|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
|
![]()
Regarding ISO3200, I took some shots at night time of a Hula dancer. The only lens that I had at the time was 100-400L on my 30D. I had to use ISO3200 for very first time. I just got 4x6 print without any pp except converting from RAW to jpeg. I am shocked looking at it. It is so good. I know it is small print but I bet I can't tell it from ISO400 shot. I am going to print bigger size just to see how it looks. So don't discount ISO3200. I think key is proper exposure.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
I am just getting disappointed at the fact that camera manufacturers today are just merely cramming in more pixels onto an image sensor, without increasing it's physical dimensions. Ofcouse, if the camera manufacturers did increased the physical dimensions of the image sensors, what will become of our APS-C lenses??? So in my opinion, the camera manufacturers should release both types of cameras, one is the model with the low mega-pixel count for people like me!! :lol:On the other hand, they can go on with their marketing processes as of today. (Placing in more mega-pixels onto the sensor) BUT the camera bodies and features MUST be the same for (Both!) types!!
All thisare my opinions ofcouse. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
|
![]()
bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
I think the Fujis have addressed the noise issue fairly well despite having a small sensor. I have the F30 and only use it as back up for my DSLR, but the Fujis are an excellent choice for thosewho simply doen't want to go DSLR. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
|
![]()
bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |||||||||||
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Lesbs wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 61
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Actually I just started this rumour in the hopes that someone steals this idea and actually makes it come true. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]() Quote:
I agree; The Fuji SuperCCD cameras are especially remarkable in the high ISO performance area. I meant "What?" such a tiny 1/1.7"image sensor have an ISO range of ISO 100 - ISO 3200??? :shock:Shocking isn't it for an ultra compact size image sensor...Furthermore, the ISO performance is also great, yes great, for such a tiny image sensor. (I was certainly very impressed) Finally, SuperCCD(s) aside; Sadly, a lot of new cameras out there today are PRETENDING to havethe great high ISO performance when they are NOT!! These types of digital cameras usually also have an impressive range of ISO levels. However the truth is, they are not performing as wellas the previous lower MP count image sensors with the lower "stated"ISO levels.I am finding it RIDICULOUS that the higher pixel counts of today'simage sensorscan be having ahigher range of ISO levels than the older ones with lower MP counts;it should all have been the other way round! (Considering that more MP have been cramped into similar sized image sensors!) Perhaps the camera manufacturers of today are acting desperately, trying to force the gain of the smaller photo-sites up to higher ISO levels anyway? Where it could all have been so much better, if they had done that to those previous image sensors; with the larger photo-sites. (Clearly) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
|
![]()
Photography has never in its history expirienced such an embarrasment of riches that we have today. Ten years ago there were few, if any, options to capture such high quality high-iso images.
It rather seems that camera makers have decided this expiriment in additional sensetivity is a fruitless pursuit, and are stepping back to pursue higher resolution instead (no doubt spurred by the marketing pukes and accountants). Most DSLR's have roughly a 6micron or 8micron pixel pitch. In the APS format thats 6mp and 10mp, in full frame 35mm it is 12mp and 24mp. The cameras known (through real-world testing and expirience) to be the better performers at high-iso settings are generally the ones with about an 8 micron pixel pitch. Its no coincidence. All these cameras seem to be phasing out though, in favor of the higher resolution models. It will be interesting to see how long before Canon releases a 24mp FF, and when they do which market it will be targeted at. Even though there appears to be demand in the forums for more sensetivity, I have a hard time seeing manufacturers regress to lower resolutions. They will of course find ways to further mitigate noise issues in high density sensors, but I dont know if it will be the same (overall end-quality wise). Now is a good time to buy, because by the time todays camera will need to be replaced this issue will be a little better sorted I think. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
The old Nikon D1H digital SLR released back in February2001, has only 2.7 million (total)sensor photo detectors on it's 23.7 x 15.5 mm Nikon DX CCD; this particular CCD has exactly the same dimensions as the ones ontoday's Nikon digital SLR cameras (With the higher MP counts). [Impressive isn't it?] Well, even more impressive was it's ISO range of ISO 200 - ISO 6400. Now, this is no ordinary ISO range as on today's boosted ISO camera series. Instead, the ISO 6400 of the Nikon D1Hwas looking more like the ISO1600 qualitytaken bytoday's dSLR cameras; and that's very impressive considering that thoseISO 1600shotstaken bytoday's dSLRs are usually viewedat smaller print sizes. We can expect an ISO 6400 shot to have more potential, especially when it comes to sports or fast action shootouts.
Iwas just trying to demonstrate that thelarger photosites/lower MP count image sensorsare having definite qualities over the higher MP/smaller photositescounterpart. Ofcouse, if theISO 6400 on the D1H's CCD can already be this good, you can expect the ISO 800, ISO 1600, & the ISO 3200 of itto be fantastic. [It's ISO1600 is just looking like theISO 400 on today's (Good)dSLR cameras] Not mentioning that the camera also hardly uses any N.R. for it's images by default. I cannot imagine how good itcan all get ifcombined with today's imaging processors and imaging algorithms etc.... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|