lensberg

lensberg

Joined on Jan 17, 2012

Comments

Total: 161, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X review article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Has the G1X better low light/high ISO performance than the K-5 and the D7000?...

Granted... with a good lens attached... there's no doubt that the K5 will have better image quality compared to the G1 X... but thats only at lower sensitivities...

Up the ISO ante to 3200 and beyond and the tables turn dramatically in favourof the G1 X... that was my point...

AND... the K5 doesn't "wipe the floor" like you're insinuating with the likes of the 7D... be sure about that... Its better at ISO 6400 + but by a small margin... At base ISO till 1600 there will be next to no difference between the two...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2012 at 10:07 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X review article (525 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: Has the G1X better low light/high ISO performance than the K-5 and the D7000?...

Yes... without a shadow of a doubt... the Canon G1 X has much better noise performance from ISO 3200 compared to the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000...

You can clearly see it in the DPR review as well... the cleanliness of the black & grey levels is absolutely incredible... The JPEG's look great all the way uptill 12800...

The only camera that equals this level of noise control is the FujiFilm X-Pro 1

Unfortunately this is a fixed lens camera... so definitely suffers in the form of versatility...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2012 at 08:18 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vamp898: Lol Canon told something about 75% less noise? A bad joke

really guys, 3500 € for a "slightly improvement"? A slightly improvement is a free firmware upgrade but not a new camera for 3500 €

The Nikon noises the same, have 36MP and cost less xD that is just bad at all..

What Canon stated was that the Digic 5 processor produces 75% less noise at all sensitivities compared to the Digic 4...

This outstanding level of noise control can primarily be seen in JPEG's... Thats the reason why the 5D III's JPEG's are so much better compared to the Nikon D4 & D800...

It is not a "slight improvement" by any stretch of imagination... Its got pro-grade autofocus... superior IQ to the 5D II... shoots full res at 6 FPS... and produces much cleaner & sharper video compared to the D800... Plus noise doesn't even begin to show in the 5D III's video's until ISO 3200... and that too just as faint traces of film grain...

Yes... there is no doubt that the asking price is too high... blame Canon's marketing department for that...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 20:21 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemon_juice: D800 is better at high iso than 5D Mark III - am I the only one seeing this? You can't objectively compare noise looking at 100% samples of different sizes.

Try this simple thing: load the 25600 ISO RAW samples in photoshop, downsize the D800 image to match Mark III's resolution and put these two images as saparate layers into one image then toggle the top layer on and off to see instant comparison at 100%.

I did this and what I saw:
- detail is about the same - in some areas D800 is very slightly better while in others Mark III
- noise is substantially stronger in Mark III, escpecially in dark areas - looks like a full stop worse than D800

I don't know why everyone says Mark III is better at high ISO while I see quite the opposite. D800 may not look better at 100% but in print it will for sure.

@ Stanley zheng - yes, you are basically right with everything you've said...

Regarding the downsizing of the D800 image... why do people want to reduce the resolution in the first place...?! Why don't they just invest in a 16 or 22 MP sensor in the first place...?

Personally i don't see much difference in the levels of noise even in the D800's downsized samples... Noise is pretty much the same...

I would rather preserve the original 36 MP files are selectively crop them according to my clients needs... rather than entirely lose that resolution advantage...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 11:15 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

lensberg: The 5D III literally destroys the competition in JPEG... (decisively beating even the D4...) producing cleaner... sharper... and visibly higher levels of detail consistently throughout the sensitivity spectrum...

There is definitely over 1½ stops between the 5D III and 5D II. Whats amazing though is how good the old 5D II seems to be performing in RAW against this current generation of full framers...

The D800 seems to employ a much more heavy handed approach towards noise (both JPEG & RAW)... smudging out its resolution advantage from ISO 3200... Nikon doesn't seem to have mastered the art of reproducing extremely fine hair & brush textures...

Nikon's D4 NEF's have less chroma noise at the cost of precious detail... the 5D III's RAW's exhibit slightly higher levels of chroma... but details remain impeckable...

For all those DXO Mark devotees... most often DXO's scoring system doesn't reflect the reality of how these various manufacturers sensors perform on a day to day basis...

Disagree based upon what exactly...? Its not like 2½ years ago when everything regarding IQ, ISO & DR... was clear and decisive...

The field has changed dramatically with this generation of full frame sensors... bringing overall IQ & ISO performance to near neck & neck levels...

Other than resolution... there is no clear winner in any of these categories... (especially between the 5D III & D4) so everything is open to a persons indiviual capacity at interpretation & speculation...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 11:07 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemon_juice: D800 is better at high iso than 5D Mark III - am I the only one seeing this? You can't objectively compare noise looking at 100% samples of different sizes.

Try this simple thing: load the 25600 ISO RAW samples in photoshop, downsize the D800 image to match Mark III's resolution and put these two images as saparate layers into one image then toggle the top layer on and off to see instant comparison at 100%.

I did this and what I saw:
- detail is about the same - in some areas D800 is very slightly better while in others Mark III
- noise is substantially stronger in Mark III, escpecially in dark areas - looks like a full stop worse than D800

I don't know why everyone says Mark III is better at high ISO while I see quite the opposite. D800 may not look better at 100% but in print it will for sure.

the D800 maybe ½ stop better than the 5D II ... but beyond ISO 1600 it pales in comparison to the 5D III by about ½ stop till 6400... and 1 stop from 12800 in RAW. Which is pretty much in line with early reports... that the D4 is ½ a stop better than the 5D III in RAW & 1 stop better than the D800...

Bet the D800E minus the AA filter will have inferior noise levels compared the current crop of full frame sensors...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 09:19 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)
In reply to:

lensberg: The 5D III literally destroys the competition in JPEG... (decisively beating even the D4...) producing cleaner... sharper... and visibly higher levels of detail consistently throughout the sensitivity spectrum...

There is definitely over 1½ stops between the 5D III and 5D II. Whats amazing though is how good the old 5D II seems to be performing in RAW against this current generation of full framers...

The D800 seems to employ a much more heavy handed approach towards noise (both JPEG & RAW)... smudging out its resolution advantage from ISO 3200... Nikon doesn't seem to have mastered the art of reproducing extremely fine hair & brush textures...

Nikon's D4 NEF's have less chroma noise at the cost of precious detail... the 5D III's RAW's exhibit slightly higher levels of chroma... but details remain impeckable...

For all those DXO Mark devotees... most often DXO's scoring system doesn't reflect the reality of how these various manufacturers sensors perform on a day to day basis...

@ nicolaiecostel - Yes, in am comparing native resolutions from either sensor...

Everyone keeps talking about downsizing the D800 sample to come close to matching the noise kevels of the 5D III ... First & foremost... why would i want to reduce the resolution of the D800...?! If i was buy it - it would be primarily for the exploitation of its full 36 MP's...

And exactly which shadow areas are you referring too... I'm looking at the bottom part of the test image... where the thread rolls & furry balls are layed out in the shelf... and there is absolutely no way the D800 renders better details or textures... if anything the initial detail advantage is completely lost doe to the severity of noise & applied NR...

The D4 maybe ½ stop better in RAW... perhaps if you're comparing chroma noise levels... even that is arguable... but fine detail is also softer and less pronounced than the 5D III...

@ Duncan Dimanche - i expect the Canon 1D X to formally assume its title of high ISO king...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 09:14 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published article (287 comments in total)

The 5D III literally destroys the competition in JPEG... (decisively beating even the D4...) producing cleaner... sharper... and visibly higher levels of detail consistently throughout the sensitivity spectrum...

There is definitely over 1½ stops between the 5D III and 5D II. Whats amazing though is how good the old 5D II seems to be performing in RAW against this current generation of full framers...

The D800 seems to employ a much more heavy handed approach towards noise (both JPEG & RAW)... smudging out its resolution advantage from ISO 3200... Nikon doesn't seem to have mastered the art of reproducing extremely fine hair & brush textures...

Nikon's D4 NEF's have less chroma noise at the cost of precious detail... the 5D III's RAW's exhibit slightly higher levels of chroma... but details remain impeckable...

For all those DXO Mark devotees... most often DXO's scoring system doesn't reflect the reality of how these various manufacturers sensors perform on a day to day basis...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 21:16 UTC as 50th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Milimike: I think everyone is judging that the D800 is cleary better than Canon because of this dpreview samples and DXO Mark. They should take the very same pictures with both so we can compare. There is no picture in the MKIII samples that we can check the DR of this camera. The DXO Mark looks questionable to me. D800 2800 points in lowlight vs 1800 on 5DMKII?

@ marike6 - :) :) :) :) :)

But seriously... my points pertaining to DXO Mark are made out of genuine concern... I am not disputing the fact that the D800 is shaping up to be a great camera... but at the same time you cannot undermine the vast technological improvements in the 5D III as some sort of "minor upgrade"...

Despite the fact that i may appear biased towards one brand... the reality of the situation is that i am impartial to a fault...

In the end i suppose both will be deemed outstanding camera's of this generation... it will all just come down to personal preference as to which system suits our needs better...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

Milimike: I think everyone is judging that the D800 is cleary better than Canon because of this dpreview samples and DXO Mark. They should take the very same pictures with both so we can compare. There is no picture in the MKIII samples that we can check the DR of this camera. The DXO Mark looks questionable to me. D800 2800 points in lowlight vs 1800 on 5DMKII?

As i've been saying all along... DXO Mark's scores are extremely tendentious... Personally i don't go by their scoring methodology in any form whatsooever...

To be frank it isn't entirely necessary to have the same pictures captured from both camera's to formulate an objective assessment...

A low light score of 2853 is nothing short of ludicrous... because there is no way the D800 performs that well in ISO performance... there is severe colour desaturation... heavy handed NR and a dramatic loss in edge to edge definition & dynamic range which is apparent from the test images...

They're probably trying to factor in the frequency of SNR in their evaluation... the tiny pixel pitch on the D800 is definitely not doing their light manipulating algorithms anyfavours either... So how they achieve such a high score... well your guess is as good as mine...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

lensberg: These sample images are truly impressive... outstanding levels of detail across the board at virtually every ISO setting... Comparing these 5D III images to the recently released "real world" D800 samples is like comparing flawless diamonds to cubic zirconium...

And people try to insinuate that the D800 has better detail retention & ISO performance at reduced resolutions... yeah right... dream another dream... because this one's not materialising into reality...

The 5D III's colour reproduction is spectacular... far superior to even the Nikon D3X or Pentax 645D... the dynamic range is at least 2½ stops better than the 5D II... and the ISO performance... is second to none... minimum 1½ stops better than the D800... and comparable with the D3S uptil 12800... and blows it away from 25600 onwards...

This is basically a no contest as far as overall IQ is concerned... the Canon 5D III wins hands down...

@ Chemel - What i said was that the level of rendered detail on the 5D III is visibly sharper... on the other hand the D800 does indeed capture detail... but upon close inspection of the image at 100% ... the details appear softer... with definition more in line with an APS-C sensor...

Regarding your second point... the Canon is not just "a bit less noisy"... its a lot less noisy compared to the D800 at all sensitivities whilst still maintaining a hugely impressive degree of detail preservation uptil ISO 25600...

Even in its first impressions DPR states that the D800 smudges out detail from ISO 3200 ... but honestly speaking thats being overly generous to the D800 ... because 1600 would be the limit of obtaining acceptable image quality out of it...

This ISO performance is a no contest really... The 5D III should be compared to a more logical contender like the D3S or D4.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 08:31 UTC
In reply to:

lensberg: These sample images are truly impressive... outstanding levels of detail across the board at virtually every ISO setting... Comparing these 5D III images to the recently released "real world" D800 samples is like comparing flawless diamonds to cubic zirconium...

And people try to insinuate that the D800 has better detail retention & ISO performance at reduced resolutions... yeah right... dream another dream... because this one's not materialising into reality...

The 5D III's colour reproduction is spectacular... far superior to even the Nikon D3X or Pentax 645D... the dynamic range is at least 2½ stops better than the 5D II... and the ISO performance... is second to none... minimum 1½ stops better than the D800... and comparable with the D3S uptil 12800... and blows it away from 25600 onwards...

This is basically a no contest as far as overall IQ is concerned... the Canon 5D III wins hands down...

I never mentioned medium format... i only compared it to other 35mm full frame sensors on the market...

DxO Mark's scores are always biased towards Nikon... so that score really doesn't come as a surprise...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 19:59 UTC
In reply to:

lensberg: These sample images are truly impressive... outstanding levels of detail across the board at virtually every ISO setting... Comparing these 5D III images to the recently released "real world" D800 samples is like comparing flawless diamonds to cubic zirconium...

And people try to insinuate that the D800 has better detail retention & ISO performance at reduced resolutions... yeah right... dream another dream... because this one's not materialising into reality...

The 5D III's colour reproduction is spectacular... far superior to even the Nikon D3X or Pentax 645D... the dynamic range is at least 2½ stops better than the 5D II... and the ISO performance... is second to none... minimum 1½ stops better than the D800... and comparable with the D3S uptil 12800... and blows it away from 25600 onwards...

This is basically a no contest as far as overall IQ is concerned... the Canon 5D III wins hands down...

wait for the official reviews... there is no way that they will say the 5D III & D800 are even remotely equal in terms of image quality or ISO performance...

Even on youtube... you can find previews of the 5D III from digitalrev TV ... and the reviewer categorically states that the Canon 5D III is indeed a 2 stop improvement over the 5D II in terms of noise & DR...

Look at the samples provided for both cameras... the 5D III images have that buttery smooth appearence packed with plenty of detail at literally every setting... By stark contrast the D800 ones look pleasantly grainy... with ill defined detail even at base ISO's... and smudges beyond 1600...

The D800 will only be preferable in a studio environment... anywhere else the 5D III is the camera of choice...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 19:44 UTC

These sample images are truly impressive... outstanding levels of detail across the board at virtually every ISO setting... Comparing these 5D III images to the recently released "real world" D800 samples is like comparing flawless diamonds to cubic zirconium...

And people try to insinuate that the D800 has better detail retention & ISO performance at reduced resolutions... yeah right... dream another dream... because this one's not materialising into reality...

The 5D III's colour reproduction is spectacular... far superior to even the Nikon D3X or Pentax 645D... the dynamic range is at least 2½ stops better than the 5D II... and the ISO performance... is second to none... minimum 1½ stops better than the D800... and comparable with the D3S uptil 12800... and blows it away from 25600 onwards...

This is basically a no contest as far as overall IQ is concerned... the Canon 5D III wins hands down...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 19:22 UTC as 86th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

pacogwapo: Check this out D800 whiners!

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D800-Review/Sensor-performance

I agree totally... DxO Mark always provides heavily biased scores favouring Nikon... unfortunately for them camera sales reflect a very different picture...

But then again... we could all have predicted DxO Mark's scores for the D4 & D800 months in advance... so its nothing surprising... despite the fact that the RAW samples from the D4 are visibly inferior to the D3S... And its JPEG's inferior to the 5D III... Well so much for a completely free & fair scoring system...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

Svenson: Ok - I start to understand why Canon stopped at 22MP with their new 5DMKIII.
In perfect conditions (studio?) you ou have an advantage of the 36MP - but on the street. Vibrance is missing, AF accuracy seems to be crucial with this amount of pixel...

@ russbarnes - Canon capped its sensor at 22 MP to augment its high ISO and DR performance vastly... Firstly given today's level of technical expertise... 36 MP on a 35mm full frame format makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... for someone paying $3000 + a substantial investment in high end glass... one would expect great image quality on consistant basis ... not just when the conditions are "favourable"...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

Svenson: Ok - I start to understand why Canon stopped at 22MP with their new 5DMKIII.
In perfect conditions (studio?) you ou have an advantage of the 36MP - but on the street. Vibrance is missing, AF accuracy seems to be crucial with this amount of pixel...

@ Coeurdechene - whether its excessive or obsessive is beside the point... my only purpose in doing so was to analyze the reproduction of the very finest of details that were able to be captured...

36 MP is an impressive figure in theory... but crammed onto a 36 × 24 sensor is overkill... the level of detail is average... its good in comparison to a 12 MP sensor... but it pales in comparison to a true medium format sensor like the one in the Pentax 645D in terms of details, definition & sharpness...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

Svenson: Ok - I start to understand why Canon stopped at 22MP with their new 5DMKIII.
In perfect conditions (studio?) you ou have an advantage of the 36MP - but on the street. Vibrance is missing, AF accuracy seems to be crucial with this amount of pixel...

I agree with your assessment... even colour depth seems a bit off... plus the smallest of details aren't actually defined properly despite this massive resolution...

I'm magnifying these sample images up to 400% (not doubt its excessive... but nevertheless...) and i notice a very fine grainy texture in the samples taken outdoors... its almost reminiscant of a different kind of noise suppression technique... but i'm wondering why Nikon need to use even faint traces of NR at such low ISO settings... Or could the reason be due to the lens used...?!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

Stollen1234: thank you for posting these real world fotos.
Canon is just amazing .. isnt it? need more proof? just watch these wonderful fotos.. yikes..

Duly noted... but i think the sentiment remains the same... because Canon have amalgamated fantastic image quality with spectacular ISO performance... something the D800 is not capable of outside studio conditions...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 10:21 UTC
On Just posted: Nikon D800 test samples article (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Antony John: As a matter of interest (for me anyway), DXO give an overall sensor rating based on, as far as I have found, an average:
"The Sensor Overall Score is an average of the Portrait Score based on Color Depth, the Landscape Score based on Dynamic Range and the Sports Score based on Low-Light ISO. It shows only sensor performance. "
However, with disparate variations in magnitude between ISO, Ev, and Bits, there is obviously some form of weighting going on behind the scenes.
For example the overall score of the D7000 is 80, whilst the D3S is only 82 in comparison whilst the D4 is 89.
In particular at ISO's above base both the D3S and D4 are vastly superior to the D7000 in each category but the D3S is only ± 2% better on the 'overall score'?
Perhaps somone can explain?
Seems that the 'overall score' is totally subjective on DXO's part.

To be brutally honest... personally i don't trust DxO Mark's sensor analysis or overall scores...

Everyone has seen the D4's mediocre noise performance... which is visibly inferior to the D3S & even the Canon 5D Mark III (in JPEG & RAW) ... It is blatantly obvious that Nikon employs a significant degree of NR in its RAW files... and equalizing sensor output in order to gain a true insight is near impossible with DxO Marks's methodology...

The D4's fluctuations in magnitude do not reflect a proportionate ratio between ISO performance & EVS... especially considering the fact that absolute and relative degradation in image quality progress quantitatively up the sensitivity spectrum... therefore rendering DxO's score somewhat irrelevant...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2012 at 19:51 UTC
Total: 161, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »