zodiacfml: "Second, Nikon implemented ISO 64 on the D810 by actually extending the saturation capacity of pixels (we're not sure how) relative to ISO 100"
I hope someone has an answer here as I a really wonder why modern cameras has lost "true" and low ISO settings. Is it because of tuning to higher sensitivities?
I'd rather have this camera feature than cleaner files at high sensitivities.
Looking at Bill Claffs read noise data the D800 ISO 100 has the same RN as the D810 at ISO 64. This would imply the same saturation capacity so I guess what actually happened was that they lost a little fill factor using a dual gain photosite and reduced the sensitivity.
Which is puzzling because this is not reflected in DxOs DR data but it is in Bill's - his data shows DR in the 800 to be identical but offset by 2/3 stops.
In other words DR is the same at ISO 100 as the D810 at ISO 64. Now why is this not the same as DxO?
Did Nikon use a different tone curve to change exposure for middle grey? In other words, did they just recalibrate the ISO?
Very sad indeed. One the real pioneers of the online 'magazine-style' blog before blogging was even heard of.
71 sound like middle age these days. A reminder to us all not to put off doing the interesting things now while you still can.
It would be better to get more DR at ISO 100, which would also translate into more at ISO 3200.
All cameras 'clip' minimum ISO saturation to cut out the non-linear part of the photon response curve.
However, this does mean there is some leeway to be exploited. If your ISO amplifier has enough range you can start at a lower point and still have enough amplification steps to get past the ISOless point at ISO800.
Kevin Fitzsimons: I've been a Canon user for almost 30 years and my aging body can't take carrying the large bodies and lenses any longer. I'm now using a Think Tank roller camera case, but I'm also building my Fuji X system. When Fuji comes out with a pro flash system, I'm making the switch. I was hoping Canon would introduce a pro level mirrorless camera, but I don't think it's going to happen.
Funny. For years these forums have been lit up with problems regarding DSLR AF.
I never found DSLR AF very reliable. Fast? yes. Reliable? Not so much. And in video mode, verging on useless.
Must be why so many pros who rely on cameras to make a living are quite happy using Fujis...
57even: Finally, a proper video camera that does stills.
Can't you tell?
Finally, a proper video camera that does stills.
There is one advantage to signal amplification over ISO-less cameras. The amplified signal still uses all 14 bits. If you underexpose a low ISO shot and brighten the shadows, the dark shadows are quantised, so they have less tone and colour depth.
At very high ISO, this means you are trying to expand a handful of tones/colours crammed into the lowest few bits into a full spectrum image. 14 bits is overkill in this instance (because of noise) but even so, you get better tonal range and colour depth from an amplified 14bit signal than a pushed 14 bit signal where all the mid-tone colour information is in the first 4-5 bits.
The Nikon DF and D4 also have lower base ISO DR than the D750/D800, but less data to process. I guess the ADCs on the D5 are faster and noisier, hence the poor low ISO DR.
Also, a lot of PJs use JPEGs - uploaded on location. RAW DR is not particularly useful in this instance.
fmian: I guess this puts to rest concerns from the minority of Canon users who plan to shoot and process with a +5EV exposure push in mind.
For everyone else, if you often find yourself making a -5EV metering error, keep in mind that the Auto mode should prevent it from happening again.
No, it was addressed to the OP. But the DR of paper is irrelevant - you can still map 14 EV input into 7 EV output if you control the mapping selectively. Many movies have scenes with more than that, usually shot on film because digital was quite limited until recently.
Just shooting a backlit subject could require 14EV to leave sufficient tonal range in the subject's features after adjustment.
Clearly you never shot an image with both sky and shadows in it at the same time.
kaiser soze: Richard Butler: You fundamentally misunderstand many things. The true reason for variable ISO is to accommodate a range of light intensity. The ISO setting establishes the mathematical mapping from analog voltage reading at a sensor element to quantized binary numeric value. But you write this, which is all nonsense except for the first phrase of the first sentence: "A camera with a very low noise floor is able to capture a large amount of dynamic range, since it adds very little noise to the detail captured in the shadow regions of the image. This has an interesting implication: it minimizes the need to amplify the sensor's signal in order to keep it above that noise floor (which is what ISO amplification conventionally does). This provides an alternate way of working in situations that would traditionally demand higher ISO settings." You are confused at a very fundamental level, not just here, but most of your explanations are jabberwocky.
To Kaiser, I suggest you read more and write less.
Buhl213: How can the spring save energy? Isn't the spared energy in the returning direction spent by the extra effort to also push the coil back?
I had exactly the same thought...
Paul905: Which would you choose, Sony a6300 or Fuji X-Pro2 ?
Well, owning a D800 certainly isn't 'cool' ;-)
Mike FL: So basicly the Canon's salsman says to DPR, others' AF and EVF is NOT up to Canon standards. therefore Canon will not glue the add-on EVF to EOS-M body.
What a logic.
Canon needs to find a new salsman with some logic in mind.
Kind of illogical. EVF is already far better then most APSC DSLR viewfinders, and the best are larger than FF.
So, Canon will only switch when EVF is also better than the 1D..?
minnesotaEOSenthusiast: I don't understand the appeal of mirrorless until they fix the EVF. EVFs are just plain offensive for other than minor casual use. Hybrid rangefinders (upcoming X-Pro 2) might help bridge the gap enough to convince some of us to buy a mirrorless as a backup or landscape camera, but can you imagine shooting an event or anything for a significant amount of time using an EVF and with the ergonomics of a mirrorless camera? I just don't get it.
TV cameramen have been shooting action with an EVF for years...
Flashback: The Titanic is unsinkable . . .
Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:
"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".[including medium format]
High praise, indeed.
This argument is pointless as you can't see the irony of your own objection. Bye.
What is it about the fact that I owned 7 different Nikons over my life time that you don't understand?
So what? Do you buy cameras because they are pretty?
Please explain what difference it would make...