[Recovered Thread: 101179]

[Gozinta]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

Also note this graph>>>



As you can see, the D50 has the LOWEST noise levels of all and look>>>

Here's the same set of noise data at ISO 1600. What's most interesting here is that the Noise Spectrum plot actually shows more high-frequency content (the plot stays higher longer as you move to higher cycles/pixel), making the D50's noise finer-grained at high ISO than at low ISO. This is just the opposite of what usually happens, and helps explain the pleasing appearance of the D50's images at very high ISOs.

Read more in this link>>>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...D50IMATEST.HTM

The way I interpret the graph the D50 is lowest if you don't include the 7D, in which case they are relatively the same until ISO 800 at which point the KM takes the lead.

[Monza76]

Popular Photography & Imaging Volume70 No.9 September 2006 page 64. This illustrates that quoting from one review can be misleading. The differences in results leads me to suspect all reviews.

Ira

[BenjaminXYZ]

The way I interpret the graph the D50 is lowest if you don't include the 7D, in which case they are relatively the same until ISO 800 at which point the KM takes the lead.

That's true, but if you actually observe the images properly, the 7D's imagesare looking softer due to higher NR.

This chart compares the Nikon D50's noise performance over a range of ISOs against that of other cameras. As you can see, the D50's noise levels are lower than essentially all of its competition, matched only by the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. What isn't shown here though, is the "grain" structure of the camera nor the extent to which it trades away fine detail as the ISO is increased. The D50's noise is a little coarser-grained than the best of its competition, but it does manage to strike a very good balance between trading away subtle subject detail or allowing noise too free a reign. In the chart above, the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D posts very low noise numbers, but its high-ISO images are very soft as a result. By contrast, the D50's images maintain very low noise levels up to ISO 800, yet with much less loss of fine detail in regions of subtle contrast. Very impressive.

This page from Philip Askey's review could be of interest to you and interested parties as well>>>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...a7d/page18.asp

Regards.

[Gozinta]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

The way I interpret the graph the D50 is lowest if you don't include the 7D, in which case they are relatively the same until ISO 800 at which point the KM takes the lead.

That's true, but if you actually observe the images properly, the 7D's imagesare looking softer due to higher NR.

This chart compares the Nikon D50's noise performance over a range of ISOs against that of other cameras. As you can see, the D50's noise levels are lower than essentially all of its competition, matched only by the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. What isn't shown here though, is the "grain" structure of the camera nor the extent to which it trades away fine detail as the ISO is increased. The D50's noise is a little coarser-grained than the best of its competition, but it does manage to strike a very good balance between trading away subtle subject detail or allowing noise too free a reign. In the chart above, the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D posts very low noise numbers, but its high-ISO images are very soft as a result. By contrast, the D50's images maintain very low noise levels up to ISO 800, yet with much less loss of fine detail in regions of subtle contrast. Very impressive.

This page from Philip Askey's review could be of interest to you and interested parties as well>>>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...a7d/page18.asp

Regards.

Looking at the link, I prefer slighty softer without the noise. On a sepearte note,thecomparisons are in JPEG and therefore the differences are mostly due to in-camera processing, which is programmable thorughcustomizable settings. Since I shoot in Raw, the comparison as illustraed are for themost part irrelevant. They differnces may be of signifignce ifyou only shoot JPEG and at the point it is a matter of prefernce. The differnces is really splitting hairs and lessnoticable if you change the in-camera processing settings or even modify the JPG image with a little post processing.

Take a survey and you will find that most people prefer less noise and willing to give up a little detail.Besides, whenyou take pictures, you won't be comapring the differnce between cameras.

BTW.... even the worst one of the bunch will give you more than satifactory results. I like the D50, I even considered one,but it's egronomics are all wrong. It also bothers me that itdoesn't have an ISO 100.

[Gozinta]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

The way I interpret the graph the D50 is lowest if you don't include the 7D, in which case they are relatively the same until ISO 800 at which point the KM takes the lead.

That's true, but if you actually observe the images properly, the 7D's imagesare looking softer due to higher NR.

This chart compares the Nikon D50's noise performance over a range of ISOs against that of other cameras. As you can see, the D50's noise levels are lower than essentially all of its competition, matched only by the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. What isn't shown here though, is the "grain" structure of the camera nor the extent to which it trades away fine detail as the ISO is increased. The D50's noise is a little coarser-grained than the best of its competition, but it does manage to strike a very good balance between trading away subtle subject detail or allowing noise too free a reign. In the chart above, the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D posts very low noise numbers, but its high-ISO images are very soft as a result. By contrast, the D50's images maintain very low noise levels up to ISO 800, yet with much less loss of fine detail in regions of subtle contrast. Very impressive.

This page from Philip Askey's review could be of interest to you and interested parties as well>>>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...a7d/page18.asp

Regards.

Hey Ben.... check out this link

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...jump_to=584944

[BenjaminXYZ]

OMG OMG, I really cannot believe what am I seeing at all! It is a scam sure!! It can't really be that cheap!!! BTW, I have no credic card so I cannot buy online I still have to dig around Malaysia if I am lucky!!

[meanstreak]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

OMG OMG, I really cannot believe what am I seeing at all! It is a scam sure!! It can't really be that cheap!!! BTW, I have no credic card so I cannot buy online I still have to dig around Malaysia if I am lucky!!

[align=center]:angry::homey:[/align]

[BenjaminXYZ]

Sorry meanstreak, that was an outdated statement.

[meanstreak]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

Sorry meanstreak, that was an outdated statement.

I don't get it... what is outdated?