Definitive A900/D3X noise/ISO samples

[douglasf13]

The thing is, it's a trade off, because, while Nikon seems to do better in noise control, Sony does better in DR.

[mdcromer]

But the D3 can, in no way, compare for resolution.

[douglasf13]

Trust me, I've seen every test on the web known to mankind. I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to total DR, but instead the handling of DR. ie. highlight roll-off, which is part of Sony's special sauce, just like Nikon's black clipping. This is why, regardless of test numbers, so many are being drawn to the camera. Granted, I rarely shoot over ISO 800, so noise issues don't apply to me.

[mdcromer]

Frankly Don, I trust David's tests far more than DPR's. 'Nuff said.

If in fact the 14 bit Nikon files are taking a significantly different signal reading and processing path than the standard Sony chip offers, while the 12 bit files use the stock Sony hardware, perhaps that accounts for the much improved shadow detail at high ISO for the Nikon 14 bit files over the Sony (12 bit) files.

[mdcromer]

But the D3 can, in no way, compare for resolution.

LOL MD..let's talk IMAGE QUALITY across the range. Resolution means squat to most folks...and then finding lenses to match the resolution across the frame is another story.

-Sonolta

Well resolution means a great deal to landscape shooters, and (low ISO) stock shooters.

The only reason I am buying a dSLR is to make much larger fine-art landscape prints. Going from my Sony R1 (10MP) to a Nikon D3 (12MP) is virtually a wash as far as print quality is concerned.

As for lenses, I'm quite satisfied with the results I have been seeing with many older Minolta lenses on the Alpha 900 when stopped down to landscape apertures.

If I were primarily an event photographer, I might well be interested in a D3 (although the lack of IS for most event photo lenses is a big drawback!)

[mdcromer]

Those are jpeg dynamic range measurements. A joke. R1 JPEGS are garbage. R1 RAW DR is extremely high. BTW the DPR resolution measurements are also from jpegs.

In real life you can't tell an R1 landscape image from a D3 image -- except the R1 will very likely be sharper due to a lot more DOF from the smaller sensor, or if the scene has such huge DR that the 1 stop advantage of the D3 shows up.

In real life, if you want significantly better images than well exposed, base ISO R1 images of static subjects, you can choose:

1) Canon 1DsIII
2) Nikon D3x
3) Alpha 900
4) Canon 5DII
5) Various MFDBs / cameras

That's it. There are no 10-12-14-15MP cameras that have any significant advantage for landscape shooting over the R1, unless you want wider than 24mm / narrower than 120mm. That's why I waited until now (actually come January) to buy something else.

Oh, and Don, kindly please shove your "fanboy" namecalling horse-shite back in your piehole (or whichever other hole it's gushing out of).

[alphaomega]

Some divided opinions about the Sony DSC-R1 above. I used one for a couple of years before the A700 came out. My son is using it now to photograph ships. He shoots Jpegs and they are all very sharp and with good tonal range.
I bought it in 2005 (I think) on the basis that it produced as good as or better (sharper) pictures than the 350D and it was proofed against dust. A major point for me then and now.
I have many pictures on Alamy taken with this camera and most are nearer 70 than 50 Mb. I found the dynamic range for landscape & architecture very acceptable. Do not recall suffering from blow-outs or clippings, but don't mention higher ISOs. It was simply terrible above 400 ISO or so. With the CZ 16-80 lens it certainly deliviered the goods at 200 ISO. It was a camera that acquitted itself well at the time but has been overtaken by newer models. The electronic viewfinder was poor and the buffer could take one RAW before it slowed down. The LV screen at 2" was too small to be of any use. I was happy to replace it with my A700, but it did the job at the time and quality wise could compete with the consumer DSLRs available at the time - and dust never settled on the sensor. The range was restricted by its 24-120 equivalent lens, but then I used my MD system and Mamiya 645 Pro when the R1 was found wanting.

I do not doubt the technical figures produced by Sonolta but then the R1 cannot be expected to compete with today's DSLRs. I mostly used mine at the wide end so did not really suffer from the tele end problems highlighted by Sonolta.

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, my reply there was pre-V4 and also pre-AF adjustment which I made to the camera. My A700 results improved, but the A100 still remains almost unmatched (and I will include the A900 in that). Even so, the R1 files (I do not have an R1, but I keep an archive of all original raws shots during tests) are hard to beat for detail when revisited and examined using current raw processors. I do use my A2 but not regularly, it's a pity and it should get more use - the accuracy of focus is incredible considering what was actually involved.

The issues with the R1 had nothing do to with image quality, everything to do with functional response of the camera. The last day I used it was the day that a boatman fell off his boat and had to be rescued by his passengers in the very cold waters of Loch Leven; I was standing twenty feet away, and the R1 responded so slowly I did not get a shot of him in the water. Had I been using any DSLR, I would have done (especially a DSLR with 18-200 or 18-250). That was when I realised you can't rely on an electronic VF camera with off-sensor live focusing for quick shots. The A2 has, if anything, proved better. It has almost shot action now and then. What I like about the A2 is the movie function with fantastic sound quality, and I do take it to gigs.

David

[mdcromer]

There is no significant advantages to using any of the 12MP dSLRs over the R1 for landscape shooting. NB a 10% increase in linear resolution of test charts is not a SIGNIFICANT advantage, esp. given the huge advantage in DOF for the R1. For practical resolution, the R1 holds its own with the 10-15MP crowd very well. The idea that an Alpha 700 will "blow away" the R1 for landscapes is laughable at best, and utterly wrong if you are talking about "kit" lenses. . .

David is quite right, the R1 is slow and certainly not the best tool for moving / action photography. Although I have some great images of my daughter riding horses with it, go figure. . .

As for dynamic range, the point is NOT to get full benefit to the DR in a single RAW conversion. Instead, you can justmdouble-process the RAW when you want to recover blown highlights, and then combine the shots in photoshop. I've never seen ANY RAW convertor that can do an acceptable job with a 10+ stop scene in a single conversion -- they might be out there, but I haven't seen it.

Of course the R1 is not a BETTER camera for landscape than the D3 et al. Neither is it a WORSE camera for that purpose. See my website for some examples, most of them are from the R1, very few of which were shot "in the middle of a sunny day". And given that I've gotten 4 years of use with it without any significantly superior performers for landscapes in the affordable price range until now, makes me pleased as can be. Money well spent. Now I'm moving on to another groundbreaking price/performance camera that DOES offer significant IQ improvements. I could have chosen the Canon 5DII, and almost did because of the liveview and video, but in the end the antishake, higher resolution, better viewfinder, top-notch affordable FF legacy Minolta glass and reportedly better AF won me over.

[mdcromer]

Don,

All full sized images are on my site under the ++ symbol. BTW the links you posted will turn into a pumpkin at midnight. . . Use the "permalink" icon for permanent links to my images, the gallery links shuffle around once per day. . . Also about 1/2 were from other cameras than the R1 such as Sony 828, 717 which are a completely different ball of wax. . . I shoot with a tripod most of the time and base ISO, very rarely I shoot over base ISO and/or handheld. . .

The images were not processed for low noise -- for me, detail limits all 10-12MP detailed landscape images to 12 inches on the long side for best results, 18 absolute max regardless of noise.

24MP is enough for excellent 18" prints, good to 24".

[alphaomega]

Here is an interesting contribution from bob2 on the Canon 1D/5D thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30449425

The concluding part concerning mostly a comparison of the A900 with D3X sensor (and other common Sony sensors) performance is quite interesting and perhaps disturbing if at all true. I personally find it hard to believe though:

* The performance of these sensors in Nikons is so much better and Sony's in and out of camera development software so dire that one could almost put forward a convincing case that Nikon must have Sony Semiconductor in some kind of unbreakable contract (presumably made prior to Sony's acquisition of KM's SLR interests) that forces Sony Imaging to artificially hobble the performance of their cameras.

Maybe he has not got to the idea of DK & Sonolta's point about Nikon's black clipping and Sony's strong emphasis on lower ISO performance at the expense of higher ISO results. I would agree with him that IDC could do with some major improvements including the inclusion of CA removal.

It is also worthwhile to read this additional thread from bob2:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30451444

Interesting views about how the Sony wafer could be completed by Nikon in their own facility.

[fastson]

That doesnt make sense. Arent the A700 and the D300 using the same sensor, and very comparable now with V4?

[David Kilpatrick]

I have been doing some unscientific but meaningful tests tonight.

Here's the score: give two exposures of 0.4 seconds at f/11, and the Nikon at ISO 100 matches the highlight of the Sony at ISO 160 (the clipping level highlight - visible detail without using minus correction in raw processing). This is using the same transfer curve for each camera. But the Sony has mid-tones and shadows which are, as you would expect from the higher ISO, 2/3rds of a stop brighter.

It is very clear how Nikon achieves the lower noise, it's exactly the same reason they achieve the lower ISO - but don't get the same highlight rolloff. They simply call what would be approx ISO 160/200, ISO 100; they use less gain in the very early stages. Easy. You give more exposure, less need to amplify the photon count. Highlights get a slight loss (to get the same highlight information, you must underexpose the Nikon by 2/3rds of a stop, but then of course you get a rather dark picture in the rest of the tones).

It is SO simple as a concept because the raw processor software writers must then use a flatter curve for Sony's raw, a lighter midtone curve for Nikon, and for whatever reasons this is introducing less noise (final stage gain boost, in effect) than the in-camera equivalent. This is based on using the Nikon curve written for RAW Developer, to process Sony files. If you do so, Sony's 3200 becomes 5000 (or Nikon's 6400 becomes 4000,whichever way you see it). Everything I can see points to the sensors being practically identical, and the alternative approaches to in-camera gain curve versus post-processing gain curve (combined with different 'ISO speeds') are what make the difference.

I have also briefly tested ISO 3200 Nikon 12-bit lossless compressed versus 14-bit uncompressed - no substantial difference in the noise type or level, and as far as I can tell, absolutely no point in using 14-bit!

David

[mdcromer]

Not sure that I follow you 100% David. But sounds like you might be on to something. . .

Looking forward to seeing the "part 2" article on the noise comparison where you elaborate on these latest comments with some visual aids and some pictures.

It's good to know that the 14 bit vs. 12 bit mode isn't making any difference.

[David Kilpatrick]

It is really difficult to explain. I need to capture a video clip from the screen showing the adjustments needed to demonstate what this is about. But I understand now exactly what Nikon is doing - if you apply ANY amplification to sensel-location based data before it is written to raw, you get hot pixels, coloured noise etc. If you apply more amplification to de-Bayered data, you are averaging the noise amplified across the deBayer convolution (the pattern of sensels which is used to create a single image RGB image pixel). This is Nikon's strategy and it also explains why they expand the image data to fit the 0-255 deBayered levels straight out of the box.

What is surprising is that this strategy means doing less in the camera. It's very simple despite being being hard to explain in non-technical terms (or, in technical terms, for me - I do not know the correct words to describe what seems to be happening).

David