Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

  1. #1
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Just found this site linked to on another forum:

    http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm

    On another thread I mentioned that I shoot at ISO values that are multiples of 160 (I have Canon 30D and 5DII bodies). These values also seem to have the better DR than even ISO's such as 100, 200, 400, 800 etc. Of course it isn't the same for all brands/bodies.

    This information may be more interesting than useful.

    Glenn

  2. #2
    John Morton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New York NY USA
    Posts
    459

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    That is both interesting and useful, Glenn - thanks for posting that.

  3. #3
    pnodrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Waipu, Northand, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,346
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Depressing to see how far my camera is behind the new models. I'll go and have a beer.

  4. #4
    Mark von Kanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,861
    Real Name
    Mark

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    On the bright side Paul you now have a powerful argument to convince yourself and others that you NEED that new camera....

  5. #5
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by pnodrog View Post
    Depressing to see how far my camera is behind the new models. I'll go and have a beer.
    The problem with this is that in countless posted results on forums, web pages, and even printed results, no one can accurately identify what camera was used. Many claim to, but it's mostly bs.

    It's like suggesting that with a new hammer and saw, one's carpentry will be noticeably better.

    The real life differences in results between various brands rarely show up in the printed image or on the screen. Virtually all the "soft" or "less than stellar" images posted on this and other forums are caused by: poor focusing technique, wrong shutter or aperture, non-use of a tripod, misunderstanding of DOF, and other important basics of photography.

    There is a poster on another forum that (at least until last year) was using a Canon 20D - and his work was some of the best posted.

    As they say, "it's not because of the tools".

    Here endeth the first sermon.

    The title probably should have been: Interesting and Perhaps Useless Information

    Glenn

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    A Pacific Island
    Posts
    924
    Real Name
    Andrew

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    It seems strange to me that the response of all the sensors would not be linear or at least in a more explainable curve. My D300 shows results more in line with what I would expect from an electronic circuit with a step by step constantly degrading ISO factor. In non-linear examples I have to wonder whether the doping of the sensor material is to blame or circuitry within the processing electronics. I doubt the chemical make-up of the sensor because the swings are too small. Different EOS models at the same ISO's show opposite transitions as well so there is also the inconsistency of the EOS to consider. Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. Interesting but too deep to dwell upon. I'll go with your new title.

  7. #7
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    12,423
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn NK View Post
    It's like suggesting that with a new hammer and saw, one's carpentry will be noticeably better.

    There is a poster on another forum that (at least until last year) was using a Canon 20D - and his work was some of the best posted.
    I agree...

    There was a poster on another forum who consistently shot wonderful images using the original Digital rebel 300D DLSR and the original non-IS 18-55mm kit lens. Her skill and her technique made up for the shortcomings of her equipment! This was about the time that the 40D was just introduced...

    However, as for your tool analogy, I mostly agree with you. However, a new sharp saw will often cut better than a older dull blade.

    My 7D focuses better than my 40D and my 40D is a bit better in that line than my 30D. However, although I like the 7D best, I feel confident in shooting with any of the three cameras. I would not have kept my 30D as a backup if I were not confident that it could produce good imagery.

    My China galleries images were all shot with either a 40D or a 30D before I owned the 7D... http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dunedin New Zealand
    Posts
    2,697
    Real Name
    J stands for John

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    The new camera probably has new features which widen one's abilities in covering diverse subject but at the same time will have quirks and design features to trip you up .... at least that is my experience in moving from my bridge camera to considerably more recent M4/3. Crazy things like the rocker on the back has been moved a quarter of an inch further up the body which means the thumb keeps hitting the WB button and wastes time as I reset it. Pansonic FZ50 v. G3 and GH2. Then there is the option on the FZ50 to use thumb and forefinger to control aperture and shutter .... but on the G's there is just one knurled wheel which is pressed to change from aperture to shutter .. good idea I thought since usually one is changing one or other not both. Problem some genius at Panasonic thought to introduce a further variable when you push the wheel depending on if you are in A or S modes ... programme shift GRRUR! The info about this is hidden in a couple of small lines of print. There is an indication on the EVF/LCD as to which is which but no obvious explanation in the manual as to which is what.

    I am sure new owners of the latest DSLRs will find similar traps

  9. #9
    Moderator GrumpyDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,336
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    This is clearly one of those graphs that has me asking "please explain to me why I should care?"

    Let's not get too concerned here as most of the "anomalies" seem to give at most somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 stop reading of being reasonably linear; something that is not going to make any difference to any real life shooting.

  10. #10
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    3,706
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    I agree that it is mostly what lies 10cm behind the viewfinder that matters. You can see this particularly in macro photography, where a lot of the best work is done with Rebels. (Crop has advantages for macro.)

    Still, better tools can help. For example, for my purposes, crop is the better option, but it is pretty clear that this imposes a cost in terms of dynamic range (comparing the 7D to the 5DII and III), just as it imposes a cost in terms of high-ISO noise. And if the numbers are to be believed, the D800 blows the socks off everything else at low ISOs. The first is not enough to get me to go FF, and the latter is certainly not enough to get me to scrap my lenses, but it would be nice to have it all.

    I agree about the beer.

  11. #11
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post
    This is clearly one of those graphs that has me asking "please explain to me why I should care?"

    Let's not get too concerned here as most of the "anomalies" seem to give at most somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 stop reading of being reasonably linear; something that is not going to make any difference to any real life shooting.
    This of course is absolutely correct.

    While there appears to be "major" differences - more theoretical than real, the end results cannot be predicted by pixel peeping and sensor analysis charts (perhaps I'm referring to DXO ).

    Revisiting Henri Cartier-Bresson, I wouldn't want to use a rangefinder camera with only black and white film. My humble 30D can produce images of higher quality, but I'm simply not (and never will be) in his league.

    The only thing useful about the link (to me) is that I can take advantage of the quirks of my sensors and use the best ISO values for them.

    Glenn

  12. #12
    John Morton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New York NY USA
    Posts
    459

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn NK View Post

    The only thing useful about the link (to me) is that I can take advantage of the quirks of my sensors and use the best ISO values for them.

    Glenn
    Absolutely, Glenn! I looked up my Nikon D700 and now I know what I am dealing with when I switch from my usual ISO 200 up to 400 or 800; and when not to worry too much about that if I am doing HDR images anyway.

    I was out today shooting autumn colors and I found myself putting this information into practice so regardless of what anyone else says, once again thanks for posting that link.

  13. #13
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by John Morton View Post
    Absolutely, Glenn! I looked up my Nikon D700 and now I know what I am dealing with when I switch from my usual ISO 200 up to 400 or 800; and when not to worry too much about that if I am doing HDR images anyway.

    I was out today shooting autumn colors and I found myself putting this information into practice so regardless of what anyone else says, once again thanks for posting that link.
    John - glad you found it useful.

  14. #14
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,035
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    I too found this interesting.

    It seems to concur/confirm what Colin has been saying for years; that Canons are better at whole stop values, particularly the older models, with the 1D series being better on round numbers; 200, 400, 800, but the 40D (and at least one other) was better at 160, 320, 640 - beyond about 1000iso they all seem to get more linear.

    I was relieved this hardly applies to my Nikon D5000, although it seems a titchy bit better at 1000, 2000 than in between, but at least it doesn't dip so much between points like the older Canon sensors did/do (at lower iso values).

    For me, moving to a D5100 or D7000 sensor won't improve DR significantly on my D5000 in the middle of the iso range, although the extra at either end might be useful on occasion I guess

    The Nikon D600/D800 (and D4 above iso200) sensors come out very well, but they're way beyond my price range (and FX).

    In terms of 'using the best bits' as John has, I'll not be so shy of using 100iso, at least I know it won't be noticeably less DR than 200iso. Also I'll shoot at 1000, 2000 and 4000 when I need to 'push' things. Will I notice? dunno - but it is odd I had already started shooting at 1000 and 2000 (instead of 800 and 1600) just by results seen in RAW captures - coincidence? may be.

    Thanks Glenn.

    Cheers,

  15. #15
    RockNGoalStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    891
    Real Name
    Tommy

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    It's interesting in that it never crossed my mind that increasing ISO would have such a significant effect on the number of stops my camera could record.

    It's also nice to see that there is not much out there that significantly out performs my D90

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post
    This is clearly one of those graphs that has me asking "please explain to me why I should care?"
    Because statistics don't lie Manfred, and from the graph comparing a D4 and 1Dx - clearly - we can see that at ISO 204800, the Canon flagship has a nat's whisker more DR than the Nikon - which, clearly, should be sufficient reason for Nikon shooters who need to be shooting inside unlit caves at 1/8000th @ F22 to switch to Canon.*

    *This pathetic information was authorised by Canon's creative marketing department!

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    I might like to add that whilst they were testing all those cameras to make the graphs, the rest of us used whatever model cameras we owned - at whatever ISO setting we chose - to shoot some darn fine photos!

  18. #18
    Moderator GrumpyDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,336
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    Because statistics don't lie Manfred, and from the graph comparing a D4 and 1Dx - clearly - we can see that at ISO 204800, the Canon flagship has a nat's whisker more DR than the Nikon - which, clearly, should be sufficient reason for Nikon shooters who need to be shooting inside unlit caves at 1/8000th @ F22 to switch to Canon.*

    *This pathetic information was authorised by Canon's creative marketing department!
    I guess we'll have to import more glow worms if we are planning to shoot with a D4 at the Waitomo caves down your way.

    By the way, the glow worms were amazing.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Quite Interesting and Perhaps Useful

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post
    I guess we'll have to import more glow worms if we are planning to shoot with a D4 at the Waitomo caves down your way.

    By the way, the glow worms were amazing.
    I kinda remember them -- I think I was last there about 150 years ago!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •