I appreciate the real world sample as I'd be willing to wager that Aperture + ACR (Lightroom) makes up the vast majority of RAW processing.Originally Posted by Keith B
I appreciate the real world sample as I'd be willing to wager that Aperture + ACR (Lightroom) makes up the vast majority of RAW processing.
Ha ha! I laughed out loud at that.Daniel
I have to know, was the Nikon D800 able to produce that effect?
Do you think the example I posted (http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D80...led-tests.html) is "real world"? It uses Lightroom. Here it is again:
5D3:
D800:
To me, that illustrates a pretty significant difference in dynamic range.
@Daniel; I went and read the review you linked, very informative. I think these samples demonstrate the D800's superior resolution more so than a superior dynamic range. Only because how they were taken and how they were cropped. I don't doubt that a test designed to demonstrate a wider dynamic range would show the D800 to be superior.
That said, I have this observation about the test. The tests were performed with a Zeiss 21mm Distagon, arguably one of the best landscape lenses made. You have to have the whole package to make the system superior, no doubt with the Zeiss attached you can do this. But I could only afford so many Zeiss lenses, and they are all manual focus. How would IQ comparisons hold up when you start attaching the best Nikor on the D800 compared to the best L lens on the 5D III?
For me, how I shoot I could swap the 5D II for the D800 and go with the Zeiss lenses. Most of what I do with the 5D II is landscape type work. I don't think I would want to give up my supertele's or my 70-200mm F/2.8, or my 1D IV for the Nikon equivalents though. The lenses are a huge part of this equation as well.
When I first started out, I choose Canon over Nikon because of the glass not the camera bodies.
Daniel, you mentioned that the sensor in the D800 is a breakthrough in digital technology. Do you know what Nikon and Sony did to achieve this? I'm new to photography so bear with the silly questions.
About 5 years ago, I read an article that stated that resolution worked inversely to Dynamic range, moire, and noise. So with anti-aliasing filters there was no workaround because they were up against physics (without just making the sensor physically larger). They even made the claim that 15mp on an APS-C size sensor (50D) was seeing diminishing returns because of these artifacts.
Now we see the new D800 and perhaps even the Foveon technology in the Sigma allowing much higher resolution without the apparent defects. Some are even claiming results that are pushing MF results a bit.
Since I thought that these defects were a given, I am confused about what they did to achieve such outstanding results. Is the Nikon just doing internally what you mentioned as a workaround (overexposing the shot, then normalizing it later). Or is that impossible? Thanks.
Not really. Almost *any* lens will yield superior resolution on the D800. Exceptions are only going to be lenses that are exceptionally soft (we're talking Lens Baby type softness) and shot wide open and looking at corners. Stop down or look at the middle, and even the cheap-o lenses turn in better resolution than on the 5D2. You only need the best lenses if you want to get the maximum possible increase in contrast/resolution. For example, I shot the same $90 macro on both the 5D2 and D800 and noticed a huge jump in detail.
Good question. Personally, I'd also like to see more comparisons of Nikon lenses on Canon bodies.
Agreed.
I don't recall saying the D800 is a breakthrough, but if I did I was mistaken. The breakthrough in dynamic range started with the Sony A900 back in 2008. Nikon used it in the D3X, D7000, D5100, and now the D800; each time improving the performance.
Basically, what happened is that Sony quit hanging on to CCD and decided to jump into CMOS with both feet. They were the kings of CCD, but never did very well with CMOS sensors. A few years ago, they decided they were going to become the best of the best in CMOS as well (you can see this in the shareholder presentations they did afterwords).
What's really amazing is that they actually did it. Now, top image sensor designers (e.g. Eric Fossum, who invented CMOS AP image sensors) have said that that Sony is pretty much the best right now.
To answer your question more specifically, I think the biggest big part of the improvement in dynamic range comes from the massively parallel read out. Sony uses 7,360 Analog-Digital Converters (ADC), one for every column of pixels. Canon only uses 8 ADC on the 5D Mark III. Therefore the Canon ADC has to run at an extremely high frequency, where it's more difficult to achieve a low-noise result. That's not the only factor, though, because Nikon-designed sensors like the D4 don't have column-parallel readout either, and are middling in performance between the D800 and 5D3.
Yeah, there's still a lot of that going around. It's mostly untrue.
It's true that returns are diminishing in some cases. Even a 6MP->8MP jump can see diminishing returns from motion blur. But even now that we are up to 24 MP APS-C, there are still plenty of people getting the maximum return.
The defects are not a given. There is plenty of room for improvement, even from the D800.
Actually, that wasn't me that mentioned it. But no, they are not doing that internally. And it's not a workaround either. It's just throwing away highlights to improve shadows.
Sorry about the confusion about who wrote the article you linked. Very interesting stuff. Looks like Canon has some catch-up to do....except for in lenses where they appear to be doing pretty well.
No doubt almost *any* lens would yield superior resolution, provided you could mount it to the Nikon. The problem is that Canon lenses are not going to mount up to the Nikon. In that case you have to look at what Nikon would have as an equivalent. In the three part review you linked, the author didn't seem to impressed with the Nikon lenses. You know the saying "glass first", should we be considering the glass over the body when picking a system?
Here is a possible solution to the camera body and sensor wars; buy a full set of Zeiss prime lenses with a Nikon mount. Buy an adapter for a Canon camera. That way in the future which ever company pulls ahead you don't have to change out all your lenses.
One thing that has stuck with me from the summary (pg3) of the linked comparison is that the reviewer did not see a difference in prints at 17x22 unless it was of crops where the resolution difference became evident. Others who have converted to the Nikon lineup have cited that there is a noticeable difference in anything larger than 8x10 prints. This is a huge discrepancy and I wonder if there is some difference in the method, or even just the distance, of viewing the prints that might account for this as the methodology of comparing prints was not listed and I am not aware of any established standards for reviewing prints.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
