hmm..that is different then the beetle has shown below. Was in camera NR turned off in both cases? The only reason I ask is that from optics POV the bigger pixels on the D300S would give it sizable theoretical advantage over the 7D wrt to noise though of course resolustion is a different story
hmm..that is different then the beetle has shown below. Was in camera NR turned off in both cases? The only reason I ask is that from optics POV the bigger pixels on the D300S would give it sizable theoretical advantage over the 7D wrt to noise though of course resolustion is a different story
That's the power of high MP camera, once resized noise is lower and details shows up.
I am not sure I follow what you mean. In these the shots presented..clearly the 7D has more reosultion becasue it has more pixel..But it also appears nearly equal in noise as teh D300S which doesn't make sense to me.
What do you mean by "once resized noise is lower and details shows up"?
I am not sure I follow what you mean. In these the shots presented..clearly the 7D has more reosultion becasue it has more pixel..But it also appears nearly equal in noise as teh D300S which doesn't make sense to me.
What do you mean by "once resized noise is lower and details shows up"?
Ok this analogy won't work perfectly but hopefully it comes across.
You have 2 sheets of film, same exact film, 1 is 35mm the other 120 medium format film.
A 1x1cm square from each bit of film will have the same amount of grain.
But if the same exposure is on both and you print say 8x10's the 120 will have less grain. This is because even though they have the same grain when you print to a specific size it is less of an enlargement from the 120 film and so the grain is smaller.
Also as for the pixel size/pitch obsession it seems going on the internet yes it does matter, but it is only a part of equation. New circuitry and designs for each pixel can change the amount of noise coming off the sensor. Then on top of that new techniques in noise reduction can further reduce it.
Some real world examples are the D700 VS the original 5D, both are 12MP full frame cameras, yet the D700 did better at high ISO because of those sensor/processing advantages. Sticking with Nikon the D3x and A900 are rumored to have the same sensor but there is a big difference in high ISO performance.
One last example is in the Olympus line, they recently went to 12MP and the E-620 does much better in a high ISO situation than my E-420 even though its pixel size is smaller.
Ok this analogy won't work perfectly but hopefully it comes across.
You have 2 sheets of film, same exact film, 1 is 35mm the other 120 medium format film.
A 1x1cm square from each bit of film will have the same amount of grain.
But if the same exposure is on both and you print say 8x10's the 120 will have less grain. This is because even though they have the same grain when you print to a specific size it is less of an enlargement from the 120 film and so the grain is smaller.
Also as for the pixel size/pitch obsession it seems going on the internet yes it does matter, but it is only a part of equation. New circuitry and designs for each pixel can change the amount of noise coming off the sensor. Then on top of that new techniques in noise reduction can further reduce it.
Some real world examples are the D700 VS the original 5D, both are 12MP full frame cameras, yet the D700 did better at high ISO because of those sensor/processing advantages. Sticking with Nikon the D3x and A900 are rumored to have the same sensor but there is a big difference in high ISO performance.
One last example is in the Olympus line, they recently went to 12MP and the E-620 does much better in a high ISO situation than my E-420 even though its pixel size is smaller.
I can appreciate that better alogorithms can reduce noise more then other alogrithms but 2 things:
1) can it really over come 1.5x physical pixel size difference?
2) also consider teh beetle's test in the below thread. That makes more sense to me. Clearly the 7D has more resolution but the D300S ha better noise performance. How do I reconcile that with the dpreview pics?
I am not sure I follow what you mean. In these the shots presented..clearly the 7D has more reosultion becasue it has more pixel..But it also appears nearly equal in noise as teh D300S which doesn't make sense to me.
What do you mean by "once resized noise is lower and details shows up"?
I can appreciate that better alogorithms can reduce noise more then other alogrithms but 2 things:
1) can it really over come 1.5x physical pixel size difference?
2) also consider teh beetle's test in the below thread. That makes more sense to me. Clearly the 7D has more resolution but the D300S ha better noise performance. How do I reconcile that with the dpreview pics?
Any comparison can be off because of tons of different variables, even if you have the same ISO's set and same aperture and shutter speed, a slight difference in light for natural light, and sometimes ISO values are not dead on. So one could be slightly underexposed showing more noise. That would do it a little bit but more likely they are taking images pretty much straight from the camera, so the different factory settings can lead to different results (say the level of noise reduction). For these tests I am not sure but those are 2 things that could effect it. And third of course is human error which can throw everything for a loop.
Back to your first point and another example, the D300 has less noise at ISO 1600 than my D50 did and it has 2x smaller pixels.
Comments
hmm..that is different then the beetle has shown below. Was in camera NR turned off in both cases? The only reason I ask is that from optics POV the bigger pixels on the D300S would give it sizable theoretical advantage over the 7D wrt to noise though of course resolustion is a different story
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I am not sure I follow what you mean. In these the shots presented..clearly the 7D has more reosultion becasue it has more pixel..But it also appears nearly equal in noise as teh D300S which doesn't make sense to me.
What do you mean by "once resized noise is lower and details shows up"?
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Ok this analogy won't work perfectly but hopefully it comes across.
You have 2 sheets of film, same exact film, 1 is 35mm the other 120 medium format film.
A 1x1cm square from each bit of film will have the same amount of grain.
But if the same exposure is on both and you print say 8x10's the 120 will have less grain. This is because even though they have the same grain when you print to a specific size it is less of an enlargement from the 120 film and so the grain is smaller.
Also as for the pixel size/pitch obsession it seems going on the internet yes it does matter, but it is only a part of equation. New circuitry and designs for each pixel can change the amount of noise coming off the sensor. Then on top of that new techniques in noise reduction can further reduce it.
Some real world examples are the D700 VS the original 5D, both are 12MP full frame cameras, yet the D700 did better at high ISO because of those sensor/processing advantages. Sticking with Nikon the D3x and A900 are rumored to have the same sensor but there is a big difference in high ISO performance.
One last example is in the Olympus line, they recently went to 12MP and the E-620 does much better in a high ISO situation than my E-420 even though its pixel size is smaller.
I can appreciate that better alogorithms can reduce noise more then other alogrithms but 2 things:
1) can it really over come 1.5x physical pixel size difference?
2) also consider teh beetle's test in the below thread. That makes more sense to me. Clearly the 7D has more resolution but the D300S ha better noise performance. How do I reconcile that with the dpreview pics?
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Any comparison can be off because of tons of different variables, even if you have the same ISO's set and same aperture and shutter speed, a slight difference in light for natural light, and sometimes ISO values are not dead on. So one could be slightly underexposed showing more noise. That would do it a little bit but more likely they are taking images pretty much straight from the camera, so the different factory settings can lead to different results (say the level of noise reduction). For these tests I am not sure but those are 2 things that could effect it. And third of course is human error which can throw everything for a loop.
Back to your first point and another example, the D300 has less noise at ISO 1600 than my D50 did and it has 2x smaller pixels.
Still really don't understand why so many reviewers leave it on.