Reading mode: Light Dark

D2X Hi-2 snap

Go to last post
RiverSide Photography said:
Backdoctor said:
So all your "opinions" are based on second hand information and web > photos, not on any shots you shot yourself. Now I see.
Click to expand...
yes web shots is all we get to see here and that forms my opinions.
RiverSide Photography said:
My opinion was more accurate than yours in this line of posts it
seems.
Click to expand...
u can continue to believe that.
RiverSide Photography said:
If you are going to base your purchase of a body in these price
ranges on web shots, well, then there is no need to "discuss" this
any further.
Click to expand...
great. end of story
RiverSide Photography said:
You, well, just enjoy you Canon gear. It's fine gear.
Click to expand...
it's ok.. i'm not married to the brand like some.. the moment i see
a better product or a better buy.. i'll switch
RiverSide Photography said:
I didnt say anything nasty about your mother. Dont know her well
enough to say one way or the other. It seems brains musta skipped a
generation though.
BTW, do you have her permission to use her computer?
Click to expand...
no.. u're right i didn't get her permission so i'm using yo mama's :)
Click to expand...
wow, used both brain cells with that one, you peaked. Again, easy to see intelligence skips a generation with you.

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
No experimental settings at all. Look over here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=15576750

I didn't hesitate going over ISO 800. (Well, actually, I did, and then I decided that the same rules of photography that drove people to push process 400 film to 3200 probably applied...and they do.) Three Canon shooters did, shot with flash and got awful but noise free images. My pictures are selling. There's aren't.

I haven't had anyone talk about anything other than the subject matter - IMO, the noise isn't significant for me. If the noise is significant in your ability to sell images, I don't think it's the camera that needs to be improved.

Incidentally, 100% crop would mean printing a D2x image at 12x18. I did. There's less than a quarter (subjective judgement) of the noise there is on screen. Why? Because screens ENHANCE noise - they're projecting light and color, where prints are reflecting, which always damps down things like noise and grain.
RiverSide Photography said:
but the average user can't get clean ISO800 shots from this model
let alone clean HI-2 ones.. experimental settings are just that..
experimental.. real life samples i've seen so far show that if I
were ever to have such a camera, i'd hesitate going past ISO800
with it..

oh and 100% crops ARE the way to judge noise.. we all know to
compensate for the fact that it'd look better when printed.. but
since all other comparisons made on these forums are of 100%
crops.. not presenting it to begin with is telling..

--
Equipped with: A Camera that ain't good enough, Lenses that aren't
sharp enough, technique that leaves a lot to be desired and an
imagination that fails to run wild.
Click to expand...
--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
Most of the Noise that I get with the D2X at 400 is not visible on prints. however, using automated processes and saving as jpeg for web viewing and you can see it, or at 100% in full resolution.

As far as the D2H being better at noise at ISO 400, I would agree. I also shoot with the D2H and the noise from 400 on up is much better on the D2H than the D2X. But with a 4MP sensor, I'd expect that it have better noise characteristics than the 12mp D2X with the same sensor size.

Some of my noise on the D2X sometimes come as sharpening artifacts of processing RAW images through NC at "high sharpening" too. Traditional noise gets exacerbated with this sharpening too. But for prints, it is a must to apply it.
 
Harris, don't you realize you are talking to Canon zealot?

Here is ISO 800 from D2X - for fun (underexposed according to digital standards, BTW) :



To show shooting parameters, and that the scene was exposed to actual luminance, not "to the right":



DoF intentionally shallow to show more noise, as it is more visible in OOF areas.

Let him pick an area he wants 100% crop from...

--
Julia
 
Ednaz said:
there's two ways to lose a salable image shooting documentary
work. one is to have boring moments captured flawlessly. the
other and more common is to not capture any moments because you're
afraid of terrible image quality.

if the picture is right, nobody even talks about noise.
Click to expand...
Good points mostly. The subject matter and getting the shot that someone wants more than the quality of the exposure. I see flawed images all over the place but are interesting. They are what sells. But I still want better noise performance out of my $5000 camera in 2005.

Hopefully Nikon will concentrate on better noise performance over more mega-pixels in future models. 12 MP is plenty for what I do and is pushing the resolution limits of the best Nikkors I own as it is. So lets continue to improve noise performance, regardless if images are sellable with the current model.
 
Basic theory of lighting: reflected light causes you to see things differently than projected light. The techniques of producing an image are even different, RGB versus CMYK. One is additive, one is subtractive.

Just as printed grainy images look a whole lot more acceptable than the same grainy images do on a screen, so there's a lot less apparent noise in a printed image than there is on a screen.

I just printed out a bunch of ISO 1600 D2X images that I thought were grainy (Nikon's version of noise) but perfectly acceptable on screen. They're much more than perfectly acceptable on paper - subjectively, about a 3/4 reduction in perception of noise. Of course, I print on flat fine art paper...

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
...its because the subject of the picture is not catching your attention.

Or, photography isn't what you're interested in.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
And I had noise reduction in camera on, and used the noise reduction in ACR. If you've got to retouch out nose hairs in a head and shoulders shot, i don't think you're losing too much detail.

maybe i just got a good d2x.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
In my only ISO 1600 experience to date, I dialed in -.7EV because several of the guys were bald (retouching blown out heads is a massive pain) and there were saxophones and drum kits, which tend to blow out hugely even when there's not too much light. Not to mention that if you're shooting portraits of African Americans and don't dial in at least some negative EV, you're going to completely blow the skin tone.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
I panicked when I looked at the first couple iso 1600 shots on the camera's LCD - even with only a little zooming, I saw blue speckles everywhere in the shadows even though I had on in camera NR and long exposure NR. I had my laptop with me, and plugged the card into my laptop - no blue speckles. Plugged back into camera - blue speckles.

Either the review mode doesn't' show the effects of NR, or the brightness of the B pixels is enhanced on the LCD.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
I processed my images in Capture, figuring Nikon would have to have produced the best noise reduction and sharpening approach since they know the camera and what it'll produce. Then, for the heck of it, I did a few in ACR, and WOW, it was a lot better. The NC images had less noise, but more visible detail smoothing. ACR kept the details, let the noise turn to grain, which seems to me to be a better option. In NC I also found I couldn't batch process (system crashes and lots of apparent differences between images) where in ACR, I created and stored two conversion profiles - one for shots on the darker areas of the stage, one for all the rest, and did bulk conversion.

Maybe I don't have good Capture skills since I use ACR for everything else, but I thought my results in ACR were way better.
--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
Noise is better with ACR, but sharpening is not. All and all, I do my bulk processing in ACR. I MUCH prefer ACR's ease of use but the images do not turn out to be as tact sharp as NC. But I only use NC for first round batch processing if the ISO is 800 or higher (D2X) or for prints 8x10 or larger. I always finish in PSCS2 and print from ColorByte...or at least that is my current workflow.
 
When will theeeeeey....
ever learn?

Do I enjoy (and learn).

Kindest regards

Raul
 
I am at a loss to figure out what this test really represents.

The snap and other image within the thread imply that 5300K is the "neutral point" for the sensor in the sense that it gives the best distribution of the RGB channels. Is this a design point of the Nikon?

Choosing tungsten illumination for such a test and still balancing to 5300K seems to be a non-productive test - I assume that most folks, for most subjects, for most lighting conditions, would prefer a visually perceptive correct rendition.

If you preset the image processing to 5300K, it virtually does not matter what the actual lighting colour cast is. You will not see the noise variation that is due to the circuit and demosaic characteristics.

I also suspect that part of the noise quality viewed in the sample images is due to the relatively good exposure in flat light conditions. Noise is much more dominant in high contrast "read world" low light photographic situations such as jazz concert, dance, theatre, street candid and other venues. The noise of the D2x is MUCH more visible in these situation. Additonally, because of practical considerations, it is often not reasonable to shoot the D2x in RAW mode - JPG is the image format of necessity.

Choosing a reasonably optimum lighting condition with good overall exposure is rather an idealized way of trying to evaluate the D2x (or any camera) in low light. I find it odd that some folks imply that the D2x performs well at high ISO.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
Serious question. I've read that people do this, but I can't figure what having the jpg to sort with does for you over just using NikonView and outsorting the RAW images. Also, if the files are in separate directories, how to you keep things synced up - so that when you delete a jpg you know that you're also going to delete the raw image?

with nikonview and bridge, i'm struggling to understand the advantage of having a jpg with the raw image, since both programs treat any file the same way.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top