don't wanna start a raging fight.......

Started Jun 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
Sdaniella
Regular MemberPosts: 175Gear list
Like?
it's been trolled many times: numbers mean nothing; it's the final image that matters
In reply to dirkluchtman, Jun 7, 2012

it's been trolled many times: numbers mean nothing; it's the final image that matters

dirkluchtman wrote:

but these kind of results, if valid, do blow me away,

that's a big if, because its worthless if you don't know what they mean

especially at the price differences....The three cameras have similar scores,

not even close

unfortunately, their validity can only be backed up be image output with zero 'fixes' in post. if you have to 'fix' it in post, you effectively no longer have an image that is 'by the mfr' but rather one that is custom massaged heavily in post by yourself, with no real gains at all.

And who care about ISO anyway; it's all about dynamic range

proof you are clueless really

ISO matters a great deal in true low light, not just the everyday 'good' lighting one encounters practically everywhere indoors or outdoors.

when one has GOOD light, the light available can be quite INTENSELY BRIGHT, thus the lit scenario is VERY CONTRASTY. to control this wide range of intensities it is GOOD to have a sensor that addresses it. and this is when a 'good rating' for DR is relevant.

HOWEVER... for those who are inexperienced in true low light shooting, such poorly lit scenarios are MUCH LESS CONTRASTY, and thus, good DR plays a MINIMAL to NEGLIGIBLE part in contributing to a very CLEAN noise free minimal NR HI ISO image. this is when HI ISO is RELEVANT, and KEY to the best IQ one can get with minimal post processing to NONE.

if you have to resort to RAW, it will offer minimal to no gains when tweaked and output to your final JPEG. NOBODY, has EVER shown otherwise. EVERY example offered, has been in GOOD LIGHT, NEVER TRUE LOW LIGHT.

so... for you only DR matters (but then, you only shoot in good light anyway)

for many here, DR helps, but it ISO that matters more when venturing DEEP into true low light shooting, where one still wants high shutter speeds, modest to tighter apertures for deep DOF, and a clean crisp detailed bright blurless noiseless outcome.

the ultimate in super clean zero noise with zero obliteration of max superfine details in extremely 'true' low light isn't here yet, but the 5DMkIII is the closest so far (1Dx nothwithstanding)... and the rest are relegated to strictly the more commonplace 'good light' where DR is going to matter, and be confined to ISOs that work better at lower values... which is what matters only to YOU.

granted... vast majority of commonplace everyday shooters will not venture far from good light, so DR helps a great deal to them (and you).

I'm inclined to do comparisons of higher ISO's, where it matters to me:
e.g. ISO 12,800
5DMkIII/D4/D800/D3200
Respective DxO Rating: [81/89/95/81]... what are those values worth?
SIMPLE... bottom line: "it's in the image dummy..."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos5dmkiii&masterSample=5d3_5221&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos5dmkiii&slot0Sample=5d3_5221&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nikon_d4&slot1Sample=dsc_4701&slot2Camera=nikon_d800&slot2Sample=dsc_8325&slot3Camera=nikon_d3200&slot3Sample=dsc_0029&x=-0.26801241028638656&y=0.3075668522719459&extraCameraCount=0

MEANWHILE, those who only care about good DR in good light, well, they would not be looking at the above at ISO 12800 [nor ISO 1600-3200... 25600+ etc]... but at ISO100 instead (no surprise)

While Nikon had done well last time round for low light, they were already at their limits, especially their D3x did not do as well as their D3s. more Mp was worse.

this is why Nikon had to pull back, and opt to concentrate on low ISO, but at much lower 16 MP closer to their 12Mp D3s, and further away from their D3x, making it easier to offer for the D4. meanwhile, they wanted to continue to offer higher Mp, but they KNEW it was NOT going to fare well at high ISOs, as their D3x proved, so they settled for an IQ limited higher MP, but the benefits are only borne out on strictly lower ISOs and very good light, farther from true low light then before (D3s) and resorting to boost which only worsens IQ...

a mere 1EV gain on the high ISOs, now capped, D3200/D800 max ISOs well below ISO 204800 of their D3s (or D4), is worthless to those here on the Canon forum who actually do shoot in truly low light

if ISO doesn't matter... why would Nikon offer it especially in their D3/D4 series???

duh... eat your words, it matters to Nikon, but they've hit their limit, and it is BELOW where Canon is now, and where Canon is keen on heading.

i for one, have no interest in a dual-grip pro body dSLR (1D/s/x or D3/D4), and apart from higher cost, i prefer the single grip body dSLR of the 5DII/III series instead.

the only folks on the 1D/5D that care more about DR than ISO, are those that shoot mostly in good light, not true low light.

the low light of film's yesterday, is today's digital good light... due to high ISO improvements for extreme low light, the notion of good light and low light has altered drastically from the film era. except if one has a low model where low light is more liken to the film era, that's of no interest to those who want to push the boundaries, rather than shoot in the easiest of common everyday light (e.g. indoors)

 Sdaniella's gear list:Sdaniella's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
LolNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow