Well, a print is "on" 24/7, so I wonder how the resource drain equation works out if I were to display an image on a screen in the same fashion (assuming it were possible). Don't get me wrong, I think wall monitors displaying images in lieu of prints is a big part of the future of photography, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the world is better served by your use of electricity than it is by someone else's use of paper and ink. Ironically, more paper and ink is being used since the advent of computers than was being used before [not necessarily for photos, but true for other documents].
They look better in print.
I speak as a physicist experimentalist. And I know enough of photography and of cameras in question here. Pushing ISO100 from those cams by two stops always produces perfectly clean images. It's quite strange that you don't know that... At 3 stops push there's some noise from bit-aliasing, but not really much more than normal noise at ISO800.
And nobody does shoot it at 3200. They shoot at 100/160 and then push the shadows way up till 800/3200. And even you should understand that it's normally quite impossible to light up huge open areas in order to just fill the shadows for your exposure.
The one who's 'masquerading' here is exactly yourself.
"Enough" as in that you actually use them for photography?
Haha:
I would like to see one of these photos (if you can call them that) that you you took. For large areas I give up on deep shadows the same as I give up on spectral highlights. I take a different approach entirely to shooting landscapes than what I take when I need to push ISO values, which is why these sorts of ISO 3200 comparisons with cameras not up to the task are irrelevant to me.
Lets go out and shoot sometime, and see who brings back the better photograph. I'm bringing my A850, what are you bringing?
Yes, there is truly no point since you never addressed the points I raised in my first reply to you.
What I understand is that you are full of yourself and have little else to offer.
Right, as in I actually shoot with the A850.
You mean such as what you get from Imaging Resource? Again, laughable.
No gossip required, I have the A850 in my hand and just went out and tested one of your bogus hypotheses. I'm not delusional about what I'm doing, and would happily take you on in the real world of photography -- my A850 against your A700 -- and we'll see who can get better resolution, more DR, or shoot under more adverse conditions.
I actually do have a lot of wall space, and I change the pictures all the time. I like to look at how the picture comes out when it is printed, it is very different to look at a big print compared to a smal screen. The impression of the picture changes with size, some get better - others just cant take that much size. And some pictures do not work at all alone, and needs other pictures to work out properly - like when the idea are of a more conseptual character, then using the screen just dont give me satisfying playroom.
What is the noise here? The patterns are absolutely identical in those 'images'.Haha:
Same EV, but one is taken at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 400. No noise?
This was the hard thing for me to get my head around recently. I have a couple of cameras that give different exposure times even when set to the same ISO. I was (mistakingly) thinking it was due to sensor size. When I went back to do some more research, it seems that the manufacturers can set the gain to whatever they want. ISO means whatever they want it to mean!
Good for you it's not an a900 - saved a buck for another six-pack, cheapo...
o my, Ilford, Hahnemühle... this IS old fashion. Imagin some of us more interested in paper quality than high iso nois at 1:1 peeping... What are we thinking of? ;-)
Just as I suspected, there IS more than one factor... I cant help it, I do enjoy making pictures, quality really com out second or third. I hope you folks out there dont get lost in your pixels, try zooming out a bit, your pixels might make up an suprisingly nice picture.
I cant ague against this: There IS only ONE factor needed to make a solid conclusion. I wish the rest of the world was this simple. Imagine if you could go to the doctor and just show him the color of your toungue, and then be gruaranteed a 100% correct diagnosis! Great. :-D
Yes but Agorabasta is too dismissive and seems to see the world in B&W. As you say DxO test what they want to test (as most scientists do) but state what they do and it is replicateable...to dismiss it as unscientific makes me question Agorabasta's agenda.
Actually, it paid for about a third of what I spent on my 135/1.8.
Plenty of noise there, in both of them. Not that I would consider it objectionable in a print or reasonably sized for the web.What is the noise here?Haha:
Same EV, but one is taken at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 400. No noise?
Well, then so much for your hypothesis that ISO 100 would generate a "noise-free" file when underexposed by two stops, since it mostly has the same level of noise as the ISO 400 shot that was exposed at the same EV.
What is pathetic is someone who thinks they are getting optimum data for their photography by pixel peeping, and who evaluates cameras based on ISO 3200 shots taken by a third party over which said person has no control of the conditions under which those sample images were taken.
Not to me. Prints are totally dependant on reflected light of varying temperatures off of a very limited number of pigments and dyes on its surface which is very different then the way our eyes see real images. Prints are old technology. I much prefer looking at images on a quality monitor with a wide color gamut where I can zoom in on interesting features I had not noticed when I took the photo. It is like revisiting a location and more fun than a static print.
--
