A review by regular contributor sfwrtr
I like real world impressions from people. Sometimes review sites get a bit too blase when doing reviews. It's bound to happen when you do 100 of them a year!
I also can't seem to get my hands on a production model, so this is all I have to go on.
Thanks for the link sfwrtr
A reader sent in a comment with something that annoys him with Canon.
“What about canon software? Its about time they release a bundle that is upgradeable by the click of a button like all other softwares. Who is not sick of looking through the website for the correct update. come on lets make this happen!!”
Canon Rumors agrees.
DXO Sensor Testing
A reader (our new Nikon guy!) has sent in some impressions about DXO's sensor testing and what is inside Nikon & Sony cameras.
“Now check the D3 (D700) sensor and the Sony A900. Close enough in performance to be identical. D3 (D700) and A900 use the same sensor but use different processing, hence the insignificant difference. How can a 12MP and a 24MP have identical performance? Hmm, if the sensors used in the cameras were identical then the performance would be identical. The D3X uses the same Sony 24MP FF sensor as the D3 and when DXO gets a D3X the test result will be the same. D3 = A900 = D3X. How have your search results gone for a Sony 12MP FF Cmos Sensor?”
To answer your question, I've found nothing about a FF 12mp Sony Sensor. I keep hearing from various sources that Sony is manufacturing Nikon designed sensors. I'm not sure if I'm fully behind the idea that a Sony sensor factory is producing stuff that Sony can't use. That just isn't a very Sony thing to do. :)
Apparently the Swiss think so highly of the original 5D, they have priced it accordingly!
5D – 3115 CHF = $2554 USD
5D Mark II – 2982 CHF = $2445 USD
WTF is all this talk about Nikon?? If i want nikon news, i read nikonr(t)umors.
HAHA, I apologize… that’s 3 Nikon posts in one week.
Your “nikon guy” is an idiot.
The D3 and D700 use a 12MP Nikon designed sensor. As for who’s producing it…. the assumption is Sony, but who the heck knows. The rumors of the 12mp sensor really being a 24mp sensor underneath were total bupkis.
The D3x and the A900 appear to use the same sony sensor with different hardware backing it. Nikon just took the “best” sensor sony had to offer and paird it with better noise handling and processing which made it outperform the heck out of what sony did in the A900.
CR, thanks for the link! I’ve updated the review, and will continue updating the page to answer email questions and requests, and to add more commentary.
I may be “doe-eyed” about the camera… Well, I will admit that I am exceptionally happy! I guess it shows in my writing. My brother now has my 20D rig.
I’ve been a photographer for 36 years. The only time I pixel-peep is when it affects the presentation of the picture (I share Micheal Reichmann’s philosophy about this). I do it mostly to manage noise and sharpening artifacts. Okay, okay, I also pixel-peeped to assure myself the 5D Mark II would be substantially less noise than the 20D. OMG…
I have taken pictures all over the world (and at children’s parties, weddings, science fiction conventions, etc.). I captured over 60,000 frames with the 20D. More than a third were taken at ISO 1600. Many were taken in poor light and under challenging conditions, with L glass. I do have experience with this. I know what would look good in print (and I only print 8×10 and above). Yes, there is banding in the H2 images if you gather too much shadow area, especially with smooth, featureless regions. You must make the image bright and provide texture to prevent the worst banding. Go ahead, pixel-peep my full-res 25,600 ISO example. I’ve now added a fourth example to my web page, this one show how bad H2 can be (but its not “a joke”). Color is really not an H2 option (its badly blotchy and video-like), and it is marginal on H1. But you can make H2 work.
For photojournalists willing to capture monochrome, H1 and H2 is workable. The point about my high ISO film comparison is that 5D Mark II frames far exceed what you can get from a dark room in quality, not just the ISO reach.
Will I make art-prints from H2 or H1 frames? Maybe, rarely… for special subject or captures. It depends on the image! Nice, contrasty, grainy, crunchy, B&W photos have their own special aesthetic. Think back about those you have seen. Some are iconic. I am certainly going to try to make some.
I have no qualms about 3200, or 6400, though.
Thanks for the review!
As for shooting in the dark when you can’t see, personally I would say that you have over-exposed the samples, and thus made the noise worse than it could be.
If the scene is dark, make it look dark. It’s when you amplify light that really isn’t there that noise becomes an issue. You are in effect pushing the ISO a few extra stops, making it look worse than it would be if you exposed the scene as it really was.
I realize these are tests, but it’s very possible to shoot H1 and H2 and have them look very clean, even without noise reduction in post.