04-22-2012, 06:55 AM
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1335002409' post='17667']
its not only about specs sheets and gearheads. Those dr improvements might look a bit overdone at 14ev at base iso but it also brings you decent dr at highr iso. it is, along with improvements on the noise departments, rendering the concept of ISO transparent for the user. It is, for me at least a very interesting proposition as i dont regard sensitivity selection as a useful creative control (no, i can add noise later if i want to go grainy film like).Aperture and shutter speed are.
Idealy implemented auto iso has yet to come but clearly, imho it was about time manufacturers started thinking out of the film roll.
greetings,
s.
[/quote]
The thing is that the very high base ISO does NOT bring much better DR at higher ISO. There, at high ISO, the advantage disappears.
When you for instance actually look at high ISO results from the 18mp Canon APS-C sensor and the high ISO results from the 16mp Sony APS-C sensor used in the D7000/K5, you will see they are basically op par.
Similar to the 5D mk III and D800... the 5D mk III seems to have nicer high ISO results at very high ISO's and results that are basically on par with medium settings.
So we are only Talking about lower read noise here, not the noise introduced by lower light capture with higher gain. As I said before, if the high DR range from base ISO would be that important, no one would consider using ISO 400 and ISO 800, let alone ISO 3200. But, in reality, we DO consider with with sensors like the D800 and D4 have. Why? Because the results just are so good that we just can. Just to illustrate how the 14EV DR is more of a spec list thing than anything else.
Just to be clear... at ISO 800 the 5D mk III is on par with the D800.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras...kon#tabs-2
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm
So, what you are assuming is wrong on two points then... You assume the higher DR difference remains the same over the entire ISO range.. and this is a false assumption. Only the read noise is making the difference, so only at base ISO and a bit above. And when you want to have ISO to be totally "auto" and transparent, this then means that you have no control over the higher "DR advantage" as you only have that in the lower ISO settings.
In reality, these Canon sensors (22mp FF, 18mp APS-C), Sony sensors (36mp FF, 16mp APS-C) and Nikon sensors (16mp FF) are very close in performance, noise wise, when you step up the ISO setting. The bit lower DR at base ISO really is not that big a deal, with no real impact on real photography.
To place things into perspective, positive slide film has 6EV DR at best. Colour negative film has 10EV DR with the better films. BW negative has about 14 EV for the top films.
And that is just looking at the film,not about the different photo papers and how they reacted/compressed DR.
its not only about specs sheets and gearheads. Those dr improvements might look a bit overdone at 14ev at base iso but it also brings you decent dr at highr iso. it is, along with improvements on the noise departments, rendering the concept of ISO transparent for the user. It is, for me at least a very interesting proposition as i dont regard sensitivity selection as a useful creative control (no, i can add noise later if i want to go grainy film like).Aperture and shutter speed are.
Idealy implemented auto iso has yet to come but clearly, imho it was about time manufacturers started thinking out of the film roll.
greetings,
s.
[/quote]
The thing is that the very high base ISO does NOT bring much better DR at higher ISO. There, at high ISO, the advantage disappears.
When you for instance actually look at high ISO results from the 18mp Canon APS-C sensor and the high ISO results from the 16mp Sony APS-C sensor used in the D7000/K5, you will see they are basically op par.
Similar to the 5D mk III and D800... the 5D mk III seems to have nicer high ISO results at very high ISO's and results that are basically on par with medium settings.
So we are only Talking about lower read noise here, not the noise introduced by lower light capture with higher gain. As I said before, if the high DR range from base ISO would be that important, no one would consider using ISO 400 and ISO 800, let alone ISO 3200. But, in reality, we DO consider with with sensors like the D800 and D4 have. Why? Because the results just are so good that we just can. Just to illustrate how the 14EV DR is more of a spec list thing than anything else.
Just to be clear... at ISO 800 the 5D mk III is on par with the D800.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras...kon#tabs-2
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm
So, what you are assuming is wrong on two points then... You assume the higher DR difference remains the same over the entire ISO range.. and this is a false assumption. Only the read noise is making the difference, so only at base ISO and a bit above. And when you want to have ISO to be totally "auto" and transparent, this then means that you have no control over the higher "DR advantage" as you only have that in the lower ISO settings.
In reality, these Canon sensors (22mp FF, 18mp APS-C), Sony sensors (36mp FF, 16mp APS-C) and Nikon sensors (16mp FF) are very close in performance, noise wise, when you step up the ISO setting. The bit lower DR at base ISO really is not that big a deal, with no real impact on real photography.
To place things into perspective, positive slide film has 6EV DR at best. Colour negative film has 10EV DR with the better films. BW negative has about 14 EV for the top films.
And that is just looking at the film,not about the different photo papers and how they reacted/compressed DR.