-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
ISO noise costs Nikon great publicity
- Thread starter rustedborg
- Start date
Andrew64673
Veteran Member
If I wanted "Corpse Bride " look to my wedding photos, I would get a 1dmk2 also, the nikons look too rich , natural and lifelike for corpse like effect on skintones, canon is defineately the choice for that.
Andrew64673
Veteran Member
why do people get upset at a little visible noise and not get upset in loss of tonal gradation and texture, and colours blocking up? I have done big blowups from high iso from d1x and d100, you can see the grain, but it still looks good, I cant always say the same from the images I have blown up from the canon files I have had the chance to mess with. What I can say is sometimes the canon looks better sometimes the nikon, but I usually prefer the nikon.
Gavin_Cato
Forum Enthusiast
I used to think that the Canon's had an overly NR look about them as well, maybe this was related to my looking at D30/D60 samples.
I did my first wedding with Canon gear last weekend, the 20d at 1600 iso with the 85/1.2 in a dark church produced very good results indeed. Even the dancing shots later that night in near darkness at 3200 iso turned out very well. The 5d should be even better.
I think the d2x does invasive NR at 800/1600 ISO (even with NR turned off) - I liked the d2x generally but never liked it at 800/1600. Facial details tended to get a bit soft and smoothed over.
http://www.gavincato.com
I did my first wedding with Canon gear last weekend, the 20d at 1600 iso with the 85/1.2 in a dark church produced very good results indeed. Even the dancing shots later that night in near darkness at 3200 iso turned out very well. The 5d should be even better.
I think the d2x does invasive NR at 800/1600 ISO (even with NR turned off) - I liked the d2x generally but never liked it at 800/1600. Facial details tended to get a bit soft and smoothed over.
--
http://www.gavincato.com
Rustedborg writes:
"When I went into a local camera store last week to see about a new D2X the salesman kept trying to push a Canon 1Ds Mark II in my face"
I've added a few details here and there:
When I went into a local camera store last week to see about a new $5,000 D2X the salesman kept trying to push a $7,400 Canon 1Ds Mark II in my face
I wonder why ...
--
Thierry
"When I went into a local camera store last week to see about a new D2X the salesman kept trying to push a Canon 1Ds Mark II in my face"
I've added a few details here and there:
When I went into a local camera store last week to see about a new $5,000 D2X the salesman kept trying to push a $7,400 Canon 1Ds Mark II in my face
I wonder why ...
--
Thierry
Steve Bingham
Veteran Member
Give me a break. Nikon is doing just fine! My D2x is so far above my ability level - even with a MS in Photography from Brooks. What on earth would I do with more camera? I can barely utilize what I have. How about yourself?
Hey, its just a TOOL.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Hey, its just a TOOL.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
I think the issue is that, back when we were using film, the camera was just the mechanism by which you exposed the film. Most of us would choose a camera body based on how it handled -- sort of like choosing a car -- or based on the available lens line. But we would choose film for the specific image we were trying to capture -- the constraints of the subject matter and the aesthetic (or practical) qualities we needed in the final image.
In the digital world, the camera represents both parts of that equation: the machine we use to effect an exposure, AND the sensor upon which the exposure is registered. And just like film, different digital sensors have differing qualities which suit them to different jobs. While it's true that "raw" file formats and Photoshop yield a lot of control over the final quality of the image, there are still qualities intrinsic to the design of the sensor and the in-camera image-processing pipeline which makes the output from different cameras as distinct as what you'd get from different emulsions.
Megapixels is one such factor: as has been noted, some jobs really do need more megapixels, and some don't. But other qualities, which tend to get short-shrift in these discussions, can be just as important: noise levels -- at high ISO or in dark areas in the image -- is really important for some applications, and not at all for others; dynamic range is another factor that varies from sensor to sensor; and although I've never heard it discussed, I'm sure that different sensors have differing sensitivities to various wavelengths of light, affecting the gamut of colors they can capture. And let's not forget the various filters that manufacturers stick in front of the sensor, which effect antialiasing and moire, and IR sensitivity, etc.
For some of us, these intrinsic qualities of the sensor can really have an impact on how useful the camera is for making the images we need to produce. Unfortunately, we can't just choose one sensor for one job, and another for the next -- because the sensor is married to the camera body, which is in turn married to an entire lens, strobe and accessory line. So instead of a few tens-of-dollars to switch to a new film emulsion for a given job, we're talking several thousand dollars to switch sensors.
And that's why these discussions can get heated. Because we really want to be able to choose our sensor like we selected out film. But, because of the costs involved, most of us can't. So I think a lot of us (judging by these forums) feel frustrated at least once in a while by the selection of sensors available for our lens line.
Because, while it's true that the camera is just a tool, there's no such thing as a tool that's equally suited to every task. And sometimes we want our digital cameras to do things they're just not good at.
In the digital world, the camera represents both parts of that equation: the machine we use to effect an exposure, AND the sensor upon which the exposure is registered. And just like film, different digital sensors have differing qualities which suit them to different jobs. While it's true that "raw" file formats and Photoshop yield a lot of control over the final quality of the image, there are still qualities intrinsic to the design of the sensor and the in-camera image-processing pipeline which makes the output from different cameras as distinct as what you'd get from different emulsions.
Megapixels is one such factor: as has been noted, some jobs really do need more megapixels, and some don't. But other qualities, which tend to get short-shrift in these discussions, can be just as important: noise levels -- at high ISO or in dark areas in the image -- is really important for some applications, and not at all for others; dynamic range is another factor that varies from sensor to sensor; and although I've never heard it discussed, I'm sure that different sensors have differing sensitivities to various wavelengths of light, affecting the gamut of colors they can capture. And let's not forget the various filters that manufacturers stick in front of the sensor, which effect antialiasing and moire, and IR sensitivity, etc.
For some of us, these intrinsic qualities of the sensor can really have an impact on how useful the camera is for making the images we need to produce. Unfortunately, we can't just choose one sensor for one job, and another for the next -- because the sensor is married to the camera body, which is in turn married to an entire lens, strobe and accessory line. So instead of a few tens-of-dollars to switch to a new film emulsion for a given job, we're talking several thousand dollars to switch sensors.
And that's why these discussions can get heated. Because we really want to be able to choose our sensor like we selected out film. But, because of the costs involved, most of us can't. So I think a lot of us (judging by these forums) feel frustrated at least once in a while by the selection of sensors available for our lens line.
Because, while it's true that the camera is just a tool, there's no such thing as a tool that's equally suited to every task. And sometimes we want our digital cameras to do things they're just not good at.
when we shot film. So in this digital age, we should be prepared to own and use Nikons, Canons, Leaf, etc for the same reasons. Hence it is quite pointless to keep saying Nikons are noisy at high ISO or that Canons are smoothed over or the MF backs are too slow for action shots etc etc. As a pro you should be able to pick up the right tool for the job and get paid for it. In any case, capture is only 50% of the job done. Geting your workflow right is the other half.
Henry
--
Henry
--
E
Ednaz
Guest
I also used to think that workflow is the other 50%, but I'm now starting to wonder about that. The more complex the sensors and ability to generate detail of all sorts, from color to dynamic range to resolution, the more I feel like workflow is starting to dominate. I feel more like a painter some days than a shooter. Not saying the composition, light, etc is unimportant. But as the number of things you can do in post to make an image more compelling grows, as it does with more info to work with, the pull to spend more time takes over.
There's a great example in the Epson Online Experience videos where Vincent Versace takes a lovely image of a flower, and 10 adjustment layers later, has a perfectly lovely image of a flower.
I think this is why I'm becoming more in love with documentary work. I feel this incredible pull to spend hours in front of the screen.
--
'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
There's a great example in the Epson Online Experience videos where Vincent Versace takes a lovely image of a flower, and 10 adjustment layers later, has a perfectly lovely image of a flower.
I think this is why I'm becoming more in love with documentary work. I feel this incredible pull to spend hours in front of the screen.
--
'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
amcdonald
Forum Enthusiast
So almost on topic are the recent Nikon/Fuji rumours wishfull thinking,troling or even slightly based on a possible scenario
To me a Nikon with a Fuji Sensor would be the perfect match if the politics could be sorted out, so I do latch on to these rumours far too easily
--
Andrew McDonald
w: http://www.corporateimaging.co.uk
A member of the Dynamic Rangers Club
To me a Nikon with a Fuji Sensor would be the perfect match if the politics could be sorted out, so I do latch on to these rumours far too easily
--
Andrew McDonald
w: http://www.corporateimaging.co.uk
A member of the Dynamic Rangers Club
MMuddler
Veteran Member
Ever think that maybe some of the arguments for lower net noise might be based on starting with a sensor design that generates less noise to start with.... rather than attributing all the lower observed noise to in-camera reduction at the cost of loss of detail definition.
Perhaps someone can argue that a certain sensor physical dimension is stuck with a certain inherent noise limitation and that all manufacturers are at that limit. I don't think so.
--
Marabou Muddler
Perhaps someone can argue that a certain sensor physical dimension is stuck with a certain inherent noise limitation and that all manufacturers are at that limit. I don't think so.
--
Marabou Muddler
Lars Steenhoff
Active member
They used nikon lenses for the corpse bride film you are linking to.
