Fuji's now have less Dr, Nikon more and Canon about the same.
All this proves is there is no rule.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The secret of old DSLRs
- Thread starter ioshadha
- Start date
All this proves is there is no rule.
D50 beats P7800 by at least 4 dB at high ISO noise when downscaled to same resolution, by at least 7dB at pixel level (which is really irrelevant). Do I need to post a link to the tests?
But then normal cameras, not Canon, produce DR of 14 (like Pentax APS-C) and 15 (like FF with Sony sensors). It is of course irrelevant to color, and USING all of that DR leads usually to very low-contrast pictures or very unnatural HDR-like pictures (depending how you compress those 14-15 EV into 7 EV of the media).
DxOMark tests this under the name of "Color Depth":
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_portrait
And even assigns surprisingly high value to minute differences in the results of this test, like difference between 25 and 24 bits, although in the test explanation they state that 20 bit is already considered "excellent".
As far as I remember, the last camera which did not reach 20 bits in their testing was Olympus XZ-1 with its CCD sensor with pretty low high-ISO and DR scores too, and I don't remember anybody complaining about its color rendition even at 18.8 bits.
BTW, just to be sure - JPEG contains just 16 bits of color information, and not even for every pixel but for a group of 4 pixels (meaning 4 bits per pixel). If your final format is JPEG, the rest will be lost (although might help in processing when you adjusting WB etc).
P.S. My mistake, Canon Powershot G15 had only 19.9. Still not as bad, but still good enough.
Last edited:
Human eye does not see color in low light, so the expectation is of discoloration as light falls and simply B&W in extremely low light. Modern cameras also see color worse in low light, but much better than humans and are made to try and preserve color intensity like it was daylight in their JPEG processors, which leads to color noise and ultimately even to possible posterization in color transitions.
antoineb
Veteran Member
If there was a way to verify, I'd gladly make the following bet: More of today's photos are properly exposed than those of 50 years ago.
Why? Most photos we see from 50 or 100 years ago come from top photographers of the period. Those are the ones we've preserved. They were shot by people of very high skill on very nice SLRs, with top-of-the-line equipment. Most cameras, however, were not Nikon F-series. They were Kodak Brownies. Most photographers were not Ansel Adams, but your aunts, cousins, and uncles.
How do you get good at photography? Practice. Deliberate practice is better than random snapshots, but both help. Today, people take many, many photos. As they do this -- even if its of their lunch for Facebook -- they do get better. In contrast, in 1950, taking a photo was relatively expensive -- you had to buy film and pay to have it developed. You didn't take many of them. When you did, you couldn't get quick feedback -- if you messed up, you found out weeks later. Less practice and less feedback makes for worse photographers.
K E Hoffman
Veteran Member
Vinyl-- Vs digital
Film vs video (24p vs 60P etc)
There is no doubt that objective measures place the current cameras and sensors are better.
But I think there is a subtle and subjective aesthetic change when you increase the data.
IE some of the new 60P theater video has had VERY HARSH Criticism as the first movies come shot in it. Where a feature of a good video camera is 24p.
I think reading years ago that we hit the image density of most classic films on APC at about 15MP
I don't know if its just because many of us grew up in an analog world and some of the digital precision feels almost artificial.. etc. It just personal preference..
But in the end the quality of the photo has to do with the eye and the moment.. not the image media.. and maybe its just the photos we save over time are the ones we like best vs the massive digital noise that comes from cameras and phones etc and all the images taken with no planning just a capture of a moment from a random angle.
In the end.. yup I have some of my favorite photos from not only my 6MP KM5D but my old Nikon Coolpix 2MP JPG. But I plan to take some more favorites with my new a77 (24MP)
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Film vs video (24p vs 60P etc)
There is no doubt that objective measures place the current cameras and sensors are better.
But I think there is a subtle and subjective aesthetic change when you increase the data.
IE some of the new 60P theater video has had VERY HARSH Criticism as the first movies come shot in it. Where a feature of a good video camera is 24p.
I think reading years ago that we hit the image density of most classic films on APC at about 15MP
I don't know if its just because many of us grew up in an analog world and some of the digital precision feels almost artificial.. etc. It just personal preference..
But in the end the quality of the photo has to do with the eye and the moment.. not the image media.. and maybe its just the photos we save over time are the ones we like best vs the massive digital noise that comes from cameras and phones etc and all the images taken with no planning just a capture of a moment from a random angle.
In the end.. yup I have some of my favorite photos from not only my 6MP KM5D but my old Nikon Coolpix 2MP JPG. But I plan to take some more favorites with my new a77 (24MP)
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Last edited:
Peter Lacus
Well-known member
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 73
as always, too much opinions and not enough pictures to support them. 
May I present a picture taken with Pentax istDs (same 6MP CCD sensor as Nikon D40 for example) at ISO 1600 (as the conditions were quite demanding). Yes, noise is certainly there, but I don't think it makes the picture unusable - you're welcome to make your own opinion, of course.
ISO1600 example, developed in Lightroom 1.3
May I present a picture taken with Pentax istDs (same 6MP CCD sensor as Nikon D40 for example) at ISO 1600 (as the conditions were quite demanding). Yes, noise is certainly there, but I don't think it makes the picture unusable - you're welcome to make your own opinion, of course.ISO1600 example, developed in Lightroom 1.3
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
There is a pretty good explanation for this, although it is controversial. To accurately perceive something as actually being in motion, there must be some blur of the object moving, and 24 fps shows good blur for ordinary subjects, like people walking. Higher frame rates can look good — especially with fast action — if they are post-processed to put in an equivalent amount of blur. As I mentioned, this is controversial — some see 24 fps as purely a historical compromise, having no human significance whatsoever, and so higher frame rates are always better, and that we only think they are bad because we associate them with cheap video and television.
Regarding audio, it used to be common practice to allow for a considerable amount of noise to remain in a signal during the softest part of a recording, instead of cutting off noise sharply as is the practice during digital recording. But there still can be a significant amount of recognizable signal even in the depths of noise.
In digital photography, a 1:1 signal-to-noise ratio isn’t too bad in some circumstances, and even the new Nikon D5300 is notable, because unlike other earlier Nikon DSLRs, it does arbitrarily cut of the noise on its raw channels.
I notice the same thing as the OP in my older travel photos sometimes. "Wow, look at that amazing shot that I did with a Minolta Dimage 7 (1/2 second shutter lag!)! There's another - and another! How did I do that?" Well I do know how I did that - it was a lot more work and thought and "misses" before you got the great one. But it could be done, just like the greats did with early film technology. You had to really know what the camera's limitations/strengths were, and work with them. But there were a lot of things you couldn't do very easily. And the ones you kept til now were the good ones.
Now with more viable options and ease and flexibility (and IQ in every way!) in my D600, I'm not sure I work as hard or think as much (I know that's my own issue, not a lot of other peoples'!) But I sure get a lot more keepers in a hurry!
Now with more viable options and ease and flexibility (and IQ in every way!) in my D600, I'm not sure I work as hard or think as much (I know that's my own issue, not a lot of other peoples'!) But I sure get a lot more keepers in a hurry!
RobertSigmund
Forum Pro
Dimage 7 was when I entered the ship, it was and is a good camera. Slow, unfortunately, maybe I should give it a try with a modern card? :-DI’m still publishing old photos, taken with a Minolta Dimage 7 camera dating from 2001. I pretty much shot raw images with this camera from the time I got it, and advances in raw processing really helped significantly, especially since this camera originally had a colorspace problem.
Now, these don’t look so good enlarged too much, and high ISO photos tend to be garbage.
--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Not without your unwarranted and snide assessments, it seems
In my experience the D40 was pretty bad from ISO800 and beyond. Different cameras have different processors which can affect picture quality, so your experience with your Pentax is irrelevant in the context of my statement. "You're welcome to make your own opinion, of course", even if it's worthless and apropos of nothing
Or not sharpness at all. Rather, it's the (perhaps perceived) lack of noise at low ISO. I remember when I first got my T2i (18MP) vs my old XTi (10MP) I was taken aback by what looked like a faint gray veil over my photos, especially when pixel peeping at portraits side by side. Even when resized to match the resolution, the photos from the newest cameras didn't have the same clean, crisp feel. I can only speculate that this is due to the fact that per-pixel noise is about the same and the # of pixels is much more. Even now, going back to the old photos in LR, I am blown away by the very clean rendering. Of course it's only good up to ISO400, anything above that would be noisy.
I am actually toying with the idea of getting a little used XTi or XSi and a decent prime like EF85.
I am actually toying with the idea of getting a little used XTi or XSi and a decent prime like EF85.
Peter Lacus
Well-known member
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 73
Dear sportyaccordy, my comment was not meant for you personally and if you feel bad about it, I apologize. I just wanted to show that ISO1600 on those old cameras wasn't perhaps as bad as is sometimes described...
GeraldW
Veteran Member
Z-man,
I think what you're saying is that there is a difference between "taking pictures" and "doing photography".
The former relies on the camera and is just as likely to happen with a FF DSLR as it is with a $150 point and shoot.
The latter is when you think hard about the subject and the equipment and work to get the best out of the situation. It requires knowledge of the equipment, some theory, and an awareness of lighting and composition.
I'm sure I thought more about what I was doing back when I had a Nikon FE2.
With regard to the OP's premise, my first DSLR was the Canon 20D with 8 MP. It was OK; but I often got better looking images with my S70 small sensor pocket camera. Although very similar to the 20D, the 30D took consistently better looking pictures. Today's 60D is better than the 30D in several respects and takes very similar looking shots - probably thanks to Canon introducing Picture Styles with the 30D and 5D and maintaining that standard.
I think what you're saying is that there is a difference between "taking pictures" and "doing photography".
The former relies on the camera and is just as likely to happen with a FF DSLR as it is with a $150 point and shoot.
The latter is when you think hard about the subject and the equipment and work to get the best out of the situation. It requires knowledge of the equipment, some theory, and an awareness of lighting and composition.
I'm sure I thought more about what I was doing back when I had a Nikon FE2.
With regard to the OP's premise, my first DSLR was the Canon 20D with 8 MP. It was OK; but I often got better looking images with my S70 small sensor pocket camera. Although very similar to the 20D, the 30D took consistently better looking pictures. Today's 60D is better than the 30D in several respects and takes very similar looking shots - probably thanks to Canon introducing Picture Styles with the 30D and 5D and maintaining that standard.
Mahmoud Mousef
Senior Member
* newer devices have far more pixels than older 6MP or 8MP devices.
* this can add up to what one perceives as more noise when viewed 1:1 but not true; try to down-sample to a lower resolution.
* newer cameras are definitely better in all (or nearly all) technical sensor aspects
* certain older cameras can still have a certain 'magic' with the way the colours are rendered or whatever. This quality or qualities may be more preferable than some other newer camera. I have an old camera which to me has the best JPEG colours of all the cameras I own and consistently puts out photos that I like, despite its lowly 4MP resolution.
GeorgeD200
Forum Enthusiast
The secret is that you don't have to have the latest and greatest camera to take excellent pictures.
Yes, all other things being equal (which they rarely are) you can take a "better" picture with a new camera than you can with a 10-year-old. Better resolution, lower noise levels, more dynamic range, etc.
That doesn't mean that a good photographer can't take excellent pictures with older, "lesser" gear.
Your surprise comes from the fact that you are programmed to think that only the newest cameras take good pictures. This programming is a product of camera company marketing propaganda, which is disseminated and supported by sites like DPR, and even by the very users of the site, who will expound at length on the value and primacy of their latest purchase (and the excellence of gear that they will never purchase and cannot afford!)
None of which helps any one of us to be a better photographer. You'll see 100 times more posts on this site for "Which new camera/lens/system should I choose?" than "how can I improve my technique."
The quality of the photo depends much more on the person behind the camera than the camera itself.
Most of us know this, somewhere deep down, but it never hurts to be reminded of it.
George
Yes, all other things being equal (which they rarely are) you can take a "better" picture with a new camera than you can with a 10-year-old. Better resolution, lower noise levels, more dynamic range, etc.
That doesn't mean that a good photographer can't take excellent pictures with older, "lesser" gear.
Your surprise comes from the fact that you are programmed to think that only the newest cameras take good pictures. This programming is a product of camera company marketing propaganda, which is disseminated and supported by sites like DPR, and even by the very users of the site, who will expound at length on the value and primacy of their latest purchase (and the excellence of gear that they will never purchase and cannot afford!)
None of which helps any one of us to be a better photographer. You'll see 100 times more posts on this site for "Which new camera/lens/system should I choose?" than "how can I improve my technique."
The quality of the photo depends much more on the person behind the camera than the camera itself.
Most of us know this, somewhere deep down, but it never hurts to be reminded of it.
George
JackM
Veteran Member
F**k no, old DSLRs had terrible noise and DR. I didn't like to use my 2006 Canon 30D (8mp) above ISO 400. 800 was ok in a pinch and ISO 1600 was barely usable, for emergencies only. I basically disregarded it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum