Reading mode: Light Dark

DX vs FX

Go to last post
RRJackson said:
I shot a lot of low light stuff with both those cameras, FWIW. Still do with the 645NII. The negative is so big that even though there's noise (grain) it's not too objectionable. I tend to imagine that the same would hold true with the S2. It's nearly 40 megapixels. Scale the image down to 20 and I tend to imagine that the noise will pretty much be in line with the noise from a 20-megapixel DSLR.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is not the case, the noise creates bands and patters that hold up after resizing and while some noise reduction programs help, they don't do so nearly enough. Furthermore the CCDs used in medium format digitals drastically loose dynamic range as the sensitivity is increase. Color rendition also drops at high ISO as a result. There has been a lot more market in the 35mm DSLR market so there has been a lot more R&D there, the sensors are a lot better. At 1600 ISO, 400 ISO film pushed two stops holds up a lot better than medium format digital.

--
~Kurt
 
kb2zuz said:
Unfortunately that is not the case, the noise creates bands and patters that hold up after resizing and while some noise reduction programs help, they don't do so nearly enough. Furthermore the CCDs used in medium format digitals drastically loose dynamic range as the sensitivity is increase. Color rendition also drops at high ISO as a result. There has been a lot more market in the 35mm DSLR market so there has been a lot more R&D there, the sensors are a lot better. At 1600 ISO, 400 ISO film pushed two stops holds up a lot better than medium format digital.
Click to expand...
The M9 has the same pixel density as the S2 and while it isn't in line with my D700 at high ISO, it seems pretty decent for an 18-megapixel CCD-based camera. This is at ISO 2500. I don't see any overt signs of banding or overly objectionable noise. Of course this was shot in what seems to be a brightly illuminated setting. I've seen a lot more noise in dim, shadowy shots above 1600, but it's still performing way better at 1600 than my D200 did from what I can tell (I don't own one).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapeman/4099536447/

 
Considering what you shot with in the past, if I were you, I would unequivocally go with Full-frame 24x36 sensored cameras.

I personally shoot with the Full-frame Sony A900 (24.6MP Full-frame) along with a bunch of Carl Zeiss Auto-focus lenses available in the mount and I could not be happier. Sony recently introduced a slightly lower specced (and cheaper) Full-frame, the A850 ($1999), which is something I would seriously look at, if I were you. A version of this same Sony Full-frame sensor resides in the $8000 Nikon D3X.
 
Hi Rikke

I tried to reply to you in the Olympus forum but the thread hit 150. I do have some 10x8 kit but I have not used it for several years, as the 5x4 is a lot lighter and smaller relatively speaking :) .For colour transparency I am just about to finish the last of my Velvia 50 [there is supposed to be a new batch coming here this month. And for B&W which is my main use I tend to stick with T-Max 100, though TRI.X is more flexible especially if you are new to LF as it obviously has excellent exposure latitude. For colour negative Porta 160NC gives great results with people as the name implies. I would suggest finding a film you like and take the time to really understand it for best results
Jim
 
RRJackson said:
kb2zuz said:
Unfortunately that is not the case, the noise creates bands and patters that hold up after resizing and while some noise reduction programs help, they don't do so nearly enough. Furthermore the CCDs used in medium format digitals drastically loose dynamic range as the sensitivity is increase. Color rendition also drops at high ISO as a result. There has been a lot more market in the 35mm DSLR market so there has been a lot more R&D there, the sensors are a lot better. At 1600 ISO, 400 ISO film pushed two stops holds up a lot better than medium format digital.
Click to expand...
The M9 has the same pixel density as the S2 and while it isn't in line with my D700 at high ISO, it seems pretty decent for an 18-megapixel CCD-based camera. This is at ISO 2500. I don't see any overt signs of banding or overly objectionable noise. Of course this was shot in what seems to be a brightly illuminated setting. I've seen a lot more noise in dim, shadowy shots above 1600, but it's still performing way better at 1600 than my D200 did from what I can tell (I don't own one).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapeman/4099536447/

Click to expand...
Just so I'm clear, are you saying because the S2 and M9 use the same basic technology (CCD) and have the same pixel density that they have to perform the same at high ISO? There are many other aspects that aren't included: the number of masked pixels at the periphery of the sensor, the design of the micro-lens array, the amount of resistance cause by scaling up the size of the sensor and the increase current needed, the A2D converter's ability to process 18 vs 37 million pixels. I'm not even getting into any image processing, just the way the A2D on the sensor is laid out can drastically change the performance. Simply put; sensor design does not scale-up well.

That's the technical, here's the subjective. I have found the S2 has significantly worse high ISO performance than the M9, the M9 has worse high ISO performance than the D3. At least with the M9 you can get the Noctilux and the design of a rangefinder makes it easier to hand hold a few stops better than an SLR (especially a Medium format SLR with a huge mirror.) I've used the D3, M9, and S2 and this is what I have found in actual use. I am not speculating based on images or reviews I saw on the web.

If everything the OP plans on shooting is either: on tripod, in good lighting, or using strobes, then I would recommend the S2. Otherwise there are a number of better options depending on which is priority, ISO or resolution: D700/D3s or the 5D Mk II/D3x. Even the Sony A850/A900 performs better at high ISO than the S2. I use the H3DII-39MS in the studio or when doing architectural work on a tripod. If I'm working hand held in less than direct sunlight, I usually prefer a first generation 5D.
--
~Kurt
 
kb2zuz said:
Just so I'm clear, are you saying because the S2 and M9 use the same basic technology (CCD) and have the same pixel density that they have to perform the same at high ISO?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that Kodak essentially has one CCD in their bag of tricks right now and they've scaled it to both the S2 and M9.
kb2zuz said:
That's the technical, here's the subjective. I have found the S2 has significantly worse high ISO performance than the M9
Click to expand...
That's not surprising, given that the S2 isn't in production yet and the only image samples that have made it out have been from preproduction cameras.
kb2zuz said:
At least with the M9 you can get the Noctilux and the design of a rangefinder makes it easier to hand hold a few stops better than an SLR (especially a Medium format SLR with a huge mirror.)
Click to expand...
The S2's mirror is 20% smaller than the mirror in my 645NII and it's not a problem for me. Not as easy to hand-hold as with the leaf shutter in my old Mamiya 7II, but not the deck of cards falling on a table that characterized the mirror slap of my old Pentax 67II.
kb2zuz said:
I've used the D3, M9, and S2 and this is what I have found in actual use. I am not speculating based on images or reviews I saw on the web.
Click to expand...
If you've used an S2 you've used a preproduction camera. I'm not sure what that's supposed to tell anyone other than that you're prone to making snap judgments based on insufficient evidence. And still, I didn't tell the OP to go with the S2. I just said it's not as hideous as some seem to believe.
 
deaddog said:
I'm about to move into digital from film and I've been having a devil of time trying to decide between DX and FX. I could buy a Canon 7D or a Nikon D300 or I could buy a Canon 5D Mark II or a Nikon D700. Money isn't the issue but I hate to throw money where it's not needed, especially since I will also have to get a good set of lenses (probably about 3). Anyway, I won't be doing commercial or fashion photography. I do mostly portraiture, landscape, and low light photography. Most of my stuff winds up in magazines or in exhibitions. I understand that FX gives me better control of depth of field and that the sensor is larger. But I don't know if the differences between the two are significiant enough to make me want to go to FX. Happy to do it and coming from medium and large format, my tendency is to go for the bigger sensor. But, for what I do, is it worth it? Oh, don't do weddings. I'd rather dig ditches.
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

If the size is of no concern, then I'd definitely go for full frame. I bought myself an Olympus, which at 2.0x has a crop factor that's a bit bigger than the Canon 1.6x. I've regretted it a lot and will sell the system. Not that the camera doesn't make good photos, on the contrary. But the lack of DOF control (2 stops difference: f2.8 gives DOF of f5.6 on full frame) and the tunnel like viewfinder bother me all the time.

If I would buy a reflex now, I'd go for a second hand 5D with fast primes.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
 
RRJackson said:
kb2zuz said:
Just so I'm clear, are you saying because the S2 and M9 use the same basic technology (CCD) and have the same pixel density that they have to perform the same at high ISO?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that Kodak essentially has one CCD in their bag of tricks right now and they've scaled it to both the S2 and M9.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% certain I understand what you're saying here. But from what I remember one can't simply scale a design up and if it was done the larger chip would suffer greatly because of it. Same materials, yes. Same printing method, yes. Same design, no. Kodak's 24x36 and 30x45 sensors could not have the same design without the 30x45 suffering greatly from increased noise as a result.
RRJackson said:
RRJackson said:
That's the technical, here's the subjective. I have found the S2 has significantly worse high ISO performance than the M9
Click to expand...
That's not surprising, given that the S2 isn't in production yet and the only image samples that have made it out have been from preproduction cameras.
Click to expand...
I've used a couple pre-production models as well as two in the past month that were off the assembly line. The current delay is the lens line is being retooled so that the lenses will be polished by machine. Yes, in theory they could produce some miracle firmware in the next two months that allows them to shoot at 6400 ISO and be as clean as the Nikon. But going off of every other preproduction camera I've gotten my hands on I've learned that there can be modest improvements, but miracles are rare. And I really don't care because I don't expect the S2 to do so. If I'm using this camera, I'm probably using my BronColor packs, and I have no problem with the S2 at 50 ISO.
RRJackson said:
RRJackson said:
At least with the M9 you can get the Noctilux and the design of a rangefinder makes it easier to hand hold a few stops better than an SLR (especially a Medium format SLR with a huge mirror.)
Click to expand...
The S2's mirror is 20% smaller than the mirror in my 645NII and it's not a problem for me. Not as easy to hand-hold as with the leaf shutter in my old Mamiya 7II, but not the deck of cards falling on a table that characterized the mirror slap of my old Pentax 67II.
Click to expand...
The 7II has no mirror, just like the M9. Thank you for proving my point. Did your Pentax have the wooden flash handle, too? Great camera. I was not making any point to the S2 having a huge mirror, but just the fact that it has a mirror. Nikon has a mirror too, but their VR lenses can mitigate the issue somewhat.
RRJackson said:
RRJackson said:
I've used the D3, M9, and S2 and this is what I have found in actual use. I am not speculating based on images or reviews I saw on the web.
Click to expand...
If you've used an S2 you've used a preproduction camera. I'm not sure what that's supposed to tell anyone other than that you're prone to making snap judgments based on insufficient evidence. And still, I didn't tell the OP to go with the S2. I just said it's not as hideous as some seem to believe.
Click to expand...
And I never said the S2 is horrible. I did protest against the poster who did suggest the S2 for someone who specified low light performance as an important aspect of a camera. At which you chimed in. Yes, I initially assumed incorrectly you were the poster who suggested the S2 defending their position. However I get the feeling you initially assumed that I'm one of those who think "it's stupid to make a camera that's fastest lens is f/2.5 or who's ISO maxes out at 1250" which could not be further from the truth.
--
~Kurt
 
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