09-14-2011, 07:55 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1315947119' post='11565']
The read noise just is a lot lower on base ISO. With higher ISO, we go get to see some RAW trickery, where the Nikon D7000 loses a bit of detail. On the whole, the 60D keeps detail a bit better at higher ISOs, but the differences are small.[/quote]
I am actually talking about the virtually complete lack of noise in the lower two or three bits but one. I've read an article somewhere where actual measurements were done on direct output from the sensor assembly prior to Raw conversion, based on Nikon and Canon sensors (maybe a few more, but I can't remember now, as I am less interested in those <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />), and the sensor with the best SNR so far was the 1D Mk IV. That was before the D7000, but I do'nt expect a sensor with a higher pixel density to have less noise.
Once you get to the Raw files there is quite a difference, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Well, that's an opinion. With film we used to get 10 stops of usable DR, however when (wet) printing you only got 5, maybe 6 in later years. That's why we used th eZone system, or a variant thereof. However, a larger DR allows one to capture more details, which can be used to create a more satisfying print, even with increased contrast. I too increase contrast when an image asks for it. I have doen so in th epast, wiyh film, and still do so now I have no problems with that. After all, a Raw file really is the unprocessed "negative" which we want to optimize for what we had in mind when we captured the image.
We can always discard what we don't need, however we can't really create easily what isn't there in the first place. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
In short, I see a high DR only as a potential, which allows me to achieve my vision, by shifting up or down, or compressing it, without losing IQ.
Kind regards, Wim
The read noise just is a lot lower on base ISO. With higher ISO, we go get to see some RAW trickery, where the Nikon D7000 loses a bit of detail. On the whole, the 60D keeps detail a bit better at higher ISOs, but the differences are small.[/quote]
I am actually talking about the virtually complete lack of noise in the lower two or three bits but one. I've read an article somewhere where actual measurements were done on direct output from the sensor assembly prior to Raw conversion, based on Nikon and Canon sensors (maybe a few more, but I can't remember now, as I am less interested in those <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />), and the sensor with the best SNR so far was the 1D Mk IV. That was before the D7000, but I do'nt expect a sensor with a higher pixel density to have less noise.Once you get to the Raw files there is quite a difference, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Quote:I have said it before, and I will say it again... I see no use in ever higher dynamic range at base ISO. If you are going to push all that dynamic range into the image-visible spectrum, you get very flat images (low contrast).
I always find myself increasing contrast in post processing (read: limiting dynamic range) instead of lowering it. Don't read too much into the higher DR hype... It is mostly spec sheet babble. A too low DR is of course problematic, but you won't find that in any modern DSLR.
Well, that's an opinion. With film we used to get 10 stops of usable DR, however when (wet) printing you only got 5, maybe 6 in later years. That's why we used th eZone system, or a variant thereof. However, a larger DR allows one to capture more details, which can be used to create a more satisfying print, even with increased contrast. I too increase contrast when an image asks for it. I have doen so in th epast, wiyh film, and still do so now I have no problems with that. After all, a Raw file really is the unprocessed "negative" which we want to optimize for what we had in mind when we captured the image.
We can always discard what we don't need, however we can't really create easily what isn't there in the first place. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />In short, I see a high DR only as a potential, which allows me to achieve my vision, by shifting up or down, or compressing it, without losing IQ.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....