surprising compare alha100/nikon D80 pictures

fitnessfirst said:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d80-review/index.shtml

what i can't understand is that the nikon D80 who is using the same
sensor as the alpha 100 is cabable of making good low-noise
pictures at high iso settings? it outpreforms the alpa 100 easily
at iso 800 and 1600?

How did they do this???????????????

Click to expand...

Less noise, less detail. If Sony does it with USM then they're doing a fine job.

What I would like to see is a comparison of RAW images converted with ACR/Lightroom/bibble/dcraw/C1 or any other 3rd party tool, all with a similar lens (say, a 50/1.4). I think you'd be hard pressed to find any difference.

toughluck said:

fitnessfirst said:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d80-review/index.shtml

what i can't understand is that the nikon D80 who is using the same
sensor as the alpha 100 is cabable of making good low-noise
pictures at high iso settings? it outpreforms the alpa 100 easily
at iso 800 and 1600?

How did they do this???????????????

Click to expand...

Less noise, less detail. If Sony does it with USM then they're
doing a fine job.

What I would like to see is a comparison of RAW images converted
with ACR/Lightroom/bibble/dcraw/C1 or any other 3rd party tool, all
with a similar lens (say, a 50/1.4). I think you'd be hard pressed
to find any difference.

Click to expand...

I'd love to agree, but sadly, it's not so. The D80 has much less noise at 1600 in Silkypix than the A100, and it's very difficult to get the A100 to match. The difference in RAW is far greater than the difference in JPEGs.

At present, there are very few converters which handle both (ACR can't yet) but Silkypix does and unless it has some bias which is not present in other converters, it shows the Nikon file to be lower in noise, even in raw form.

I have no vested interest in saying this, I run a club and magazine for Minolta/Sony owners, but I am honest about what I find when trying things out. So far, all the evidence is that Sony has very high noise levels at high ISO, and very high detail sharpness at low ISO.

David

Especially since the chips come from the same fab... I know Nikon have some of their patents on their iteration of the sensor, but does 4-channel readout really affect picture quality that much? If it does, why don't Sony emulate it in any way?

Maybe Sony are withholding improvements for a higher tier model? That's one logical explanation. If they are holding out for a firmware upgrade, then that's not so wise, as most people go by first opinion.

toughluck said:

have some of their patents on their iteration of the sensor, but
does 4-channel readout really affect picture quality that much? If
it does, why don't Sony emulate it in any way?

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the D80 CCD has also 2-channel readout. So no difference here. A hypothesis stated in another thread was that Nikon uses better analog-to-digital converters. But I have no clue if this is true or even if this is a reasonable explanation at all.

toughluck said:

Maybe Sony are withholding improvements for a higher tier model?
That's one logical explanation. If they are holding out for a
firmware upgrade, then that's not so wise, as most people go by
first opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, this would be really stupid. Moreover, I doubt that the reasons are really in the firmware.

Greetings, Wolfram

...

Although David doesn't agree, I believe the A100 image at high ISO can be greatly improved with Noise Reduction software, take a look at my post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=20040185

After treatig with Neat Image, I think the A100 image is quite good ( not perfect ) and IMO with better details than the D80 image. Of course there's the trouble ( for some ) of having to deal with post processing, which I always do for all my shots, anyway.

... Lucas
--
Always having fun with photography ...

lcmacedo said:

...

Although David doesn't agree, I believe the A100 image at high ISO
can be greatly improved with Noise Reduction software, take a look
at my post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=20040185
After treatig with Neat Image, I think the A100 image is quite good
( not perfect ) and IMO with better details than the D80 image. Of
course there's the trouble ( for some ) of having to deal with post
processing, which I always do for all my shots, anyway.

... Lucas
--
Always having fun with photography ...

Click to expand...

--Lucas,

The problem is that you have to cleanup the A100 image, to get it to be comparable to the D80's unprocessed image. In your example, the A100's image is still not as clean (very blotchy) it's oversharpened and is plagued with JPEG artifacts.

What then would the D80's image look like if given as much attention in post?

"Your A100 ISO 800 Fix"
Sony A100 + Neat Image

lcmacedo said:

Click to expand...

My D80 ISO "1600" Fix (using Neat Image)



I thought (to keep it fair) that I would use the ISO 1600 image, against the A100's ISO 800.

Are you guys going to still argue "but the D80's image has less detail" or "the A100's image is underexposed".

Come on people, stop being lemmings and give credit where credit is due. If all you do is praise Sony's efforts, with the A100, they will be less inclined to deliver a better product.

I'M HOPING FOR A "7D" KNOCKOUT. I like the idea of in camera SSS, but I demand more than just 2 extra stops of SSS (before I'll use a tripod anyways). There are more important features that are required, when considering which system to invest in.

How can you just sit there and praise Sony for the A100 offering? I praised Sony for the R1, because it is truly revolutionary, but the A100? If I were a previous KM owner, with a collection of lenses, I'd be a little frustrated, right now.

Ken 5D,

Please refrain from using your "troll" button. I'm serious. I'm still on the fence, about which system to invest in, but Sony's gotta step up...

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

R Johns said:

R Johns said:

Click to expand...

My D80 ISO "1600" Fix (using Neat Image)



I thought (to keep it fair) that I would use the ISO 1600 image,
against the A100's ISO 800.

Are you guys going to still argue "but the D80's image has less
detail" or "the A100's image is underexposed".

Click to expand...

Yes.. because the question has never been the high contrast details like text.. that can be fixed like you did by sharpening (to the point of picking up some halos)

It is the things like the gradients in the girls face. The A-100 shot has them, they are almost gone in the D80.

Is the the NR or the fact the the D80 image is over exposed .. I don't know..

R Johns said:

Ken 5D,

Please refrain from using your "troll" button. I'm serious. I'm
still on the fence, about which system to invest in, but Sony's
gotta step up...

Click to expand...

Why would I do that? it is was well thought outpost not just some Nikon Ra Ra and it is on topic...

Trolls tend to start new topics comparing cameras on the other camera's board, it is often their first or 2nd post on the board and are just about "How stupid you and Sony" or beating a dead horse like noise with nothing new to say

But, I don't think it makes sense to call people who like thier cameras lemmings..

The problems with fixing preposted images is

A) there are not from RAW so already have been affected by previous work or resaving.

B) No one has agreed on a standard goup of settings so while we are dicsusing noise, we get distracted with jpg compression artifacts and sharpening artifacts.

What I see is that ... All Nikon's have some level of NR to make ISO 1600 look better. Sony didn't do this.. There are plenty of good ISO 1600 shots that would work at 5x7 or 8x10. After that they will take PP..

The key is PP can work to preserve important details, the Nikon may have tossed. For most people on 5x7s they will be fine.. but I wouldn't want a large poster of Sony Noise or Nikon Watercolors. I am not sure I have seen an 10MP 1600 system that would consitently make good large prints..

Canon comes the closest still but I like the 30D images more than the 400D images.
--
------------
Ken - KM 5D
Sigma Trinity 10-20, 24-135 f2.8-4.5, 70-300 APO DG
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

R Johns said:

--Lucas,

The problem is that you have to cleanup the A100 image, to get it
to be comparable to the D80's unprocessed image. In your example,
the A100's image is still not as clean (very blotchy) it's
oversharpened and is plagued with JPEG artifacts.

What then would the D80's image look like if given as much
attention in post?

"Your A100 ISO 800 Fix"
Sony A100 + Neat Image

R Johns said:

Click to expand...

My D80 ISO "1600" Fix (using Neat Image)



I thought (to keep it fair) that I would use the ISO 1600 image,
against the A100's ISO 800.

Click to expand...

............................................................................

R Johns said:

Russ

Click to expand...

Russ,

As I'm sure you know. when using a program like Neat Image the final image appearance is highly subjective to the photographer's taste! I agree the D80 image you processed is a bit cleaner, but I like better the colors, contrast and resolution of the A100 shot and also I don't think it's oversharpened.

I processed the A100 original image again. using different settings and the result is below: a cleaner image than the first I did, retaining the colors, contrast and details of the first one!
Anyway, we could discuss that forever ...

R Johns said:

Click to expand...

... Lucas

--
Always having fun with photography ...

--Guys,

What's funny is that I keep hearing things like "Sony chooses not to apply NR, to maintain detail". The point that seems willfully overlooked, is that in order to "clean-up" the A100's image (to the standard that Nikon sets), the A100's image would be far worse off in terms of detail. I think I've proven that, in my A100 ISO-800 vs D80 ISO-1600 comparison. Do I have to show you a D80 ISO-800 image, in order to make my point obvious?

I honestly don't think that the A100's image could be cleaned up to the D80's or 400D's standards, unless it suffers serious loss of detail or rediculous sharpening/JPG artifacts and yes, watercoloring.

The images speak for themselves guys. No amount of disclaimers are going to change the facts. After all; saying it's so, doesn't make it so...

Sony, please pay attention!!!

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

lcmacedo said:

Russ,
As I'm sure you know. when using a program like Neat Image the
final image appearance is highly subjective to the photographer's
taste! I agree the D80 image you processed is a bit cleaner, but I
like better the colors, contrast and resolution of the A100 shot
and also I don't think it's oversharpened.
I processed the A100 original image again. using different settings
and the result is below: a cleaner image than the first I did,
retaining the colors, contrast and details of the first one!
Anyway, we could discuss that forever ...

Click to expand...

Indeed, we could discuss this forever. Let's let the images do the talking...

Your A100 ISO-800

lcmacedo said:

lcmacedo said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The D80 ISO-800



Please note; I pushed the DR on the D80 image (which should theoretically increase noise in the shadows).

I won't push this any further folks. Again, I am not trying to bash Sony.

Just trying to get a witness...

Regards...

Russ

--



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

R Johns said:

I'M HOPING FOR A "7D" KNOCKOUT. I like the idea of in camera SSS,
but I demand more than just 2 extra stops of SSS (before I'll use a
tripod anyways). There are more important features that are
required, when considering which system to invest in.

Click to expand...

Of course. But for some, the knockout feature might just be the in-camera stabilization, and only Sony and Pentax offer that. Of these two, right now the Pentax K10D seems to be the better offer, but if Sony come up with some A-10, with all those rubber gaskets, body build quality, 7's ergonomics and K10D's price, the choice will be much more difficult.

R Johns said:

How can you just sit there and praise Sony for the A100 offering?
I praised Sony for the R1, because it is truly revolutionary, but
the A100? If I were a previous KM owner, with a collection of
lenses, I'd be a little frustrated, right now.

Click to expand...

We're not praising. Or yes, we are. The A-100 is a 5D the way it should have been all the way. It has better build and image quality, improved ergonomics and a lot of other niceties, and we have nothing but praise for Sony for that effort. If they don't deliver anything more in their next camera, you'll hear the anguish you want to hear here, so don't sweat. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

R Johns said:

Please refrain from using your "troll" button. I'm serious. I'm
still on the fence, about which system to invest in, but Sony's
gotta step up...

Click to expand...

Well, right now, if your choice is between A-100 and D80, you can afford both and have no huge investment in glass, go D80, it's a no-brainer. If Sony and Pentax step up however, and Nikon and Canon stagnate... Well, don't come crying to us.

Right now, you can have a camera that does everything you want (D80 is excellent), or one that's lacking in some things. If you buy the latter, you're either an optimist or a masochist. You'll either learn to live with the limitations or you'll be forever bugged by the gripes you have with the A-100.

The choice is yours, but either way don't come crying to us...

R Johns said:

--Guys,

What's funny is that I keep hearing things like "Sony chooses not
to apply NR, to maintain detail". The point that seems willfully
overlooked, is that in order to "clean-up" the A100's image (to the
standard that Nikon sets), the A100's image would be far worse off
in terms of detail. I think I've proven that, in my A100 ISO-800
vs D80 ISO-1600 comparison. Do I have to show you a D80 ISO-800
image, in order to make my point obvious?

Click to expand...

I don't think anything has been proven one way or another on 2nd hand images.

R Johns said:

I honestly don't think that the A100's image could be cleaned up to
the D80's or 400D's standards, unless it suffers serious loss of
detail or rediculous sharpening/JPG artifacts and yes,
watercoloring.

Click to expand...

SO you are saying the Nikon standard includes "

R Johns said:

serious loss of
detail or rediculous sharpening/JPG artifacts and yes,
watercoloring.

Click to expand...

"

Al though I am not sure why an RAW image cleaned up and save properly would have jpg artifacts...

R Johns said:

The images speak for themselves guys. No amount of disclaimers are
going to change the facts. After all; saying it's so, doesn't make
it so...

Click to expand...

Yup so some of us like subtle color details.. some are about adges.

R Johns said:

Sony, please pay attention!!!

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea to put in a NR setting for those the like the camera to do the work for them.

------------
Ken - KM 5D
Sigma Trinity 10-20, 24-135 f2.8-4.5, 70-300 APO DG
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

I was just going to let you guy's have your fun, but I had to step back in, to note that this did make me chuckle.

Ken_5D said:

Ken_5D said:

I honestly don't think that the A100's image could be cleaned up to
the D80's or 400D's standards, unless it suffers serious loss of
detail or rediculous sharpening/JPG artifacts and yes,
watercoloring.

Click to expand...

SO you are saying the Nikon standard includes "

Ken_5D said:

serious loss of
detail or rediculous sharpening/JPG artifacts and yes,
watercoloring.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I did word that in a perculiar way, didn't I. Of course; you know what I meant, right?

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

you're funny. what you think are halos around letters are actual details of the poster at the background. (i.e. those are actual shadings of letters on the poster)

so you feel good about D80 erasing the details that are actually on the poster, and bashing A100 about !halos!.. lol...

R Johns said:

The D80 is not sacrificing detail at all. Again, if your honest,
you'll see the detail in the D80's images, even the ISO3200 images.
Take an ISO3200 image from the D80 and an ISO1600 image from the
A100, clean them both up, and see where you end up.

Please don't beat me. Just calling it, like I see it. Sony's got
some homework to do, but they are very capable. Can't wait to see
the 7D replacement.

Regards...

Russ

yves Van den Broek said:

Yes NR, with less detail as a consequence ... you can't have it
both ways with this 10MP camera's.
Give me the Sony I prefer iso 100 to 400 which are razor sharp,
Canon and Nikon went after the noise, me, I want details ...
The noise you can get rid of in PP

Click to expand...

--



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

Click to expand...

--
Serkan,
http://seren.photosite.com

seren said:

you're funny. what you think are halos around letters are actual
details of the poster at the background. (i.e. those are actual
shadings of letters on the poster)

so you feel good about D80 erasing the details that are actually on
the poster, and bashing A100 about !halos!.. lol...

Click to expand...

Yet another example...



I pulled this from the web. No PP'ng, just enlarged to 200% to better display the A100's obvious sharpening halos (look at the text).

My point remains, that what everyone thinks is more native detail / resolution, is merely strong in-camera sharpening. This strong sharpening actually makes its worse to remove noise from the image, because you always have to follow up with somekind of sharpening after, to replace the original level of detail, that NR takes away.

So, the end result (at least for these JPGS), is an obvious display of artifacts, as the artifacts aren't easily done away with in the NR process (as is the actual noise), so you ultimately end up increasing these artifacts appearance, when you resharpen later.

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

...
D80's colors seem "washed out" ( flat ) although very clean.

... Lucas
--
Always having fun with photography ...

As per ISO Standard, the image under Alpha A100 is correct... 800 is accurately noisy or grainy.

Nikon could be cheating!!!

No further comment

fitnessfirst said:

fitnessfirst wrote:
what i can't understand is that the nikon D80 who
is using the same sensor as the alpha 100 is cabable
of making good low-noise pictures at high iso
settings? it outpreforms the alpa 100 easily at iso
800 and 1600? How did they do this?

Click to expand...

I can't vouch for the accurasy of the following information, but I did find it interesting. It appears in the D80 review, published in the October 2006 issue of What Digital Camera magazine (UK mag). It says...

"The sensor is reportedly designed by Nikon, so is unique to this camera." This appears in the middle of a paragraph discussing the 2-channel/4-channel difference between the D200, so it could mean unique only within the Nikon world, rather than the D80 has a different sensor to the A100.

It's not unthinkable that Sony would manufacture a sensor just for Nikon (i.e. be Nikon's fab facility). If Nikon put this same sensor in the D50 replacement, there will certainly be enough volume to make it worthwhile for both parties (easy money for Sony, massively lower capital investment for Nikon).

...

The ISO 800 photos I used for comparing the D80 vs. A100 + Neat Image NR were actually ISO 1600!! I downloaded the wrong files from DCResource and didn't check the Exif...

Now I dowloaded the right ISO 800 files and applied NI to the A100's file ( just as a note: the original DCResource D80 file was in .jpg and the A100 was in .bmp ).
Follows then the 100% crops of both :

D80 ISO 800:



A100 ISO 800 + Neat Image N.R.:



As I expected, at ISO 800 the A100's image with the proper PP with a NR software is IMO as clean as the D80's and with slightly superior colors, contrast and details!
Of course, that's a bit subjective!
( Pls. note: I don't have either the D80 or A100 , but a KM 7D )

...Lucas
--
Always having fun with photography ...

Is when you compare the Pentax K100D (6.1mp) to either of these other cameras.

I've attatched my D80 ISO-800, your A100 ISO-800 and the K100D ISO 1600 Upsampled to 10.2mp images together for comparison.

I just recently started paying attention to the Pentax line-up, after reading the post in this thread;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=20018656

I'm going to have to re-think my long term strategy and hold out for the K10D's reviews. Even the K100D is stupid affordable and has stabalization.

lcmacedo said:

lcmacedo said:

The D80 ISO-800

Click to expand...

A100 ISO 800 + Neat Image N.R.:

Click to expand...

K100D ISO 1600 Upsampled

lcmacedo said:

As I expected, at ISO 800 the A100's image with the proper PP with
a NR software is IMO as clean as the D80's and with slightly
superior colors, contrast and details!
Of course, that's a bit subjective!
( Pls. note: I don't have either the D80 or A100 , but a KM 7D )

...Lucas
--
Always having fun with photography ...

Click to expand...

--



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...