Either Thom Hogan is totally clueless, or it's again related to D300 read noise due slower data from sensor. Once you leave the base ISO, the extra bits should just be noise and nothing else.
"The question that lies underneath this one is: is the noise handling of the D300 good enough to make use of those additional tonal values? My answer to that is a definite maybe. At the base ISO I find it difficult to find anything that shows up as a visible difference. In a few cases at higher ISO values, I have seen small differences in the shadow detail. I actually tried measuring this by doing an exhaustive series of tests, and I came up with perhaps a third of a stop difference in absolute dynamic range at ISO 800 and ISO 1600, less at other ISO values.
It's not for me to do, I have a D300 and not a D3. The difference works out to 1/3 of a stop on the D300, that's what I saw and that's what Thom Hogan saw too.
ET2 repeatedly refers to Nikon "hole" and Nikon "crap." Enough said about that; indeed, I've certainly had my fill of both of you (already on my Ignore User list from before). I wasn't the one that dragged this up again, but vain attempts at getting the last word in was the motivation of the OP, resulting in far more heat than light (as usual for him).
It matters because if you did good work you would have seen the difference. It stares you right in your face.
You seem to be in bad need of some comprehension skills. If you had it you would realize DPR does not claim there is no difference whatsoever ever like you twist their words to suit you. Instead they are saying that they could not notice difference in shots they took and processed. There is not a single thing there you can hang your hat on firmly. You don't know what was their process and on what to start with but you are jumping to huge assumption, and you know what they say what making assumptions makes you look like.
It is from a night shot of Paris. You can see the structures of the city. So it is a structure, not just noise.
You keep being stuck on D300 like a pig in a mud, and you keep wanting to truncate 14-bit file into 12-bit one. Why? Because it is muddying up the waters.
Thom Hogan has no scientific understanding on the topic. Even if D3 does benefit from 14-bit, surely it has to be only at the base ISO and at best ISO 200 ? Anything above that, and the last two-bits will have just noise..
What ISO?
D3, 13 stops push. Last bit still contains data.
You can't give him heck for not posting an example (camera model is irelevant) and then give him heck for the example he posted all in the same post. At least use two differnt replies(2) Well this is an image, but it is certainly no example, for ordinary photographers like myself, of a reasonably useful photo coming out noticeably better due to having the data stored at more than 12 bit depth. In other words, if you have to come up with an intolerably poor image of something in order to show that there is some kind of human-detectable difference, it sounds like for all practical purposes that ET2 (and physics professor Emil Martine) is right, increased 14 bit raw file sizes at ISO400+ don't pay their own way on the D3.
The data I posted is from ISO 800 shot.What ISO?
D3, 13 stops push. Last bit still contains data.
Now post the 12-bit shot. You need both to demonstrate the differenceThe data I posted is from ISO 800 shot.What ISO?
D3, 13 stops push. Last bit still contains data.
How about being polite?
12-bit shot with that amount of data shift is blank. You do not have 13nth bit in 12 bit recording.
Here is, for entertainment, last bit of a 12-bit camera. Why do we have 12 bits in it anyway? Let's reduce it to just 10.You're just counting angels on the head of a pin... Iliah is saying there are 433 and you're saying that it's only 432 and 433rd one is not a real angel
