12-13-2010, 10:32 PM
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1292242160' post='4964']
For instance, 3903290645 - I don't really understand why you call the picture sharp? Or do you refer to the chroma noise where skin texture supposed to be as details?[/quote]
Looking at it another way, it's got more detail than a "less noisy" D3s shot and just as much detail if not more than a D3x shot (where the latter has a slight MP advantage) at the same ISOs.
The D3x shots you showed were shot at ISO100, f/4 and f/3.2, 1/1250 and 1/1000 respectively. The ones I showed were shot wide open at f/2 and except for the first one, the others were shot at higher ISOs and at slower shutter speeds than 1/1000 too. The smaller apertures/greater DOFs in the D3x shots you showed also give a sense of more sharpness naturally because there are more things in focus.
Also there's some excessive noise on the face in that particular shot is because it was shot at around ISO800 (no flash) and vignetting was corrected which pushes the corners at least a stop further in post. So you're essentially comparing ISO100 center crops of a D3x (isn't the base ISO200?) against ISO800-ISO1600 border crops here. Also none of these shots were done on a tripod or with flash... so you have to take those factors in to consideration when talking about obtainable detail too.
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1292242160' post='4964']
Also, if fur is not good for measuring detail, then what is? As I understand, you don't agree with the LPH results measured by review sites?
P.s. Regarding that bird / feathers picture, what's wrong with this?
![[Image: bird2.png]](http://snap-studio.co.uk/rokas/bird2.png)
[/quote]
The problem is not exactly with fur/feathers itself, it's the magnification. Even when we see fur at a large magnification, the first thing that pops in to the minds of many is "sharp" because of the conditioning we've received from photography sites/magazines. Try this for now... resize one of the images so their sizes match, take equal-sized crops from the bird shot and my fabric shot (pay special attention to DOF) and compare them side by side.
I do agree with LPH as a proper measurement but I don't agree that it's fully indicative (the correctness of how lens review sites do their testing aside).
GTW
For instance, 3903290645 - I don't really understand why you call the picture sharp? Or do you refer to the chroma noise where skin texture supposed to be as details?[/quote]
Looking at it another way, it's got more detail than a "less noisy" D3s shot and just as much detail if not more than a D3x shot (where the latter has a slight MP advantage) at the same ISOs.
The D3x shots you showed were shot at ISO100, f/4 and f/3.2, 1/1250 and 1/1000 respectively. The ones I showed were shot wide open at f/2 and except for the first one, the others were shot at higher ISOs and at slower shutter speeds than 1/1000 too. The smaller apertures/greater DOFs in the D3x shots you showed also give a sense of more sharpness naturally because there are more things in focus.
Also there's some excessive noise on the face in that particular shot is because it was shot at around ISO800 (no flash) and vignetting was corrected which pushes the corners at least a stop further in post. So you're essentially comparing ISO100 center crops of a D3x (isn't the base ISO200?) against ISO800-ISO1600 border crops here. Also none of these shots were done on a tripod or with flash... so you have to take those factors in to consideration when talking about obtainable detail too.
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1292242160' post='4964']
Also, if fur is not good for measuring detail, then what is? As I understand, you don't agree with the LPH results measured by review sites?
P.s. Regarding that bird / feathers picture, what's wrong with this?
[/quote]
The problem is not exactly with fur/feathers itself, it's the magnification. Even when we see fur at a large magnification, the first thing that pops in to the minds of many is "sharp" because of the conditioning we've received from photography sites/magazines. Try this for now... resize one of the images so their sizes match, take equal-sized crops from the bird shot and my fabric shot (pay special attention to DOF) and compare them side by side.
I do agree with LPH as a proper measurement but I don't agree that it's fully indicative (the correctness of how lens review sites do their testing aside).
GTW