W.R. White
Active member
Yeah sure he did - this is the same junk posted on the Sony forum on a regular basis but when people ask for details the posters slink away.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Coolpix 5000 - Your thoughts
- Thread starter Brian47132
- Start date
David Saintloth
Member
"The F707 automatically employs a Noise Reduction system at shutter speeds slower than two seconds, which did an excellent job of keeping noise in check. Even at ISO 400, noise was very minimal. "
"..the resulting images are exceptionally clean, even at ISO 400. Color in extreme low light is also quite good.."
"The F707 has lower image noise than any camera we've tested, with the sole exception of the Nikon D1X. (One wonders if Nikon might not be using this sort of approach in the D1X as well...) - And yes, that includes cameras like the Canon G2, which offer an ISO50 option: The F707 at ISO 100 is actually "cleaner." "
-- Dave Etchells at IR
Well, if they are exaggerating as you say..the images are exaggerating how clean the ISO 400 shots are as well. It doesn't matter if the ISO is slightly overstated..so what their ISO 400 is really 350? ..300? it still yields excellent results!. Last time I checked there wasn't a standard on ISO settings for DC's across manufacturers so off course there is going to be variation. As there always has been. My eyes don't lie to me, nor did dave's analysis reveal anything other than the following, low noise, very good resolution and faster available shooting speeds (via noise reduced high ISO shooting). You can choose to believe a different interpretation of that reality. To me its a perfect example of what can happen when you mate an ok sensor with excellent image processing algorithms. Hopefully Nikon has something of similar performance coming in the 5000, we'll find out soon enough.
There is no need for a personal attack, I have been thinking for myself in making my analysis. I don't see you proving your statements, just bashing mine without substance. Here are the facts I stated from the beginning:
1) Size matters only if sensitivity and image processing algorithms remain unchanged. Even if the CCD's are all Sony's the fact that the 707 images and noise performance is way better than Minolta's attempt in the D7 should tell you something about the importance of those image processing algorithms.
2) Increased ISO shooting allows you to shoot at faster shutter speeds. It effectively speeds up your lens, if you know what you are doing with the camera (switching to high ISO when needed) you can still shoot at descent speeds.
3) IF Nikon applies very efficient algorithms to the smaller 2/3" sensor in the 5000, they may be able to get lower noise than the 707, which everyone has stated is very low. ( Accept you!)
Luckily, the validity of these truths is not dependant on your belief.
It's a detailed analysis that has lead me to the conclusions above, your statements to the contrary, however illogically based will not change my mind. Even at its larger size, the number of photosites on the D1x sensor would theoretically lead to a noisy image. But Nikon seems to have avoided that with their superior algorithms, and image processing is not important? We will see just how good it is in the 5000. You may not see these improvements in the 5000, but the statements I made are not erroneous.
I never said there would be a change, only that IF Nikon uses their talents in image processing with the new CCD they can get performance as good as or better than the 707, (actually I said between 995 and D1x) which in my mind would be reason enough to buy the 5000. Are you reading these posts fully before responding ?
Ok, we'll see ..... It won't be too long a wait.You are building a house of cards on erroneous assumptions, I am
just trying to get you to examine those assumptions.
Enjoy the wait.
Peter
DSL
JohnM31499
Veteran Member
I suppose all those people made up those problems??
I was thinking of buying a 707, but my brother bought one first. I have a cp 880 Nikon that I'm not particularly happy with & was considering the Sony myself.
I am now waiting for a Nikon 5000, & if I'm not happy with that I will be the first one to post that info here.
I just saw a posting stating that B&H isn't even carrying the 707 for now because too many have been returned.
Yes all cameras including the 995 and G2 do this now. There does seem to be some extra smoothing going on in high ISO.
These are all SUBJECTIVE comments which compared to the OBJECTIVE fact that its ISO appears SIGNIFICANTLY overstated. Around 100% overstated. It is cleaner at iso400 since it is only really about iso200.
This does not bear out anywhere else except in Daves comments. Even in the Sony forum they are admitting the G2 is cleaner. Compare the G2 ISO 50 shot and the 707 comparioson shot at the link I provided. Instead of repeating other peoples opinions look at the pictures in the provided link. Look at the shutter speed and Aperture value. Tell me what the numbers and that image tells you.
Its more like iso200 by my estimates. Then compare it to ISO 200 in other cameras. Its about equal. Nothing special at all. There is some smoothing goiing on, but it also obscures detail (at "ISO400" when the smoothing seems to kick in).
ISO variation is significant if it is a full F-stop. Which the link I provided clearly shows. If you can explain that shot any other way I would be interested to here it. There are many other examples show similar results indicationg the 707 is off by a FULL f-stop. But the one I provided is clear cut head to head at the same time in the same light.
Not a personal attack. I want your opinions and the original facts they were based on. Not your opinions that are based on the opinions of others.
If the ISO rating is off by a full f-stop which I have clearly demonstrated then this argument is moot.
Its is yet to be demonstrated that any consumer camera has a clear ISO advantage.
Not just me, but I am the only one in this thread arguing the point.
.
Where do you get that idea? More sensors do not make an image noisy.
What is the theoretical premise behind this supposition?
Again nothing to avoid, since the above premise is flawed.
Largely pointless argument boils down to this:
You claim Nikon has displayed special image processing talents that they can use in the cp5000 to overcome slow lens. I have never witnessed Nikon displaying any such talents. There is no overcoming this basic dissagreement, since you see something I don't.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. As far as the supposedly ultra-clean Sony 707 the full f-stop of ISO variation explains why it is only equal to other consumer cameras. If you don't believe the Variation when the numbers are in front of you I don't think there is any point arguing. If you don't think it is significant, please explain why.
Peter
You seem to like IR, so here are two pictures from the low light review:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F707/F7LL407.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G2/G2LL2007.HTM
These shots are from the 1/16fc .65lx column
The 707 exposure values are f2.1, 7 Seconds,
The G2 exposure values are f2.2, 5 Seconds,
Now looking at those values you might assume that perhaps the ISO of the 707 is only over-rated a bit, since it is only a small amount slower than the G2. What makes it glaring is that the G2 shot is at what Canon Calls iso200, the 707 is what Sony "Calls" iso 400. It is a complete farce. Canons iso200 is actually FASTER than "Sony iso400".
Regardless of semantics, (what you call iso400/iso200 etc..). You tell me do you think the 2sec of extra shutter speed was worth the output on the Sony707. It is a bit less speckled by the G2 shot looks much better overall IMO.
You are right David, I am in the minority complaining about this issue. It annoys me as it misleads people greatly about the low light ability of this camera (707). It seems to have even slipped under the radar of our intrepid reviewers. Phil at least noticed the discrepancy in one place, but later ignores it when he applauds the low noise iso 400 performance.
There are a few of who are aware of the misleading nature of the 707 iso labelling. There is no free lunch. All the consumer sensors produce similare results, marketing semantics notwithstanding.
Peter
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F707/F7LL407.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G2/G2LL2007.HTM
These shots are from the 1/16fc .65lx column
The 707 exposure values are f2.1, 7 Seconds,
The G2 exposure values are f2.2, 5 Seconds,
Now looking at those values you might assume that perhaps the ISO of the 707 is only over-rated a bit, since it is only a small amount slower than the G2. What makes it glaring is that the G2 shot is at what Canon Calls iso200, the 707 is what Sony "Calls" iso 400. It is a complete farce. Canons iso200 is actually FASTER than "Sony iso400".
Regardless of semantics, (what you call iso400/iso200 etc..). You tell me do you think the 2sec of extra shutter speed was worth the output on the Sony707. It is a bit less speckled by the G2 shot looks much better overall IMO.
You are right David, I am in the minority complaining about this issue. It annoys me as it misleads people greatly about the low light ability of this camera (707). It seems to have even slipped under the radar of our intrepid reviewers. Phil at least noticed the discrepancy in one place, but later ignores it when he applauds the low noise iso 400 performance.
There are a few of who are aware of the misleading nature of the 707 iso labelling. There is no free lunch. All the consumer sensors produce similare results, marketing semantics notwithstanding.
Peter
David Saintloth
Member
"it is really about iso200." what OBJECTIVE analysis leads you to this claim? You continue to be basing your ideas on subjective statements, not me.
I haven't seen it, but from my view the sony is cleaner. (There now that's subjectivity.)
So, much for an objective scientific analysis.
detail looks perfect to me.
I can see only that the G2 shots are all over sharpened and obviously noisier than the 707.( In all shots save the "ruler" shot.) As for your "ISO variation" claim, I'd like to see the research that backs it up.
My opinion is based on anothers repeateable experiments, Dave's low noise "estimates" are corroborated by Phil's review. I don't know what you are seeing.
I think the 707 does a good job of that over its competition.
That in itself should be telling you something.
I didn't say more sensors would make it noisy! I should have added the obvious statement " the more pixels you pack on a given surface area the smaller the photosites" for your benefit.
The D1x sensor despite being larger has more pixels, the relative size difference between the photosites on the prosumer sensors and the d1x is not as great as you think it is, I proved that to you in another post but you seem to have forgotten it.
a) Better low noise algorithms allow you to shoot at sensitivity boosted ISO settings.
b) When you shoot at high ISO, your exposure range varies...your available shutter times become faster for a given aperture setting. So that you can understand, Less light is needed to achieve a proper exposure.
