70D vs D7100 ISO Comparison at 100%

[Skulker]

Here is an discussion group 2001 and regarding scanners (before the real digital SLR time)http://www.lexa.ru/FS/msg12761.html

hi ankorwatt

did you really mean to link to a post were you said "you are totally wrong" and then had to correct less than 2 hours later with "my mistake, sorry".

I was just wondering if you really think that link improves your credibility?

 

[aj1575]

The test means nothing if they were not exposed the same way, and there is no mentioning of that. Also, NR is on , one of the shots is misfocused, etc.

I do not agree with the active NR is a negative point about the test; it just depends what you like to test. Is it only the sensor, or the image pipeline as a whole, or the camera. Since I buy a camera, I'm interested what the camera ca do, this includes NR. If the NR withhin one camera is better than within another, than this is a selling point.

 

[Skulker]

Here is an discussion group 2001 and regarding scanners (before the real digital SLR time)http://www.lexa.ru/FS/msg12761.html

hi ankorwatt

did you really mean to link to a post were you said "you are totally wrong" and then had to correct less than 2 hours later with "my mistake, sorry".

I was just wondering if you really think that link improves your credibility?

sorry, you must be more precise, every one makes mistake, or often in my case the are spelling, translation problems.
its sounds good in my head but not text wise when I look at it again

I also try not to be so burdus after a number of attacks that has nothing to with the discussed subject or facts

I know we all make mistakes Ankorwatt, but I was just puzzled. Someone was questioning your credibility and you gave a reference that was just a comment over a decade old were you were correcting yourself for clearly saying someone else was "totally wrong" when it was you who was in fact "totally wrong".

There was no problem with spelling or translation. You were simply wrong when you said, rather rudely, that someone else was wrong.

I still do not understand why you chose that link when Jim was asking for a link to something you have written or published to give you credibility. To me it seems just to undermine your credibility without proving anything other than that you have been rather "burdus" for the last 12 years. Why did you choose it?

 

[Pi]

The test means nothing if they were not exposed the same way, and there is no mentioning of that. Also, NR is on , one of the shots is misfocused, etc.

I do not agree with the active NR is a negative point about the test; it just depends what you like to test. Is it only the sensor, or the image pipeline as a whole, or the camera. Since I buy a camera, I'm interested what the camera ca do, this includes NR. If the NR withhin one camera is better than within another, than this is a selling point.

What if you can tweak the NR (standard, strong)? Then you need tests with all those parameters. Also, how do you define "better"? You need to see what detail is lost vs. the loss of noise, and you need a well focused shot for that.

The main point however is that "the same ISO" means nothing. You need the same exposure.

 

[Skulker]

then show me, so we know what you mean

I was asking you to explain. I can't "show you" why you chose to link to your own mistake.

 

[Loswr]

I know we all make mistakes Ankorwatt, ... you were correcting yourself for clearly saying someone else was "totally wrong" when it was you who was in fact "totally wrong".

To me it seems just to undermine your credibility without proving anything other than that you have been rather "burdus" for the last 12 years.

Actually, it showed something else. 12 years ago, he was capable of admitting that he was wrong. He seems to have unlearned that behavior since then (and is retrospectively applying his current behavior, by implying that his factual error was due to spelling or translation).

 

[Skulker]

I know we all make mistakes Ankorwatt, ... you were correcting yourself for clearly saying someone else was "totally wrong" when it was you who was in fact "totally wrong".

To me it seems just to undermine your credibility without proving anything other than that you have been rather "burdus" for the last 12 years.

Actually, it showed something else. 12 years ago, he was capable of admitting that he was wrong. He seems to have unlearned that behavior since then (and is retrospectively applying his current behavior, by implying that his factual error was due to spelling or translation).

I think you may have a good point there.

 

[Jim O]

My first test is from 1978 Leica summicron-vs a zoom Nikkor 80-200
then search at for example in old Photodo magazines.
is this the best you and others can do , when the arguments runs short, trow garbage at others, it would be better if you and others could met me and argue with facts

If this was a "response" to my questions, it is several things but it didn't answer any of the questions I posed.

I am still waiting for answers. I have searched. Please provide the links since evidently I am too stupid to find them.

Bye the way, that was sarcasm, but I still want the links to your oh so many articles. Saying they're there, and their actually being there are two different things. It's time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

I think it is little bit hard to find lens, scanner etc reviews from 1978 and forward at the internet from photo magazines
but you can always contact the new Photodo and ask them if they have any
Here is an discussion group 2001 and regarding scanners (before the real digital SLR time)http://www.lexa.ru/FS/msg12761.html
I think you will find a lot if you are interested and searching on my name

what kind of experience do you have regarding tests of camera equipment as dark room, scanners, lenses, film, digital cameras, color handling etc etc ?
O and I forgot, many of you " brand fan boys" like to defame others when the own argument are short / none/ nada , and it is regardless of the camera brand
Try to discuss with facts instead, much more interesting, you maybe will learn something

Well that's still not an "article". It's something from a mailing list.

As for me, well I'm just an average joe trying to learn something from an expert, something you purport to be, so far with little to back it up. I'm not trying to defame you at all. Rather I am giving you a chance to back up what you say about yourself. So far you have come up with zilch, except to try to deflect it back at me. You seem to feel very persecuted by simple questions.

 

[Loswr]

Feel free to direct questions . Several have previously tested my skills as neuro and jrista here at CR a sort of admission test where they have challenge me in many ways.

Tested, challenged, and found wanting.

 

[Apop]

So is this still serious? or is it just comedy....
It's making me laugh and feel smugly.

Ankorwatt is trolling ? or?
Ankorwatt must have some serious issues, maybe even a complex?
The need to proof himself , wanting to be a skillful credible person ?, Why do you need peoples approvement? Why should they credit you or see you as a skillful person?

Also I think appreciation and admiration is not recieved by a person who is screaming for it.
Summing up all you ''achievements'' and titles is misplaced arrogance and will make most people disgust.
If you have great skills and knowledge, there is no need for yourself to address it , people will see and experience it and complement you for it.

Also, the most credible persons can talk a lot of rubbish

 

[Loswr]

I admit if Im wrong show me please what you are talking about
and if not fu... of
tired of your innuendo
so up to proof

Do you remember how you earned the sobriquet 'Mikael half-the-photons Risedal'? You insisted - repeatedly, despite being corrected by many people - that enabling the HTP setting reduces by half the number of photons reaching the sensor. Did I just miss your admission that you were wrong somewhere in the repeated handwaving and denials?

 

[Loswr]

I admit if Im wrong show me please what you are talking about
and if not fu... of
tired of your innuendo
so up to proof

Do you remember how you earned the sobriquet 'Mikael half-the-photons Risedal'? You insisted - repeatedly, despite being corrected by many people - that enabling the HTP setting reduces by half the number of photons reaching the sensor. Did I just miss your admission that you were wrong somewhere in the repeated handwaving and denials?

you have not get it even today , have you?
to create a head room and increase the gain at base iso you have to expose half of the original time/f-stop= You let in the half light/photones compared to base iso.= shorten the time=create a head room = time= equal to metering 200iso
Go back and study the subject head room Neuro

Same old Mikael, wrong still. When I'm in manual mode (that's the one with the M, where the user sets the aperture and shutter speed, in case you didn't know that), and then I enable HTP, the number of photons hitting the sensor does not change. The shutter speed does not change. The aperture does not change. How is the number of photons changing in anything except your own imagination?

Go back and study what a photon is, and what determines how many reach the sensor (hint: it's not ISO) or just read your camera's manual, it's all in there.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, intransigent, and generally making yourself look silly, once again.

 

[Loswr]

I admit if Im wrong show me please what you are talking about
and if not fu... of
tired of your innuendo
so up to proof

Do you remember how you earned the sobriquet 'Mikael half-the-photons Risedal'? You insisted - repeatedly, despite being corrected by many people - that enabling the HTP setting reduces by half the number of photons reaching the sensor. Did I just miss your admission that you were wrong somewhere in the repeated handwaving and denials?

you have not get it even today , have you?
to create a head room and increase the gain at base iso you have to expose half of the original time/f-stop= You let in the half light/photones compared to base iso.= shorten the time=create a head room = time= equal to metering 200iso
Go back and study the subject head room Neuro

Same old Mikael, wrong still. When I'm in manual mode (that's the one with the M, where the user sets the aperture and shutter speed, in case you didn't know that), and then I enable HTP, the number of photons hitting the sensor does not change. The shutter speed does not change. The aperture does not change. How is the number of photons changing in anything except your own imagination?

Go back and study what a photon is, and what determines how many reach the sensor (hint: it's not ISO), or just read your camera's manual, it's all in there.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, intransigent, and generally making yourself look silly, once again.

 

[Loswr]

I have shown you

You have shown me you're still wrong. You asked for an error of yours to be pointed out, where you refused to admit your mistake. I did so, and you're still not admitting it.

M mode, 1/100 s, f/8, ISO 400, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference. Av mode, f/5.6, ISO 200, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference.

If your 'explanation' only applies in a very specific case, it's a bad explanation. If you cannot understand that you're explanation is poor and often wrong, then you have a limited grasp of the relevant concepts. Yet you always tell those who thoroughly grasp the concepts that they 'should study'.

Whatever. It was pointless the first time, it's even more so now. 30 years of experience, maybe after 30 more you'll have learned something, but I doubt it.

 

[mjbehnke]

BOB N has now presented the figures for 70D regarding read out noise, DR etc
here we can se 70d in comparison with one Toshiba and one Sony made sensor
The read out noise is 4,35 times higher , compare this to 5dmk3 vs d800 there 5dmk3 has 12,2 times higher read out noise.

Dumb question? Why is the sensor for the Canon dated 10/1/2010 on this chart? Isn't that a little odd if the 70D uses a new sensor??

 

[Jim O]

M mode, 1/100 s, f/8, ISO 400, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference. Av mode, f/5.6, ISO 200, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference.

This is basic physics, assuming of course the situation external to the camera is controlled. Anyone who does not understand this can easily learn it. Admitting one is wrong is another story evidently.

Again, assuming controlled lighting from outside the camera, the number of photons hitting the sensor can only be changed by exposure settings - the f-stop and the amount of time the shutter is open. No artificial computer driven setting in the camera's software can magically create photons or destroy them. That is contrary to the laws of physics.

 

[ME]

ankorwatt states "Your camera has not indicate that the time as a example are now 1/125sec instead of 1/60sec with same f-stop= halving the in falling light/photons to the sensor due 1 stop shorter exposure time?"

It sounds like he believes that by switching on HTP the shutter speed automatically changes to a faster shutter speed, thereby decreasing the number of photons hitting the sensor. I am fairly ignorant on this and am trying to learn. I wonder if this is a fact or not, and does the exif info indicate a different shutter speed than what was set in M mode before switching on HTP. If it does indicate a faster shutter speed, then ankorwatt is correct. If not, then obviously he is wrong. Sounds like a simple way to prove who is right or not. I cant try it because I dont have the option to use HTP on my camera.

 

[Apop]

M mode, 1/100 s, f/8, ISO 400, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference. Av mode, f/5.6, ISO 200, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference.

This is basic physics, assuming of course the situation external to the camera is controlled. Anyone who does not understand this can easily learn it. Admitting one is wrong is another story evidently.

Again, assuming controlled lighting from outside the camera, the number of photons hitting the sensor can only be changed by exposure settings - the f-stop and the amount of time the shutter is open. No artificial computer driven setting in the camera's software can magically create photons or destroy them. That is contrary to the laws of physics.

Hi, How does changing the Exposure increase or decrease the amount of photons hitting the sensor?
It does make sense(brighter/darker image), but i'm just wondering what actually happens.

 

[Sporgon]

M mode, 1/100 s, f/8, ISO 400, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference. Av mode, f/5.6, ISO 200, change HTP from disabled to enabled, what happens to the number of photons? Nothing. No difference.

This is basic physics, assuming of course the situation external to the camera is controlled. Anyone who does not understand this can easily learn it. Admitting one is wrong is another story evidently.

Again, assuming controlled lighting from outside the camera, the number of photons hitting the sensor can only be changed by exposure settings - the f-stop and the amount of time the shutter is open. No artificial computer driven setting in the camera's software can magically create photons or destroy them. That is contrary to the laws of physics.

Hi, How does changing the Exposure increase or decrease the amount of photons hitting the sensor?
It does make sense(brighter/darker image), but i'm just wondering what actually happens.

According to theoretical physics photons flow, and so aperture physically restricts the amount that can pass, and shutter speed restricts the amount in time.

But from what I understand, it is theoretical physics, the emphasis being on theoretical.

 

[Sporgon]

I have shown you

Whatever. It was pointless the first time, it's even more so now. 30 years of experience, maybe after 30 more you'll have learned something, but I doubt it.

I believe there is an appropriate old saying for this;

'There's no fool like an old fool'.