, etc., are *totally* irrelevant...

Bob_A wrote in post #8082120 (external link)
If you'd loosen up on taking your anti-Nikon bias to such extremes you'd show a lot more credibility.

...The "proof is in the pudding", as the saying goes. In other words, I could choose to remain absolutely silent, or become a lot flashier and fancier, with even more refined marketinguesque-dialects, yet... at the end of the day, the results are the only thing that matter, and my credibility goes (ultimately) attached to those results, instead of my lovely bias. :lol:

Bob_A wrote in post #8082120 (external link)
You've done some very impressive work to develop your routines to vastly improve the output from the 1D MKIII, and from another similar thread it's clear that after your processing the results are even marginally better than from the D3 (the D3 showed some banding at extremely high ISO's).

Bingo. Results speak by themselves.

Bob_A wrote in post #8082120 (external link)
Finally we're at the point where we can start choosing systems by body controls, AF performance, lenses, build quality and cost instead of sensor technology.

Keep in mind that you may be missing the point here. The whole, central point of all this work revolves around demolishing obscurantist myths, or simply put, abolishing medievalism, when it comes to evaluating the true potential of the technology at hand, and, consequently, its true relative performance.

It has been said (erroneously) for over a year-and-half, loud and clear, with over-inflated passion that Nikon has established a new "height" for high-ISO performance, etc.

...And guess what? When push-comes-to-shovel, when the rubber-meets-the-road, and we look at the actual results and true potential of the technology Canon put us in our hands, almost two years ago, it turns out that it was not the case, all along.

That is most likely why you do not see that much banding on most 1D3's, even when pushed way, way beyond anything supported on-board. It takes good engineering, manufacturing and tuning to get it right from the sensor (there is very little or no on/off-chip processing of Banding done by Canon, at least in <= DiGiCIII cams).

THAT is the real point of all this process, and, then, of course, exploting such potential, which is the fun part! :D

Enjoy,

PIX


Click here for FlexNR-Professional Noise Reduction for EOS 1D3
CPS Member/ 2x1DMKIII/ 70D/ Pentax MX
300mm f/2.8 L II IS/ 24mm f/1.4 L II/ 35mm f/2.0 IS/ 17-40 f/4 L/ 24-105 f/4 L IS / 70-200 f/4 L IS
270EX/ 580EX/ 580EX II/ ST-E2/ CP-E3
HP Z800 x2 XEON, x12 Core/ EIZO CG241W/ Viewsonic VP930b

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 73
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Jun 10, 2009 20:05 |  #19

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #8083788 (external link)
With all due respect Bob, I think it was made clear that Pixmantra used the images from DPR, that "junk science" you refer to, as a means of establishing an unbiased third party and source for the images to view. Given that I think it' a little unfair to bash him for that choice... while at the same bashing him for his apparent bias. Pix even went so far as to chose examples that the reviewer felt made a case against Pixmantra's own Canon-centric opinion.

We can also look at our own non side by side comparisons of said cameras image files, but how do we inject non "junk science" into that mix? How far do we need to go to be allowed to form an opinion one way or another?

It is interesting to me to see the files at DPreview,.

If your only criterea is "which has less noise" as numerical terms measured by the test equipment and shown on the graph, the Nikon seems to win, but the images speak differently to different people, based on what is more important to them.

No, I'm not talking about numerical terms, I talking about the use of tiny images where the starting point at ISO 100 is already blurry and claiming that the ISO 1600 result is awful because of the horrendous amount of NR applied because of the lack of detail. The image had poor detail at ISO 100 for goodness sake.

The images on DPReview can only be used to show the relative change going from low to high ISO for a particular camera setup. And based on that both the Canon's and Nikon's were about the same. Similar increase in noise and similar loss of detail relative to the matching ISO 100 image.

I believe that Canon does have an edge, but it's small and certainly isn't seen with these particular images. Frankly the images are so useless it's no wonder that DPReview came to the opposite conclusion.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,487 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 73
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Jun 10, 2009 20:18 |  #20

PIXmantra wrote in post #8084860 (external link)
...The "proof is in the pudding", as the saying goes. In other words, I could choose to remain absolutely silent, or become a lot flashier and fancier, with even more refined marketinguesque-dialects, yet... at the end of the day, the results are the only thing that matter, and my credibility goes (ultimately) attached to those results, instead of my lovely bias. :lol:



Bingo. Results speak by themselves.



Keep in mind that you may be missing the point here. The whole, central point of all this work revolves around demolishing obscurantist myths, or simply put, abolishing medievalism, when it comes to evaluating the true potential of the technology at hand, and, consequently, its true relative performance.

It has been said (erroneously) for over a year-and-half, loud and clear, with over-inflated passion that Nikon has established a new "height" for high-ISO performance, etc.

...And guess what? When push-comes-to-shovel, when the rubber-meets-the-road, and we look at the actual results and true potential of the technology Canon put us in our hands, almost two years ago, it turns out that it was not the case, all along.

That is most likely why you do not see that much banding on most 1D3's, even when pushed way, way beyond anything supported on-board. It takes good engineering, manufacturing and tuning to get it right from the sensor (there is very little or no on/off-chip processing of Banding done by Canon, at least in <= DiGiCIII cams).

THAT is the real point of all this process, and, then, of course, exploting such potential, which is the fun part! :D

Enjoy,

PIX

See, for this post I agree with pretty much 100% of what you said.

Nikon isn't better than Canon for high ISO performance ... but I stand by my statement that Canon is only marginally better than Nikon. I certainly wouldn't choose one over the other any more based on noise performance though. Both produce fantastic cameras now.

The stuff you've done as I've said in more than one thread is fantastic. You've taken a poorer high ISO performing camera and get results slightly better than what is touted to be the industry leader. As I've said to you before, Canon should be paying you for your method :)

Better yet, talk to Sony ... they could really, really use the help (you'd be rich if you could solve their problem :) ).

And I've never bought into the myth about Nikon in the first place, so there was none to demolish for me. Some may have needed a bit of embellishment to prod them in that direction, but for me I prefer to keep things a bit more real in the discussion.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,479 views & 0 likes for this thread
Hi ISO performance – question
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Mike1911
913 guests, 246 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.