L Lenses for crop bodies
- Thread starter koolman
- Start date
An image shot with the d800 in DX mode will have better iso performance than a canon aps-c camera also. Its due to Nikon doing a better job in that department right now not some phantom photon noise due to the sensor size
Edit: does the d800 have better per pixel iso performance than canon or Nikon aps-c cameras?
Edit: does the d800 have better per pixel iso performance than canon or Nikon aps-c cameras?
Upvote
0
candc said:
I do not have a screen large enough to view a landscape at 100%.
Don't you understand that the so called 100% view represents different magnifications of the same image? What sane people care about is noise at a reference view size. For example, I view my images full screen on whatever computer I am using.
I guess Nikon failed to do such a good job with the D600/D610? Having larger pixels, they should have less noise, right? And how come the D800 has better noise than Nikon crop cameras?
Phantom photon noise? Let me guess, you think that Earth is flat, too?
paul13walnut5 said:
Yes, under the implicit assumptions, but so what? Google "photon noise", then google the webpage of Emil at U of Chicago.
paul13walnut5 said:
Does the D600 have larger pixels? It does.
Upvote
0
Pi said:candc said:
I do not have a screen large enough to view a landscape at 100%.
Don't you understand that the so called 100% view represents different magnifications of the same image? What sane people care about is noise at a reference view size. For example, I view my images full screen on whatever computer I am using.
I guess Nikon failed to do such a good job with the D600/D610? Having larger pixels, they should have less noise, right? And how come the D800 has better noise than Nikon crop cameras?
Phantom photon noise? Let me guess, you think that Earth is flat, too?
paul13walnut5 said:
Yes, under the implicit assumptions, but so what? Google "photon noise", then google the webpage of Emil at U of Chicago.
paul13walnut5 said:
Does the D600 have larger pixels? It does.
When you are comparing 100% crops you are comparing them on a per pixel basis
Upvote
0
It has been fun but I am done with this nonsense. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about this:
Effects of sensor size
The size of the image sensor, or effective light collection area per pixel sensor, is the largest determinant of signal levels that determine signal-to-noise ratio and hence apparent noise levels, assuming the aperture area is proportional to sensor area, or that the f-number or focal-plane illuminance is held constant. That is, for a constant f-number, the sensitivity of an imager scales roughly with the sensor area, so larger sensors typically create lower noise images than smaller sensors. In the case of images bright enough to be in the shot noise limited regime, when the image is scaled to the same size on screen, or printed at the same size, the pixel count makes little difference to perceptible noise levels – the noise depends primarily on sensor area, not how this area is divided into pixels.
Emil Martinec, U. of Chicago:
Bottom line: Among the important measures of image quality are signal-to-noise ratio of the capture process, and resolution. It was shown that for fixed sensor format, the light collection efficiency per unit area is essentially independent of pixel size, over a huge range of pixel sizes from 2 microns to over 8 microns, and is therefore independent of the number of megapixels. Noise performance per unit area was seen to be only weakly dependent on pixel size.
I should also refer to myself, too, see my posts above.
Effects of sensor size
The size of the image sensor, or effective light collection area per pixel sensor, is the largest determinant of signal levels that determine signal-to-noise ratio and hence apparent noise levels, assuming the aperture area is proportional to sensor area, or that the f-number or focal-plane illuminance is held constant. That is, for a constant f-number, the sensitivity of an imager scales roughly with the sensor area, so larger sensors typically create lower noise images than smaller sensors. In the case of images bright enough to be in the shot noise limited regime, when the image is scaled to the same size on screen, or printed at the same size, the pixel count makes little difference to perceptible noise levels – the noise depends primarily on sensor area, not how this area is divided into pixels.
Emil Martinec, U. of Chicago:
Bottom line: Among the important measures of image quality are signal-to-noise ratio of the capture process, and resolution. It was shown that for fixed sensor format, the light collection efficiency per unit area is essentially independent of pixel size, over a huge range of pixel sizes from 2 microns to over 8 microns, and is therefore independent of the number of megapixels. Noise performance per unit area was seen to be only weakly dependent on pixel size.
I should also refer to myself, too,
see my posts above.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
candc said:
Ok, let's try that. At the risk of offending the CROSP*, below are a pair of images shown at 100%. One is from an 18 MP APS-C camera at ISO 3200. The other is from an 18 MP FF camera at ISO 6400. I'm having trouble telling which is which, the noise levels are so similar.
Can anyone help me figure out which is which? :
: : : : *Canon Rumors Obscene Squirrel Police
Attachments
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:candc said:
Ok, let's try that. At the risk of offending the CROSP*, below are a pair of images shown at 100%. One is from an 18 MP APS-C camera at ISO 3200. The other is from an 18 MP FF camera at ISO 6400. I'm having trouble telling which is which, the noise levels are so similar.
Can anyone help me figure out which is which? :
*Canon Rumors Obscene Squirrel Police
viewed at 100% means that you are viewing individual pixel on your monitor correct? 1 to 1?
Upvote
0
you know looking at those crops it struck me that they all look pretty similar but i think the 2 canons are better? maybe what gets argued here so much is really splitting hairs?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
