-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D500/D610/D4s/D5 at ISO 6400
- Thread starter mxcoppell
- Start date
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
So all those high iso noise test between FX and DX can be misleading if you don't change the parameters be it aperture or subject to lens distance . Both cameras in order to test them correctly must be recieving the same amount of of light . But then again they should have same SNR if they are gathering the same amount of light , right ?
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
Yes, it is not always correct to assume the FX camera will produce a better image.
Using equivalent lenses on each camera, e.g., 300 f/2.8 on FX and 200 f/2 on DX, does mean each sensor receives the same amount of light, i.e. same number of photons. That is one usage case.
Sometimes, however, if one is limited in choice of optics, providing each camera with equivalent lenses may not be feasible. For example, if all you have is a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom, and you take a photo with an FX camera and that lens at 50mm f/2.8, then with the DX camera at 33mm f/2.8, the DX camera will be at a disadvantage. That is another usage case.
Yes. It is worth pointing out that when both sensors receive the same amount of light, the DX camera will be set to an ISO that is one stop lower in order to produce the same brightness in the camera JPEG image and the same values in the RAW file.
Arnaud M
Leading Member
Just try to compare the high ISO images with low light setting in the "Image Comparaison Tool", not with the "Daylight setting". Then you could really see somme differences and you could really see the ISO advantage of FX vs FX (just at sensor level).
Not much differences with Daylight setting.
1 - But, to compare really FX vs DX, you need to compare with equivalent lens focale and aperture to have the same DOF.
Example :
FX : ISO 400, 1/100e, F/4, 50mm lens
DX : ISO 200, 1/100e, F/2.8, 35mm lens
You have the same picture, same DOF, same exposure, but ISO is higher on FX. Here is the advantage of DX vs FX, no need to crank the ISO higher to have sufficient DOF.
Where the FX wins, it's at aperture near 1.8, 1.4 (wide open) because there is no equivalent lens for DX ( remember : aperture / 2).
Advantage DX (but have a look at point 3)
2 - Resolving power of lenses
One advantage of FX, because of the resolving power limitation of the lens, you've got better results with a FX sensor vs DX sensor (at the same resolution).
DX sensor, because of the pixel density, needs very good lenses too resolve the full definition and most of the time, the lens is the limiting factor.
FX sensor have the same restriction, but it appears latter !
Advantage FX
3 - The third point, is about shutter speed for action picture.
To achieve a perfect result with DX, because of the higher pixel density, you need to choose a higher shutter speed to freeze the movement at the pixel level. And to achieve that, you need too increase the ISO then you loose the point 1 advantage.
Here, the FX wins, again.
--
Arnaud Marie
France
http://arnaudmarie.zenfolio.com
Not much differences with Daylight setting.
1 - But, to compare really FX vs DX, you need to compare with equivalent lens focale and aperture to have the same DOF.
Example :
FX : ISO 400, 1/100e, F/4, 50mm lens
DX : ISO 200, 1/100e, F/2.8, 35mm lens
You have the same picture, same DOF, same exposure, but ISO is higher on FX. Here is the advantage of DX vs FX, no need to crank the ISO higher to have sufficient DOF.
Where the FX wins, it's at aperture near 1.8, 1.4 (wide open) because there is no equivalent lens for DX ( remember : aperture / 2).
Advantage DX (but have a look at point 3)
2 - Resolving power of lenses
One advantage of FX, because of the resolving power limitation of the lens, you've got better results with a FX sensor vs DX sensor (at the same resolution).
DX sensor, because of the pixel density, needs very good lenses too resolve the full definition and most of the time, the lens is the limiting factor.
FX sensor have the same restriction, but it appears latter !
Advantage FX
3 - The third point, is about shutter speed for action picture.
To achieve a perfect result with DX, because of the higher pixel density, you need to choose a higher shutter speed to freeze the movement at the pixel level. And to achieve that, you need too increase the ISO then you loose the point 1 advantage.
Here, the FX wins, again.
--
Arnaud Marie
France
http://arnaudmarie.zenfolio.com
Last edited:
I really apreciate your help and the time you take to explain and answer my questions , just one more thing , reviewers , when doing the testing , are the taking these things into consideration . I asume they should know what they are doing , no ? Or are they as confuse as I was .
Lucky Sky
Senior Member
Only 11 posts in, and I just might have the "honor" of being the first to ignore you. I don't think I'll be the last.
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
From what I've seen, it is rare for reviewers to compare DX and FX cameras, using equivalent lenses.
Most simply assume ISO 5000 on FX is the same as ISO 5000 on DX, and never think about how to use a DX camera in an equivalent manner.
One exception is Stany Buyle, who did post some DX/FX comparisons recently that included examples with the DX camera at a 1-stop lower ISO setting.
CopCarSS
Senior Member
Wish more people would adopt this mentality. The digital age has certainly ushered in a level of performance measurement that a lot of people waste untold hours measuring performance that exceeds their abilities and needs.
Arnaud M
Leading Member
Totally agree ! I just modified my previous post (512) to explain this.... I didn't take the time the first time I wrote.
--
Arnaud Marie
France
http://arnaudmarie.zenfolio.com
Last edited:
So if i get it right, the so called 'FX sensor is better'-hype, is not so much because of sensor design, pixel size, etc, but more so because DX camera's (often) have inappropriate lenses to compete with the FX counterparts, and because of that loose the stop of light (that they should have gotten extra), to compensate for being DX rather then FX, yielding the same end score if, such lens is found.
Like FX 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8
Two incredible popular workhouses.
On FX they are what they are, no chance in parameters.
On DX they are 'darker' (or rather do not yield enough light for the sensor) and to much tele to yield the same image, thus are not comparable.
16-47mm F2 and 47mm-133mm F2 lenses for DX would basically mean the advantage FX 'is so hyped about' suddenly (mostly) falls away?
What about colour accuracy? Ppl Like CMOS colours (unless medium format) more then CCD (unless a few ppl that want old skin tones). People like FX colours more then DX (see D700 vs D300). Is this just myth? Or is there some truth in the fact that FX (can - not always) produce better colour (and thus better image)?
Like My D800 files are much much much better then the ones from D80, no matter what i try, D800 files always are preferred, for MP, sharpness, colour, noise, etc. Am i falling into some myth here? Cause D80 in your (Marianne) theory should be close to the FX in noise, colour, etc. Unless I understand wrong.
What about (theorical) lens designs? I mean the F2 zooms i talk about above here (like 47-133mm F2). Would they (in theory) have the same size as their FX counter part? I'd think not, Looking at the few exeptions thrown at us, like Sigma F1.8 art zooms (very very big lenses, with fewer zoom then Fx 2.8 zooms). I think size, portability for DX F2 zooms is a bit problem.
Also the D5S(R) tests (photozone.com) that are appearing now, absolutely show that 50 megapixels (FX) is a massive stress tests for lenses borders and corners. Even the very well received Canon 35mm 1.4 II falls quite big behind there. Seeing how (arguably) some of the best lenses in the world, like the Canon, Sigma art lenses etc, are struggling to get sharp corners, wouldn't this play in favor of FX rather then DX? the D500 has aprox 46MP if produced in FX format (same pixel density). But because D5 is bigger sensor it needs less pixels per square inch, leading into same MP, with less penalty cause corner sharpness drop. Perhaps lens design limitations of this era, are making FX slightly more preferable, cause FX has a little more headroom for resolutions that are high enough to satisfy people (like D8x0, D750 etc), with with still enough sharpness transmitted from the better lens design (not being punished by the already now shown D5S(R) megapixel lens punishment).
In other words: DX has to few lenses now. Most people use fitting FX sensor capable lenses instead. This yields incredible DX sharpness (cause center- wich obviously is best of lens). But because you have to push more pixels on same density, if they want to compete with FX, they already would need 36-50 megapixel DX sensors. And extrapolating results of photozones 5DS tests, current lenses barely can produce that much sharpness (mind you that would equal pixel density of FX sensor of more then 100 megapixels, more then double of the already stress test proving 50MP fx result). In other words, since the current market mostly has FX capable lenses, the FX sensor can spread the pixel better on the lens surface with a lower drop in sharpness compared to DX sensor with same MP count. Only if specialized DX lens appears, this can be countered (Sigma Art zooms seems like the only, but very good so, solution). But the big lack of these kind of lenses, makes FX the more capable system overall?
Like FX 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8
Two incredible popular workhouses.
On FX they are what they are, no chance in parameters.
On DX they are 'darker' (or rather do not yield enough light for the sensor) and to much tele to yield the same image, thus are not comparable.
16-47mm F2 and 47mm-133mm F2 lenses for DX would basically mean the advantage FX 'is so hyped about' suddenly (mostly) falls away?
What about colour accuracy? Ppl Like CMOS colours (unless medium format) more then CCD (unless a few ppl that want old skin tones). People like FX colours more then DX (see D700 vs D300). Is this just myth? Or is there some truth in the fact that FX (can - not always) produce better colour (and thus better image)?
Like My D800 files are much much much better then the ones from D80, no matter what i try, D800 files always are preferred, for MP, sharpness, colour, noise, etc. Am i falling into some myth here? Cause D80 in your (Marianne) theory should be close to the FX in noise, colour, etc. Unless I understand wrong.
What about (theorical) lens designs? I mean the F2 zooms i talk about above here (like 47-133mm F2). Would they (in theory) have the same size as their FX counter part? I'd think not, Looking at the few exeptions thrown at us, like Sigma F1.8 art zooms (very very big lenses, with fewer zoom then Fx 2.8 zooms). I think size, portability for DX F2 zooms is a bit problem.
Also the D5S(R) tests (photozone.com) that are appearing now, absolutely show that 50 megapixels (FX) is a massive stress tests for lenses borders and corners. Even the very well received Canon 35mm 1.4 II falls quite big behind there. Seeing how (arguably) some of the best lenses in the world, like the Canon, Sigma art lenses etc, are struggling to get sharp corners, wouldn't this play in favor of FX rather then DX? the D500 has aprox 46MP if produced in FX format (same pixel density). But because D5 is bigger sensor it needs less pixels per square inch, leading into same MP, with less penalty cause corner sharpness drop. Perhaps lens design limitations of this era, are making FX slightly more preferable, cause FX has a little more headroom for resolutions that are high enough to satisfy people (like D8x0, D750 etc), with with still enough sharpness transmitted from the better lens design (not being punished by the already now shown D5S(R) megapixel lens punishment).
In other words: DX has to few lenses now. Most people use fitting FX sensor capable lenses instead. This yields incredible DX sharpness (cause center- wich obviously is best of lens). But because you have to push more pixels on same density, if they want to compete with FX, they already would need 36-50 megapixel DX sensors. And extrapolating results of photozones 5DS tests, current lenses barely can produce that much sharpness (mind you that would equal pixel density of FX sensor of more then 100 megapixels, more then double of the already stress test proving 50MP fx result). In other words, since the current market mostly has FX capable lenses, the FX sensor can spread the pixel better on the lens surface with a lower drop in sharpness compared to DX sensor with same MP count. Only if specialized DX lens appears, this can be countered (Sigma Art zooms seems like the only, but very good so, solution). But the big lack of these kind of lenses, makes FX the more capable system overall?
Last edited:
FX lens used on DX sensor and the images are darker? It should be the reverse way, DX lens used on FX sensor and the corners of the images are darker.
FX lenses are designed to yield enough light for FX sensor, and of course DX sensor will get enough light from FX lenses.
I have taken a look at the ISO 6400 sample pictures. So for me the quality is useless. To much noise. At the moment I am using a Nikon D90 Camera. It has only 12 mpixels. Maybe I would like the D610. It has more mpixels. Ofcourse is a fullframe. After reviewing some sample pictures and seeing the useless ISO 6400. I'm considering the D700. FullFrame will give me more depth control. Ofcourse i'm not an expert. But considering the D700, D610 and D810 the D610 must be a bad choice. To many pixels to take advantage from a D90.
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
I presume you mean the D750, rather than the D700 which is several generations old?
How many pixels do you consider "too many?"
Do not fear pixels. They are not as scary as "24 million" or "36 million" might suggest.
--
Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum