f70exr vs f200exr

[Kim Letkeman]

... I'm not good at geometry.

Among many other things ...

However, what is the difference between the two ? IQ.

And why do you choose to never quantify what exactly you mean when you toss off such comments?

Most of those on this forum, who have owned/used both, have kept one. F200 EXR.

Most of us ... and who would that be? Could you quantify? Enumerate? Or do you have to stand up to pull your facts from your alimentary canal?

That is a fact.

A lloydian tends to play fast an loose with the facts ... and that is an axiom ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Ron777]

You try'en to hurt my brain? ;-)

Before Dpreview did this I used to calculate them myself. I really don't care what the pixel density of my camera is---I care about the image quality--but density usually determines IQ.

It's quite a bit more complex than that ...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html



--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

--
Photography shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/invisodude/

Snap shots
http://s618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/randsphoto/

 

[Kim Letkeman]

So a lot is being made of the difference in pixel density and sensor size between these two cams ... much fun is being had ... the lloydians are writing some wonderful fiction ... but ultimately, Don and others have correctly pointed out that SNR in an image maps much better to sensor size than to pixel density.

So let's look strictly at that ...

There are a few cameras that we can compare to get a feel for sensor size differences ...

The D300 and D3 were designed and built at the same time and use the same new generation of CMOS technologies ... so they make an excellent comparison.

The sensor size difference is 232% ... a 132% increase ...

So we have 1 and 1/3 stops of noise difference if amount of light is all that matters.

We can get an accurate measurement of the difference on DXOMark.com, where we find that the curves tend to track at an average of about 5 dB noise improvement, which is of course 1 and 2/3 stops improvement.

Now ... this is a cold hard number and there is really no escaping it.

I can capture a pretty clean image at 3200 ISO with the D300 ... and I can capture the same cleanliness at 10,000 ISO with the D3 / D700 ... and this is about right.

The D3s has improved that 1.5 stops again with very clever engineering. But that is a difference generation of sensors.

So ... the sensor size difference from f70 to f200 is 147% ... a 47% increase ...

So that's a half a stop ...

So when people scream "major IQ difference" ... well ... a half a stop really isn't that major ... especially if they have to crop a lot because of the loss of reach ...

So at 270mm, the two are identical in IQ ... at 140mm, the F200 is a half stop ahead ...

Woopee ... I'm so (not) excited ...

If you look at the D300 against the S100fs (just for fun) you will find a 541% increase ... so 5 and 1.2 stops ... and that's just to the APS-C sensor ...

My point ... these tiny sensors are close enough to each other that the real difference is technology and jpeg engines ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Kim Letkeman]

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Ron777]

LOL sometimes reality hurts though!
--
Photography shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/invisodude/

Snap shots
http://s618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/randsphoto/

 

[Ron777]

Hey cool, now that is the info. I was actually trying to get at and didn't know till I just read it. A 1/2 stop? Man, if a person can even use a P&S or bridge knowing it's quite a few stops short of a DSLR, then a 1/2 stop between two differing bridge cams is really not that much at all.

Hey question, I see the F70 has a very slightly larger sensor then the ZS3, so in theory, maybe a 10th of a stop? In reality though, through the jpeg engines you saw more difference then that at higher isos?

Why I'm asking is, there is a guy on the Panny forum that is like you are, really good at getting high iso shots, he uses a ZS3 and the shots (out of cam even!) look plenty nice for a pocket cam at higher isos.
--
Photography shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/invisodude/

Snap shots
http://s618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/randsphoto/

 

[Ron777]

What I'm asking really is, is in theory, the ZS3's raw files are probably very similar to the F70's, but the in camera processing is different, almost like when we ourselves process a raw file and compare the results between ACR's NR vs something like Noise ninja?
--
Photography shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/invisodude/

Snap shots
http://s618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/randsphoto/

 

[Billx08]

. . .

Why I'm asking is, there is a guy on the Panny forum that is like you are, really good at getting high iso shots, he uses a ZS3 and the shots (out of cam even!) look plenty nice for a pocket cam at higher isos.

If he's able to consistently take good high ISO shots, he probably does what Kim does, which is to try to get what Thom Hogan calls optimum data from his shots. To do that you try to get the maximum possible exposure without blowing highlights. This isn't as easy to do as one might think because your camera's histogram lies!

Thom estimates (IIRC) that this technique improves his shots by either 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop (I think that he wrote 2/3). Considering that he shoots with enough attention to detail that even without using his technique his shots are probably close to 2/3 stops better than most casual photographers get, so that gives his photos slightly more than a one stop advantage over many other photographers that use the same bodies and lenses. Or putting it another way, his D300 shots are probably as good as many other photographers are able to get from their D700's. You can ask Kim about it if you dare, and if you do I fully expect to hear that his answer makes you go screaming into the night!

 

[Ron777]

Ah cool, so that's the 'expose to the right' deal then...

I've tried doing that, and your right, it's hard to get it without blowing highlights. But now that you say that, this guys shots that are really clean, are usually of less contrasty subjects which would have less change of a blown highlight. Oddly though, his shots are 'out of cam' with just resize and crop, I've talked to him a bit and believe he's honest about this, and they don't appear over exposed.

See, here's my theory.. you know those stories you hear of people that have so much static electricity in their bodies that they can't wear a watch? I think in these people it also acts as a 'noise control aura around them also that helps with high iso shots lol

I bet Kim will comment on this, hope it doesn't fry my brain as bad as the pixel density calculations ;-)

. . .

Why I'm asking is, there is a guy on the Panny forum that is like you are, really good at getting high iso shots, he uses a ZS3 and the shots (out of cam even!) look plenty nice for a pocket cam at higher isos.

If he's able to consistently take good high ISO shots, he probably does what Kim does, which is to try to get what Thom Hogan calls optimum data from his shots. To do that you try to get the maximum possible exposure without blowing highlights. This isn't as easy to do as one might think because your camera's histogram lies!

Thom estimates (IIRC) that this technique improves his shots by either 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop (I think that he wrote 2/3). Considering that he shoots with enough attention to detail that even without using his technique his shots are probably close to 2/3 stops better than most casual photographers get, so that gives his photos slightly more than a one stop advantage over many other photographers that use the same bodies and lenses. Or putting it another way, his D300 shots are probably as good as many other photographers are able to get from their D700's. You can ask Kim about it if you dare, and if you do I fully expect to hear that his answer makes you go screaming into the night!

--
Photography shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/invisodude/

Snap shots
http://s618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/randsphoto/

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Why I'm asking is, there is a guy on the Panny forum that is like you are, really good at getting high iso shots, he uses a ZS3 and the shots (out of cam even!) look plenty nice for a pocket cam at higher isos.

Three factors:

1) The pixel size does in fact make a difference to chroma noise ... i.e. I find that many cams (two if the worst I've seen are F50fd and ZS3) have problems in the blue channel as ISO rises.

That is the area where I believe that pixel density makes a real difference. This is easily seen when you shoot in low light with the F200 or the F70 in high res and then medium res ... the medium res shot has much better blacks ... the blue channel remains clean because of the binning.

Resizing an HR image does not give the same effect ... because the blue channel poison is already in there.

So factor 1 is pixel binning ...

2) The ZS3 has much worse pixel density because they crop 10mp out of a 13mp sensor ... so the pixels are about 36% smaller. So although the sensors are about the same size, the blue channel problem is much worse.

So factor 2 is pixel density ... and the chroma noise it generates at higher ISO.

3) SCCD versus CCD ... the pixel density is not the whole story ... in fact, the SCCD architecture, even without binning, allows packing of pixels with less space between them, similar in effect to the EXMOR concept Sony uses. This has always given the SCCD sensor an advantage over conventional sensors in noise.

So factor 3 is SCCD

Add them all up and the F70 should be much better at 800 and 1600 ISO ... and it is.

Which is not to say that this fellow cannot get decent high ISO images ... it can be done ... it's just fairly difficult with the ZS3 and rather effortless with the F70.

This is the ZS3 at 800 ISO ...









And then 1600 ISO ... the chroma noise increase is pretty obvious ...



The solution is B&W most of the time ...



--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Ron777]

Thanks for the great explanation, I had no idea about the actual sensor size of the ZS3 and the cropping. The blue channel is really interesting too, that explains what I've seen with most of the shots from that camera.

The Zs3 shots you just posted look great though, even in color. You definately have a knack, I need to get that knack!!

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that so well, really appreciate that and the samples,

Ron
--
Photography shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/invisodude/

Snap shots
http://s618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/randsphoto/