D100 Sharpness Revisited

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

Sure you can. Turn off all processing in the converter. Putting
aside the 16-bit issue (to keep this discussion as simple as
possible), you have then isolated the hardware and all issues from
that point on relate to external software.
"Noise" generated by bad in-camera processing algorithms in the
firmware become irrelevent. Even NC3 can become irrelevent, with
3d party tools and NC upgrades.

I understand all this and I tried it already. Results get better but are they worth teh effort? For you this wight be always true, for me it is sometimes but mostly not.

I've concluded that they are, unfortunately, of no particular
interest to Phil's review of the Nikon "system" at "all defaults",
which doesn't isolate hardware issues from software issues but
jumbles them all together. However, they are highly relevent to
building a workflow that efficiently optimizes quality.

You are true here but I dislike the opinion use of a D-SLR is absolutely associated to this. I like D-SLR for thier better handling, their speed but not necessarily for the introduction of the must of additional postprocessing.

You could state the same opinion for a simple digital viewfinder camera too, tweak the output and you get better results. Some of these cameras offer RAW as well and even the potential is less here it is possible too...

Pure in this sense is what I get without additional explicit
tweaking.

You're still talking about the output of an external raw converter,
which does explicit tweaking over which you have limited control.
Fine for some, unsuitable for others.

Well, you need a RAW converter anywhere, regardless if it is in your camera or an application on a PC... I tried Bibble with some D100 files yesterday but I was not really impressed. Yes the output is different to the NC3 applications, but better? I didn't feel this way.

While NC3 created some monochromatic noise pattern in on of my ISO800 test shots Bibble created some nose looking more coloured... I would prefer the NC3 output in this case... And to be honest, Bibble needs some fixes in their screen updates. Scolling and zooming was horrible (beond the additional processing time needed inbetween such actions)...

Everything you're saying is consistent with users who don't want to
use RAW. I understand that, but I'm not one of them.

No, that is not quite true.

I would accept a simple raw conversion for standard stuff without much effort and the additional features of RAW in situations I feel the need for it dislike using RAW as a general need.

Telling use RAW is a bad excuse for average JPG's out of the camera. And using RAW all the time to get somthing I like at all is not what I imagine to be a brilliant tool offering choices..

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

Eheheh. I just came to think of a job we did for a client. We spent
a couple of days finding the grainyest film to use for that job.
Oh..and I also came to remember how much work a couple of other
photographers ( pro's) I know spend on selecting paper, tint and
filters for their pictures.

Think I read something like this anywhere here again. It is more easy to add noise then to remove it... (-;

Ok. I read Mr Askey's tests of all those great cameras. To me his
work seems ok taking into the considderation that he is not a
scientific institution.

Didn't you just tell in a way that this isn't as important, especially if your customers like a grainy output?

It is a matter of debate if a digital SLR really should be
evaluated without taking 3.party SW into considderation. People
buing theese cameras want to work digital, right?

Not really... I want a camera that is working relatively quick, delivering better handling for many shots. P&S digital are too slow for certain type of shots but D-SLR are in a state now where I like the speed.

If it takes me hours of tweak to get good results I can go back in my lab...

That is the
consept of the DIGITAL image.

That may be your view on it. I don't really care about the concept, what counts to me is wether I do get worse, the same or better images with less effort. I have not the time as pros have to tweak their work and I don't get paid for it but I like something at least pleasing my eyes too...

And a digital SLR is nothing without
a computer..wich is nothing without SW. So we have to take into
considderation what kind of RAW..material the camera delivers. The
camera is not intended to deliver finished product.

That is not my point but the different levels of effort versus the quality this creates...

NOR IS ANY CAMERA ( we are not talking amateur partypictures or
dogs and birds here) Using a filmcamera you must spend a great deal
of time in the darkroom in addition to find the correct paper aso.

So all the wedding pro's like spending hours to tweak their images to get them into a state they can sell them? LOL... I really doubt this...

Ok..I know this is a site for amateurs mostly, but this is the
field of professionalism. Wheather mr Schiele finds fragments of
some real or imaginary moire is without any interrest.

So it would be of more interest if your had found it as a flaw? I didn't tell more than it is in my interest and I found it. I can not change the world, I know this. And I don't want to convince anybody, things are just like they are, you can only adjust your view on it.

But I bet you would be the first who jumps into a new technology that would offer no moiree, better resolution, cleaner colour or whatever... of course if your customers demand it (-;

In professional photography it is 99% about communication.

I agree, but that is the creative part.

Not neurotism.

Maybe that's your interpretation of it. I only state what I saw there. It is a tech view on it. Did I say the value of communication is flawed by any tech issues???

An I don't believe that pros do not care about the quality of their images (at least if they don't sell any more...)

And what the reviews of Mr. Askey reveiled, is that all
digitals in this segment delivers SATISFACTORY quality rawmaterial
for postprosessing a picture to final professional quality.

Two relative statements here...

In first satisfactory images means different things to different people. There is no measure for satisfaction to everybody I believe, or is there?

In second "professional quality". What does this mean? Doing something that sells? I know a lot of professional things that sell and I hate...

Besides...looking too much into details take away the
perspective...I guess that also was what Mr. Askey wanted to tell
in his review of the three cameras. His findings were marginal
differences.

Wether the differences between the current cameras are marginal or not is not the point. The point is do I get in the end what I expect? Why should I use a D-SLR that's results dissapoint me all the time? Don't tell me it's my non professional view on things... What does it help ME if you are satisfied?

Years ago I was told 1MP would be enough for most, even pro needs. No pro who wants to print uses a 1MP digital today... I knew this already when 1MP cameras were offered but I knew as well people like you who look more on the creative communication part would have killed me if I had told them my imaginations... like you can do a 7x10 print maximal with average quality from this.... no you would wave teached me "I can do stunning A4 prints from it... you just need the right postprocessing..." well maybe, after some hours of tweak, closing my eyes halfway and watching it form 1m distance (;

Have fun!

Of course (-;

Best regards, A. Schiele.

 

[DavidMillier]

alfred

I have done 3 way stitches from the D100 (14MP after overlaps and cropping).

This is easily enough MPixels to replace 645 medium format.

Guess what - on a 10 * 8 print it doesn't look any different from a single 6MP shot.

At low ISOs the current DSLRs are all good enough to produce 10*8 prints that can't really be significantly improved upon - there is only so much resolution the eye can perceive even from a viewing distance of 4 inches.

Now for larger prints, we can expect the next generation to do better..

Eheheh. I just came to think of a job we did for a client. We spent
a couple of days finding the grainyest film to use for that job.
Oh..and I also came to remember how much work a couple of other
photographers ( pro's) I know spend on selecting paper, tint and
filters for their pictures.

Think I read something like this anywhere here again. It is more
easy to add noise then to remove it... (-;

Ok. I read Mr Askey's tests of all those great cameras. To me his
work seems ok taking into the considderation that he is not a
scientific institution.

Didn't you just tell in a way that this isn't as important,
especially if your customers like a grainy output?

It is a matter of debate if a digital SLR really should be
evaluated without taking 3.party SW into considderation. People
buing theese cameras want to work digital, right?

Not really... I want a camera that is working relatively quick,
delivering better handling for many shots. P&S digital are too slow
for certain type of shots but D-SLR are in a state now where I like
the speed.

If it takes me hours of tweak to get good results I can go back in
my lab...

That is the
consept of the DIGITAL image.

That may be your view on it. I don't really care about the concept,
what counts to me is wether I do get worse, the same or better
images with less effort. I have not the time as pros have to tweak
their work and I don't get paid for it but I like something at
least pleasing my eyes too...

And a digital SLR is nothing without
a computer..wich is nothing without SW. So we have to take into
considderation what kind of RAW..material the camera delivers. The
camera is not intended to deliver finished product.

That is not my point but the different levels of effort versus the
quality this creates...

NOR IS ANY CAMERA ( we are not talking amateur partypictures or
dogs and birds here) Using a filmcamera you must spend a great deal
of time in the darkroom in addition to find the correct paper aso.

So all the wedding pro's like spending hours to tweak their images
to get them into a state they can sell them? LOL... I really doubt
this...

Ok..I know this is a site for amateurs mostly, but this is the
field of professionalism. Wheather mr Schiele finds fragments of
some real or imaginary moire is without any interrest.

So it would be of more interest if your had found it as a flaw? I
didn't tell more than it is in my interest and I found it. I can
not change the world, I know this. And I don't want to convince
anybody, things are just like they are, you can only adjust your
view on it.

But I bet you would be the first who jumps into a new technology
that would offer no moiree, better resolution, cleaner colour or
whatever... of course if your customers demand it (-;

In professional photography it is 99% about communication.

I agree, but that is the creative part.

Not neurotism.

Maybe that's your interpretation of it. I only state what I saw
there. It is a tech view on it. Did I say the value of
communication is flawed by any tech issues???

An I don't believe that pros do not care about the quality of their
images (at least if they don't sell any more...)

And what the reviews of Mr. Askey reveiled, is that all
digitals in this segment delivers SATISFACTORY quality rawmaterial
for postprosessing a picture to final professional quality.

Two relative statements here...

In first satisfactory images means different things to different
people. There is no measure for satisfaction to everybody I
believe, or is there?

In second "professional quality". What does this mean? Doing
something that sells? I know a lot of professional things that sell
and I hate...

Besides...looking too much into details take away the
perspective...I guess that also was what Mr. Askey wanted to tell
in his review of the three cameras. His findings were marginal
differences.

Wether the differences between the current cameras are marginal or
not is not the point. The point is do I get in the end what I
expect? Why should I use a D-SLR that's results dissapoint me all
the time? Don't tell me it's my non professional view on things...
What does it help ME if you are satisfied?

Years ago I was told 1MP would be enough for most, even pro needs.
No pro who wants to print uses a 1MP digital today... I knew this
already when 1MP cameras were offered but I knew as well people
like you who look more on the creative communication part would
have killed me if I had told them my imaginations... like you can
do a 7x10 print maximal with average quality from this.... no you
would wave teached me "I can do stunning A4 prints from it... you
just need the right postprocessing..." well maybe, after some hours
of tweak, closing my eyes halfway and watching it form 1m distance
(;

Have fun!

Of course (-;

Best regards, A. Schiele.

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic - not just for digital
but for any medium?

Might be... But from what I can see, no camera provides really clean pixels in native resolution.

I have gave up medium format when I got my E10 because to be
honest, except for the occasional subject, it simply didn't offer
anything extra over the digital camera in the smaller prints.

What do you call "small"? 5x7" prints? Yes then I agree, there isn't much in this any longer. I know shooting film is more effort, why do you belive I am looking for a digital camera?

I still have my MPP large format camera as it is more detailed when
shooting black and white and printing A3 - but it doesn't really
offer anything extra in A4 prints over the D100 to my mind.

Well, I do not really compare to film. It might be true that I expect more from a D-SLR than any 35mm SLR could offer.

And before you say it, I do know what a good print looks like - I
have an Adams hanging in my living room.

I don't doubt your skills or abilities to judge... even if you didn't own an Adams (-;

Just to prove a point I have just printed a nef image I took at the
weekend - printed to about 12 * 10 inches from a slightly cropped
original.

Well, to adjust my statements, there is no noise in general, but in certain levels of the brightness scale. I am also not talking about a sophisticated workflow with lots of triccy tweaks. Just a NEF, shot at ISO 400, slight levels adjustments and some USM in NC3...

I have examined it carefully under a bright lamp and I can detect
no evidence of noise/grain in the image. As far as noise was
concerned it could be a print from the 4*5 camera. I just don't
understand what you say you can see!!

Well, maybe it is more because of the higher temperature I shot in addition to higher ISO 400. I have to repeat: It is a detail impression I disliked. There are some more effects on pixel level sure not showing up in a A4 print, but I still feel all this little things affect that I miss a "clear" look in my prints. And maybe my camera wasn't one of the best, I will not exclude this...

But I will do some more experiments, maybe my printer isn't set up best as well. But usually what I can see at screen at 50-100% that shows up in print slightly as well.

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

At low ISOs the current DSLRs are all good enough to produce 10*8
prints that can't really be significantly improved upon - there is
only so much resolution the eye can perceive even from a viewing
distance of 4 inches.

Maybe this is the slight difference... I would like to shoot with ISO400, as I usually do with film as well. Low ISO? were is the ISO 100 at D100 (-;

I will not discuss resolution, it is ok in my eyes too...

Now for larger prints, we can expect the next generation to do
better..

Oh, you really refer to the next generation (-;

regards, A. Schiele

 

[Eistein Guldseth]

Dear Alfred. We are now approching photography through Kant's well known objecttheory: "Das Ding fur mich, und das Ding an sich"

In short: It is impossible how to know how an object in reality looks like. Facinating. We are stuck with our individual perception of it. In fact our psychological make-up also interferes with our optical abilities.

Also: If we develop lenses that enable us to see fotons, leptons and those little buggers: the quarks..there will be some patterns. Noice, i guess. Because those rascals won't sit still in nice coloradjusted, moirefree patterns. No way! They will be running around like hell! And the eye will ofcourse be red and running...and blur the vision of them....

So in the end there is noice.
Irritating, huh?

But before we reach the level of absolute tranquility, we better stick to realism. It is a question of how much noice interferes with the visual perception. And it is a question of price-> performance. If your pictures are communicating strongly with the viewers emotions, he/she will not see the noice, but the motive that arises emotions in him/her.

Ofcourse we all want the best quality in our pictures, but not at any cost. At the moment price -> performance for Nikon D100, D60, S2 are at the ENOUGH QUALITY level. Next year it will be different, right? You have to find an acceptable level to balance your costs vs. income. I guess I will buy a new camera in 3 years. That is what my calculator and customers tells me are the best cost-> use level to be at.

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

Wow (-;

I am impressed by the deep philosophy...

Ofcourse we all want the best quality in our pictures, but not at
any cost. At the moment price -> performance for Nikon D100, D60, S2
are at the ENOUGH QUALITY level. Next year it will be different,
right? You have to find an acceptable level to balance your costs
vs. income. I guess I will buy a new camera in 3 years. That is
what my calculator and customers tells me are the best cost-> use
level to be at.

Maybe this meets my hesitation most... (-:

I don't make any money with photography. It's only fun and so in first cost only... To be more precise, these D-SLR's are at the top of any investment in a body I ever thought of but it's use-time is the shortest I ever expected...

I have a certain idea of image quality I'd like to see either. A level somehow independent of now or next year... a level I am pleased with.

The current triplet of semi pro D-SLR's is only near my imagination of this.

Maybe the next generation is over my personal top in future? I don't know, but as I said earlier, I don't adjust my opinions on what is availiable today or next year.

That might be the main difference between us. I am not deciding such an investment for the next 6 month's... Choosing the real thing is always more or less a kind of compromise. But if I am not really convinced I am hesitating to invest the money as the wish to buy the next generation of such a camera is implicitely too strong and gets too expensive for me then...

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[Steven Noyes]

You are comparing data of an image that still needs sharping to one
that does not. If you compare the RAW (or NEF) data, the D100 does
not look to good. The noise stays higher than all those other cameras
through a broad range of ISOs.

Of course, you could turn down the sharpening on all of the others and
lower their noise levels as well.

This is the one of the few failings of the D100. It is a great camera
that is hindered by a noisy CCD.

Steven

Jim,

You are a funny man... But your statements aren't backed up with
the facts. Based on the research you forced me to do since you
didn't bother...

The D100 has more noise than the D60, 1D (only at ISO 100), D30
(only at ISO 100) and the S2.

The D100 has the same noise levels as the 1D at ISO 200.

The D100 has better noise levels than the D30 (ISO 200), D1, D1X,
D1H, E10, E20, S1 and the DCS760

The documentation is below with references.

On page http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page16.asp
D100-1.25 @ ISO 200

of D100 - 1.5 @ ISO200, 2.75 @ ISO 800, 4.75 @ 1600

Compare apples to apples.

 

[Eistein Guldseth]

Hi!
First of all I am glad you understand my humor

Anyway I understand perfectly well how you see things. I would also like to get the perfect tool for creating my images. However I have fallen back to think more cost-use. I admit I only shoot RAW. UNCOMPRESSED. heheheh

I think what really f* me, was all the years of buying too expensive computers, only to discover that 3 months later it was worth nothing. However, I found out that 3 years is an ok perspective for both computers and photoequipment. It lasts that long before you really need new ones. I think of quality of output.

To persue perfection is the optimal way of thinking, but also the most expensive.

Best regards
Writern

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

First of all I am glad you understand my humor

Well, if I wouldn't twinkle my eye some time, this forum could drive me possibly crazy (;

Anyway I understand perfectly well how you see things. I would also
like to get the perfect tool for creating my images. However I have
fallen back to think more cost-use. I admit I only shoot RAW.
UNCOMPRESSED. heheheh

Well, not perfect in absolute terms of the very best but enough for my personal expectations, that are unfortunately prettty high...

With D100 I agree, RAW is the only acceptable format that allows you quality output. I am not willing to pay any price to satisfy my ideas of quality either, I can only compromise or leave it...

I think what really f* me, was all the years of buying too
expensive computers, only to discover that 3 months later it was
worth nothing.

Maybe this is my point here too... I'd like something slightly better but it is not availiable... Will the availiable satisfy me for some time?... if the next better comes out?... I doubt and that's my pain with this D100 investment. In addition I fear the "digital drug" effect, possibly like computers had some time ago... 8)=

However, I found out that 3 years is an ok
perspective for both computers and photoequipment. It lasts that
long before you really need new ones. I think of quality of output.

Well if something satisfies my needs now it will in years as well. The problem is if your needs increase with new equipment getting availiable...

Well,"quality output" is a term like "professional" which does not really imply any facts of need or use... If my intention would be to get 4x6" or 5x7" only, the D100 is a wonderful camera and there is nothing really to complain. Even single defective pixels would be very hard to see in such prints... But with critical view on letter size or larger prints I think there are some slight things open, referring to "quality"...

To persue perfection is the optimal way of thinking, but also the
most expensive.

Only if you make it real...

During evaluation I never limit my thoughts to anything.

I took into account medium format backs as well as D100 and P&S cameras when looking at digital imaging possibilities... of course the $$$ (Eur) is limited when it comes to making things real then... And I personally am not depending on digital cameras professionally or in any other way, so I can leave it as well if I dislike it. But I still like the D100 in general, despite some very little things that didn't convince me a 100%...

(-;

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

... The noise stays higher than all those other cameras
through a broad range of ISOs.

Of course, you could turn down the sharpening on all of the others and
lower their noise levels as well.

This is the one of the few failings of the D100. It is a great camera
that is hindered by a noisy CCD.

Is this a statement based on practical experience? If yes then you are one of the minor number of critical observers as I am too... I wouldn't mind the noise issue at all if it hadn't dissapointed me in larger prints too.

I totally agree that with simpler standard methods to finish a RAW from D100 the noise is always there. I am still trying to find a compromise with NC3 to make D100 images appealing to my eyes, but that's a hard job...

I think all D100 RAW images at all ISO's need at least some noise reduction all the time or some special actions to keep noise down. Of course appropriate sharpening is always needed in addition.

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[DavidMillier]

Stitching. Very practical for tripod mounted landscapes and gives you the medium format way of working - slow and easy, plenty of time for contemplation.

A 2*2 image composite will give you around 20MP in the final cropped image. Wipe the floor with a hassleblad....

First of all I am glad you understand my humor

Well, if I wouldn't twinkle my eye some time, this forum could
drive me possibly crazy (;

Anyway I understand perfectly well how you see things. I would also
like to get the perfect tool for creating my images. However I have
fallen back to think more cost-use. I admit I only shoot RAW.
UNCOMPRESSED. heheheh

Well, not perfect in absolute terms of the very best but enough
for my personal expectations, that are unfortunately prettty high...

With D100 I agree, RAW is the only acceptable format that allows
you quality output. I am not willing to pay any price to satisfy my
ideas of quality either, I can only compromise or leave it...

I think what really f* me, was all the years of buying too
expensive computers, only to discover that 3 months later it was
worth nothing.

Maybe this is my point here too... I'd like something slightly
better but it is not availiable... Will the availiable satisfy me
for some time?... if the next better comes out?... I doubt and
that's my pain with this D100 investment. In addition I fear the
"digital drug" effect, possibly like computers had some time ago...
8)=

However, I found out that 3 years is an ok
perspective for both computers and photoequipment. It lasts that
long before you really need new ones. I think of quality of output.

Well if something satisfies my needs now it will in years as well.
The problem is if your needs increase with new equipment getting
availiable...

Well,"quality output" is a term like "professional" which does not
really imply any facts of need or use... If my intention would be
to get 4x6" or 5x7" only, the D100 is a wonderful camera and there
is nothing really to complain. Even single defective pixels would
be very hard to see in such prints... But with critical view on
letter size or larger prints I think there are some slight things
open, referring to "quality"...

To persue perfection is the optimal way of thinking, but also the
most expensive.

Only if you make it real...

During evaluation I never limit my thoughts to anything.

I took into account medium format backs as well as D100 and P&S
cameras when looking at digital imaging possibilities... of course
the $$$ (Eur) is limited when it comes to making things real
then... And I personally am not depending on digital cameras
professionally or in any other way, so I can leave it as well if I
dislike it. But I still like the D100 in general, despite some very
little things that didn't convince me a 100%...

(-;

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[ajs2107922]

Well you put so many if's and but in there it must be true. Do you work for Nikon.

P.S, You must stand 12 inches from the Pic too.

I defy most people to tell the difference between a D100 raw and a
D100 jpeg on an A4 print of a normal photographic subject (i.e. one
not specially chosen to reveal the difference).

Yes raw is better, yes you can clearly see the difference at 200%
on screen with an image of a res chart but in real photographs,
viewed in a normal way, the differences are subtle and only
noticeable when the picture is so boring there is nothing else to
enjoy.

Now if someone wants the best they shoot raw – but with the D100
someone HAS to shoot raw. The difference that I have seen myself is
spectacular between the Nikon Nef and JPEG – there is no such
spectacular difference between the other manufacturers Raw v JPEG
modes (but Raw is always better).

I think the Nikon Nef can compete against all the rest with NC3 –
but Phil also mentions that the D100 sharpening routines are
different with NC3.

One may blame Nikon here – squarely – whether they deliberately did
this to give a better image or try to force us to pay more is open
to speculation – I know what I think.

This is not the dissapointing fact, but why not having a better
choice here? Untouched with RAW is ok, but for JPG output there
should be practically usable settings...

 

[Digichrome]

Its this type of snappy retort that turns valid discussion/debate into argumentative flame throwing. Try to have some restraint, people.

Well you put so many if's and but in there it must be true. Do you
work for Nikon.

P.S, You must stand 12 inches from the Pic too.

Digichrome
http://www.pbase.com/digichrome

 

[Cribbage]

Nah. The only thing that's been demonstrated (at least here) is that images derived from D100 Nikon RAW are noisy when converted by NC3 on default settings -- known to employ relatively "dumb" processing algorithms.
That is the beginning and the end of the analysis that's offered on dpreview.

You blame the CCD. On what grounds?

I concur that the review here leaves the same impression, that a noisy CCD may be to blame. That sort of ambiguity is a darned shame. In fact, there's no real support for that position.

High quality, very low noise images result when you take unprocessed RAW images out of the converter and applying "smart" sharpening, etc.

There are reasons to believe that you get this automatically using the default Canon "system", as their external converter seems to have such techniques built in. Is that reason for buying a particular piece of hardware ... the bundled software? Maybe for some people. But certainly not for anyone who does a lot of post-processing.

If there is any ambiguity in the question of how "smart" the various companies' converters are, I'd like to see the "big name" reviewers at least press the companies for some details -- if they don't want to do their own analysis.

Of course, you could turn down the sharpening on all of the others and
lower their noise levels as well.

This is the one of the few failings of the D100. It is a great camera
that is hindered by a noisy CCD.

Steven

Jim,

You are a funny man... But your statements aren't backed up with
the facts. Based on the research you forced me to do since you
didn't bother...

The D100 has more noise than the D60, 1D (only at ISO 100), D30
(only at ISO 100) and the S2.

The D100 has the same noise levels as the 1D at ISO 200.

The D100 has better noise levels than the D30 (ISO 200), D1, D1X,
D1H, E10, E20, S1 and the DCS760

The documentation is below with references.

On page http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page16.asp
D100-1.25 @ ISO 200

of D100 - 1.5 @ ISO200, 2.75 @ ISO 800, 4.75 @ 1600

Compare apples to apples.