It's not significant because its imaginary, and you are the only one that sees it apparently. Nothing else to explain.
I already explained over and again, if you don't get it I can't help you.
DSL
W.R. White
Active member
Yet not one person can explain what the recall is for after two days of this.
David SL
Senior Member
I agree Chris,
Waiting is definitely on the agenda, its yet to be seen if the 5000 will be sensitive and noise free enough for my taste. Personally, I vowed not to buy another DC until the 6mp prosumers started coming out...but the 5mp cameras are tempting me. If the G2 had a 5mp sensor, I would already have it.
For now, I am more than happy with the performance of my 990 and willing to wait patiently.
DSL
Waiting is definitely on the agenda, its yet to be seen if the 5000 will be sensitive and noise free enough for my taste. Personally, I vowed not to buy another DC until the 6mp prosumers started coming out...but the 5mp cameras are tempting me. If the G2 had a 5mp sensor, I would already have it.
For now, I am more than happy with the performance of my 990 and willing to wait patiently.
DSL
I guess its imaginary if you don't want to look at the links? Same light same time, same place:
707 ISO 100, F4.0, 1/6 sec
G2- ISO 50, F4.0, 1/6 sec
That is a difference of 1 f-stop in ISO rating.
Source:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page16.asp
As I pointed out in my other post (citing examples from IR) it continues this trend to higher ISO, so that ISO 400 is actually an over-rated 200.
Which part am I imagining here?
Peter
JohnM31499
Veteran Member
When I get mine(which will replace my current 880), I will post some honest results here right off.
Believe me, if I don't like it, I won't stick up for it like some people who won't admit their camera has any flaws.
Believe me, if I don't like it, I won't stick up for it like some people who won't admit their camera has any flaws.
Blake Hawkes
New member
I believe that varied images from and some quality time behind the viewfinder will be the final photographic litmus test by which the CP5000 will be judged. One cannot, however, help but be concerned about the slowness of the CP5000 lens, and the thought of trying to overcome low-light problems by trading brightness for noise. Did Nikon really "flop" as badly as it appears they may have on this important feature?
-Blake-
L
Ludo
Guest
Just FYI, Sony uses Carl Zeiss lenses, and Carl Zeiss was making the best lenses in the world before Nikon was in the craddle ;-)
Kevin D66185
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Well if the realse of the CP5000 will bring down the price of the 995 then bring it on!
I am a nikon fan and use their film camera ( f90x with all the trimming )
as of the 5k
digital
-center the tripod mount at the lens focal center, should be easy enough
-get rid of the video mode, If I wanted to do video I would buy a video camera
-get rid of the extendiing lens, I hate those. one more thing to break
-a camera is a tool, not decoration, get rid of the add-on metal parts, get rid of the funky flash window
-let's have a raw mode
-how about a larger viewfinder for easier framing
-add a decent lens, f1.8
-add a pc connector for external strobe
-add a screw hole for a remote trigger on the trigger button, SHOULD be standard for all camera, it's just a hole, come on.
too little too late
Why can't cie make a product for the product sake ? How about making products to be the best ? Not making product to fit the marketing departement goal. When you think of it there is not much difference in cost in making a good product then in making a lot of different "consumer" grade stuff. How much r&d is wasted on low end product ?
Gaetan J.
JohnK
Veteran Member
not to mention the fiddling adaptor needed for converters...
HEAR HEAR! Standard cable release compatability, puhleeeze!
For me, the biggest disappointment is not able to shoot in NEF. I have been a loyal Nikon person, owning F4, F5, F100, and now the D1x. I have been waiting for Nikon to release a semi-pro/adv amaterur compact for me to carry around, and the 5000, is quite a disappointment. Like many have complained, slow lens is just PLAIN SILLY, then it doesn't shoot in NEF! Let me tell you guys, the biggest difference with the D1x is NEF! It gives the users so much post processing control! Total WB, Sharpening, Tone etc control AFTER the actual shooting. The Canon G2 shoots in Canon RAW. Why won't Nikon make the 5000 RAW/NEF capable?
ws
ws
F
fshoe
Guest
The G2 beats current 99x in 3 huge ways:
1. RAW
2. faster lens
3. sharper lens.
The 5000 falls short in 1 and 2, 3 is yet to be seen
1. RAW
2. faster lens
3. sharper lens.
The 5000 falls short in 1 and 2, 3 is yet to be seen
JerryO
Senior Member
I would still stick with Nikon.. The 5000 will have other advantages over the G2 One will be the MacroMode. and then all the extra settings it will have..
JohnM31499
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum