That last post didn't come out right when I pasted the link.....anyway if you look at Dxomarrk and compare the PhaseOne65 vs Canon 1DsMKiii vs Nikon D3s.....the nikon is the clear high iso winner even though it doesn't have the biggest sensor and has the least number of megapixels but it does have the largest pixels.....so I'm really confused
[:S]
The Medium Format sensors are very far behind Canon and Nikon in technology, especially when it comes to low light performance (AKA "read noise"). Their new cameras match the performance of what Canon was doing about 5 years ago. That said, even with lower technology, they do have a pretty big size advantage, so that helps to balance things out. Depending on what ISO you are looking at, the DLSRs are either "same" (e.g. ISO 400) or much, much better (ISO 12800).
Me too! But I think it comes down to the fact that there's far more involved here than just numerical specifications. Roger Clark's evaluations are based on the specs - with pixel sizes, read noise and well depth in terms of number of electrons, etc., used to drive mathematical models of sensor performance. The DxOMark score is a composite of ISO sensitivity, bit depth, and dynamic range. If you want to isolate ISO sensitivity, click the Sports tab. In that category, Nikon still comes out on top, but all of the top 10 for that list are FF dSLRs, and the Phase One MF cameras don't show up until #11. Even so, if you look at the top two sensors, there's a substantial difference (ISO 3250 vs. 2300, so ~1/2 stop) between the D3s and the D3 - and both have the same size sensor and the same size pixels! Clearly, there's more to the story...
Well ...even if the reasons aren
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
I kindly disagree. Personally, I would characterize the 7D as "great". Sure, it's 1.3 stops worse than the 5D2 at the same f-number (e.g. ISO 1600 vs ISO 640), but I like to remind folks that it comes at the cost of thinner depth of field. When you shoot them both at the same depth of field, then they have the exact same low light performance.
I rarely use anything over ISO 800, andthereforemy 50D and 7D suit me just fine. I took this shot with my 50D at ISO 800 Monday evening. The section that I applied an unsharp mask to didn't fair as well (her cheek/eye area farthest from the camera), but overall, I'm satisfied.
Daniel,
My apologies......Poor choice of words on my part, should have said maybe not the greatest or best.....but I agree that great images can be made with all of the current choices available. Each camera body/system has it
Great post, Joel.
If I could dumb this post down a bit (which I am very qualified to do),if it has alot of "texture", you can make a decent 8x10 picture out of an ISO3200 picture. The picture below was just something I pulled up last night out of my "junk pile". If I wouldn't have chopped off her head, and framed it a bit better overall, I'd a kept it. This is a jpeg straight from the camera. I can't tell what it really looks like on the work computer screen, but noise isn't really an issue so long as your not posting it three feet wide. The point is, if you can avoid high ISO, do it, but don't be scared of it.[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/5148.mini_2D00_iso3200.JPG[/img]
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote