Has Nikon given up on pro market?

snowwrestler said:

Well you've only talked about the signal, you haven't mentioned
where the noise is coming from. And you can't just say "same sensor
technology" because factors like heat, chip size, number of pixels,
etc have direct bearing on the noise.

And you've completely ignored the impact of in-camera processing.
Yes, even RAW pics are processed. You are not getting a direct
sensor read out in a RAW image, you're getting per-pixel luminosity
after whatever processing Canon or Nikon have put between the
sensor and the CF card.

If you're going to be talking about actual prints you can't ignore
those sorts of things.

Click to expand...

Sure. There's tons of things that influence noise, not just the sensor size.

That's why Canon's 1.6 crop cameras have less noise than Nikon's 1.5 crop cameras, even though Nikon's sensors are a bit larger. Better technology.

I never ignored those other factors. But if you want to compare the effect a sensor size has on the noise, you have to assume that EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL. Otherwise it makes no sense.

So let me repeat myself for the 100th time: everything else being equal, FF sensor will have a 1 1/3 stops lower noise than a crop sensor.

Yes, there's many other factors that influence noise. But we're talking about 1 1/3 stops inerent noise advantage here. The technology better be amazing in the crop camera if it wants to overcome that.

5D has 1 1/3 stops better noise performance than 20D (already amazingly low noise camera) when delivering same print size and same detail. I'm sure most of that advantage comes from the sensor size, but of course there must be other factors that cancel themselves out.

I checked. the information is not proprietary nor specific to my business. the data is industry averages.

nice try though.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

Yves...

lovely use of shallow dof, what lens and body..

Yves P. said:

and if you are not, you'll appreciate this delicate attention
anyways ...

--
Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

Click to expand...

--
Harris

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

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

Julia Borg said:

Julia Borg said:

So in this case, the FF shot actually uses MORE light than the DX
shot to create that square mm of the output print.

Click to expand...

Think Kodak, and they used to have very high fill factor

Click to expand...

If we're to compare the effects of sensor size, technological aspects must be retained constant. Same chip materials, same layout, same electronics, same post-processing, just larger area.

So the comparison is not valid.

So we can all see and be educated.

you must have missed this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19505592 some how, even though you responded to it.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

He used a Nikon D200 with a 105mm lens.

According to DX3 he must have had a whole lot of light to make this shallow DOF exposure.

lol

engaging in this type of discussion with Julia often leaves you feeling frustrated.

my recommendation would be to drop the conversation and spare yourself the continue inquisition.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

Are they telemarketers????????

Where are the links to the info?