The disicion for the canon digital camera was made 2 years ago when it was the only camera with good iso noise. so to use it today as a comparison is not up to date. and ofcourse the canon wins when you compare the d2h to a 1d. whe all know it has better high iso. this does not mean nikon in general is bad
ow whatever I'm happy with my nikon
The disicion for the canon digital camera was made 2 years ago when it was the only camera with good iso noise. so to use it today as a comparison is not up to date. and ofcourse the canon wins when you compare the d2h to a 1d. whe all know it has better high iso. this does not mean nikon in general is bad
ow whatever I'm happy with my nikon
Vieri Bottazzini
Veteran Member
...this is why my F5 is still chewing rolls of films (especially, if not almost exclusively, BW)
Vieri
--
vbd70 (equipment in profile)
check out my pbase gallery on:
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase
(especially, if not almost exclusively, BW)Vieri
--
vbd70 (equipment in profile)
check out my pbase gallery on:
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase
Vieri Bottazzini
Veteran Member
does anybody ever hear of folks trying to use canon lenses on a nikon body? I never did... wonder why!
V.
--
vbd70 (equipment in profile)
check out my pbase gallery on:
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase
V.
--
vbd70 (equipment in profile)
check out my pbase gallery on:
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase
Canon has nothing that interest me. Besides, do you use dcRAW and then crunch everything to 2K?
“ We shot the same scene on every camera, converted the digital frames using dcRAW [an open-source program that accesses raw digital images], crunched everything to 2K, color-timed the sequences to match using Baselight and then output to film,” says Watts."
“ We shot the same scene on every camera, converted the digital frames using dcRAW [an open-source program that accesses raw digital images], crunched everything to 2K, color-timed the sequences to match using Baselight and then output to film,” says Watts."
light_bouncer
Forum Enthusiast
Vieri,
This is impossible without adding optical elements to correct for the difference in optical parameters in EOS mount vs. F mount. I'm not sure of the correct term for this sort of thing, let's call it "working distance" - but I heard that F mount has a longer working distance than EOS mount, and that allows to mount F lenses to EOS, making up the working distance difference with the height of the mount converter.
Just my 2 cents worth. I would be happy to try my friend's 17-35L on my D70 (provided that he could loan it to someone from the dark side... hehe), but that seems hardly possible.
LB
This is impossible without adding optical elements to correct for the difference in optical parameters in EOS mount vs. F mount. I'm not sure of the correct term for this sort of thing, let's call it "working distance" - but I heard that F mount has a longer working distance than EOS mount, and that allows to mount F lenses to EOS, making up the working distance difference with the height of the mount converter.
Just my 2 cents worth. I would be happy to try my friend's 17-35L on my D70 (provided that he could loan it to someone from the dark side... hehe), but that seems hardly possible.
LB
Trot
Forum Enthusiast
thanks gavin, that is really helpful 
James Riley
Veteran Member
It's because you really can't. The EOS mount is much larger than the F mount, so you can't fit an EOS lens on a Nikon F body. Plus, the EOS system use a shorter distance between the sensor/film and the lens than the Nikon system. In other words, with a Nikon lens on an EOS body, not only can you physically fit a Nikon lens into the EOS mount, but you can also position it at the correct film/lens distance. With a Canon lens on a Nikon body, not only would you NOT be able to fit the EOS mount into the smaller Nikon mount, you wouldn't be able to position it at the correct film/lens distance either. That's why!
EOS bodies are the most adaptable of all modern SLR cameras thanks to their very large lens mount. An EOS body will accept lenses from takes 6 + lens systems: Nikon F, Leica R, Leica Visoflex, Contax/Yashica (RTS), Pentax 42mm Screw Mount, and Olympus OM-- using the appropriate adapters. To read more about using non-Canon lenses on Canon EOS bodies, read this:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/the_bag/paul_lens_adapters/essay.html
John Cote
Veteran Member
Gavin,
After reading your post, I am going to do an experiment. I am doing a wedding in a couple of weeks and my son is helping out as second shooter. He usually uses a D70 and goes for the wider ceremony shots and gets the groom and the groomsmen before the wedding etc. He is a pretty good shooter if I do say so. Anyway, I went down to Roberts this morning and reserved one of their rental 20ds and a 28-135 IS for him to use at this wedding. I will get it a day in advance so he can screw around with it and get used to the feel. I am sure it will produce fine results.
--
John Cote
http://www.johncotephotography.com
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to printer connection...yet!'
After reading your post, I am going to do an experiment. I am doing a wedding in a couple of weeks and my son is helping out as second shooter. He usually uses a D70 and goes for the wider ceremony shots and gets the groom and the groomsmen before the wedding etc. He is a pretty good shooter if I do say so. Anyway, I went down to Roberts this morning and reserved one of their rental 20ds and a 28-135 IS for him to use at this wedding. I will get it a day in advance so he can screw around with it and get used to the feel. I am sure it will produce fine results.
--
John Cote
http://www.johncotephotography.com
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to printer connection...yet!'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum