Are we all waiting?
- Thread starter roti
- Start date
- Status
Ah noise again. Firstly, it is not inevitable. Secondly, Nikon is not really behind. Look at the noise on D2X vs 1DMk2. From ISO 100-800, look at the noise chart on DP Review. Is D2X significantly higher?yanyewkay said:
In fact, the difference is indistingishable. When you add in the subjective viewing of noise, the lumpy/clumpy multicolored noise for Canon systems, it makes Canon ironically worse off. Unless we shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 at 90% of the time, it shows that practically no difference in noise at all.Phil Askey said:
BTW, both cameras goes to ISO 3200; I don't see nor understand your "the lack of high ISO sensitivity on the D2X". H1 and H2 are not "internal software boost"; rather they are not rated by a conservative company at such; unlike when others say 8.5fps imean "only when you are shooting in low ISO" and at higher ISO, it slows down due to internal processing.
Your "As we try to pack in more pixel count into the same APS-sized sensor pixel size decreases and inevitably SNR suffers." was debated to death about 1 year ago. The result is that it is inevitable when we have like 2x density, around 36 MP for 1.5 crop I guess you would love to process images of that size :sweat:
OTOH, can anyone here tell me how to resolve the light fall off and the lost of details in the corners on a FF camera with a wide angle view? The problem mushy details ? Please recommend a solution that gives you the full functionality of the camera (ie AF and metering) and yet solve the problem. 
b18 said:
The will is strong but the flesh is weak. Its not the reluctance but rather a matter of how deep your pocket is. Spending another $5k for a body is definitely cheaper to change all your proven wide angles and dropping film format completely. Canon definitely see some points in their commitment to a FF censor on top of the DX size.
Watcher said:OTOH, can anyone here tell me how to resolve the light fall off and the lost of details in the corners on a FF camera with a wide angle view? The problem mushy details ? Please recommend a solution that gives you the full functionality of the camera (ie AF and metering) and yet solve the problem.
Point taken that the Canon 17-40 f/4 might not be perfect from corner to corner. Objectively this should be taken as the lens performance in itself and Canon has the obligation to design a lens of an acceptable standard according to its specification, ie usable on the full 35mm frame.
I sure hope that the discussion does not imply that having a FF will reveal the imperfection of the lens or for that matter FF doesn't really matter much because, Canon is lacking a lens to fully make use of the FF. It sounded so much like 避短扬长 and lacks an objective perspective.
can everybody stop trying to search and quote and out-argue one another
and
can somebody provide an objective and neutral view of
what is the actual truth now?
for example if we compare D2X noise and 1DmkII noise, if D2X really is as good as a score of 9.123/10 and 1DmkII is really as good as a score of 9.123 out of 10 then can somebody pls say something like "they are on par with each other because both score 9.123 out of 10"
thanks!
and
can somebody provide an objective and neutral view of
what is the actual truth now?
for example if we compare D2X noise and 1DmkII noise, if D2X really is as good as a score of 9.123/10 and 1DmkII is really as good as a score of 9.123 out of 10 then can somebody pls say something like "they are on par with each other because both score 9.123 out of 10"
thanks!
user111 said:
Sure and here goes:
At low ISO values (sub 800 ISO) the Nikon D2X shows more accurate colour rendition of a Gretag McBeth colour chart than the Canon 1DmkII. At high ISO, ie: 3200 the Canon has a lower noise level overall, however the Canon suffers from chrominance noise which makes solid colour areas look plastic in nature, also there's a lower level of contrast between edges and more noise in the blacks when compared to the Nikon D2X. The noise in the Nikon is more random in nature at ISO 600+ thus making it less noticiable than the Canon's. Many reviewers refer to the Nikon noise levels as having a distribution closer to film grain and that is an accurate analogy.
In terms of absolute resolution the Nikon D2x has a higher actuance which means more detail is captured. The 10DmkII has a slightly larger dynamic range.
With wide angle lenses the Nikon shows far less light fall off thanks to the DX Nikkors which are optimised for the smaller digital sensors, unlike Canon lenses which are using a more traditional design.
litefoot said:
Not really the case. The F6 was released because there is still a very strong demand for film bodies at the professional end of the world. Many agencies and clients still prefer film over digital images, especially in advertising and publishing. There's also strong demand from well heeled amateurs and gearhead wankers with money to burn.
Actually there is no end to comparision... new products will keep coming out... It is also pointless to argue whether should Nikon go FF or is FF better than DX. Bottom line is that in digital photography there are always "Techies" who wants all kinds of options. Just like PC industry... there are a few stndard configurations that major vendors sells... majority of the pple in the world buys from them. But there are some pple who is always not satisified with the available options and build their own DIY PCs.... back to camera... it does not matter if FF is good or if it is a must have. But certainly it is a "want to have" for some(usually the more vocal) people... :think:user111 said:
Oh but they have. If you had read the 5D preview by Phil Askey, it was basically said that the 5D sensor is the same as the 1DMkII sensor cut at the FF size to give the 12MPyanyewkay said:erm.. no.. i dun like to process images >8mpix.. I'm happy with 6Mpix on my D70
I was just tring to draw an analogy why D2H can have 4Mpix and FF producers cannot use the same desity and pack in ~8Mpix worth.
- Status
