Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared

AreBee

Inverness, UK
531 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared"

AreBee Registered since 27th Apr 2008
Sun 12-Feb-12 09:02 PM | edited Sun 12-Feb-12 09:10 PM by AreBee

Bill,

>I expect sensor performance to continue to improve toward the "ideal" for all sensor sizes. But, you can see we're already getting pretty close, especially at high ISOs.<

Yes, I had noticed the tendency for the results to coverge with the relevant "ideal" upperbound line at higher ISO values.

Do you consider that the "ideal" lines will become increasingly hard to approach, or instead that in 1, perhaps 2 further sensor iterations we will have reached that limit?

>So in the future I see more people considering going to a larger format rather than a better camera at the same format if they need better high ISO performance.<

Is it not more correct to say "...if they need better performance at any ISO setting"?

>This effect is accentuated in CMOS designs with multiple amplification stages as opposed to CCD designs that often have only one stage.<

My understanding is that digital Medium Format cameras, with their larger CCD sensors, are usually poor performers at even moderate ISO settings compared to a smaller format sensor like FX. Yet, if I understand correctly what you have written, the slope of the DR results for a MF camera would be less than it is for a smaller format camera. That can't be correct can it?

>I think the "shoulder" at low ISOs will always be there although it might become of no practical importance in the future. You could also eliminate the shoulder by sacrificing some high ISO performance.<

Now that is interesting. The reason I asked the 3rd question in my previous post was because I figured that if the nonlinear portion is extrapolated backward from the linear portion then greater DR would be achievable at low ISO settings. You have stated that by sacrificing high ISO performance, the shoulder could be eliminated. By that did you mean made linear? If so, the obvious question to me is: for camera bodies optimised for high resolution, why isn't it? Consider, for example, the photographer who always shoots on a tripod or in a studio (or outdoors) working with strobe lighting. These photographers have next to no requirement for anything other than base ISO. The loss of high ISO performance in exchange for an increase in DR would be very welcome.

Rob
www.robbuckle.co.uk

A general, generic topic Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared [View all] , bclaff Awarded for multiple contributions for the Resources , Thu 09-Feb-12 05:03 AM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
1
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
2
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
3
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
4
     Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
5
          Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
6
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
7
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
8
     Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
9
          Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
10
Reply message RE: Nikon D800 Read Noise Measured and Compared
11