Nikon representation in NZ

Forums › Digital Imaging › Nikon representation in NZ - what next?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160191 22-Oct-2014 17:53

joker97: is mRAW (around 8MP, from 23 MP) on my Canon 5d MIII any good?

One of the suggested reasons for these various 'small RAW' files I have read is that they allow those for whom it is important to save ENOUGH of a RAW file to prove the authenticity of an image, without needing the huge files.

Also, if you are shooting editorial work, sRAW etc files are almost certainly good enough to produce A4 double page spreads because the printing process will introduce greater degradation of the image than the saved file size does.

Probably not so good for makers of large gallery prints and so on though.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1160210 22-Oct-2014 18:13

Geektastic:
joker97: is mRAW (around 8MP, from 23 MP) on my Canon 5d MIII any good?

One of the suggested reasons for these various 'small RAW' files I have read is that they allow those for whom it is important to save ENOUGH of a RAW file to prove the authenticity of an image, without needing the huge files.

You could be on to it there. I can't find "image authentication" tag option in the D800E I have here. It was there in the D300. Of course that was "cracked" in a year or so - hence useless. Apparently Nikon and Canon are very guarded about how their sraw formats are encoded - this a problem for 3rd party suppliers of conversion software.
Can the D810 save (full) raw and sraw simultaneously?
D810 raw files are a bit larger than D800/E files, Nikon no longer clips black levels below the noise floor. Astro guys who stack images didn't like it - as with multiple stacks they could sometimes extract something. Curiously, quantum efficiency and dynamic range at ISO 100 and above is also marginally lower (Though dynamic range is slightly higher at ISO 64, full-well capacity is almost doubled from the D800, so lower ISO can be used with less risk of clipping). Raw high ISO performance has not improved. Sensor development seems to have plateaued - to some degree.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160219 22-Oct-2014 18:21

the nikon sensors much they are a class above everyone at low iso. And sharper than anyone else. And dinner than everyone else. No need to improve until there is a risk of the others catching up ... right?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160220 22-Oct-2014 18:22

I hate Swype. Finer.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1160485 23-Oct-2014 10:00

joker97: the nikon sensors much they are a class above everyone at low iso. And sharper than anyone else. And dinner than everyone else. No need to improve until there is a risk of the others catching up ... right?

The advantage is only really in low iso dynamic range.

Unless there's some revolutionary change, I think it's over - or at least we're close...
The following chart from Bill Claff's site produced from analysis of raw files from various cameras:

The top line plot "Ideal DX" plots signal to noise ratio (normalised to a standard print or viewing size and expressed as "photographic dynamic range") of a hypothetical "perfect" DX sized sensor, which is 100% efficient (captures and records every photon after allowing for the effect of the CFA). The linear fall-off in s/n ratio with increasing ISO is based solely on "photon noise" (aka shot noise etc). This can't be avoided, laws of physics, Scotty etc.

Lowest plot is Nikon D1 (1999), then D2x, D40 etc. Mostly you can see that D2x is ie "1 stop better" than the D1 - there's been consistent significant improvement over the 15 year period. It's what we now expect - apparently.

Nikon D7100 and Fuji X-E1 show a couple of things. Efficiency is close to (less than one "stop" from) perfect. Instead of a near linear fall-off in s/n ratio as ISO increases, the D7100 has a "kick in it's tail" above ISO6400. They "cheat" by applying noise reduction (smoothing) to the raw file - in Nikon's case at above "real" ISO setting (ISO 12800 on the D7100 is "Hi - 1.0") The D810 shows the same "kick" as the D7100 - I'd bet the D750 when analysed will show the same.
Fuji XE-1 is extreme - above ISO 1600 increasing amounts of noise reduction is applied to raw files - there's no reduction in measured increase in measured s/n ratio any more - in fact it's so blatant that at ISO 3200 and above - performance is better than theoretically possible (if photons were snow flakes, then for every 100 which fall, Fuji want you to believe they can capture more than 100).

Meh - the last dslr I used which I thought seriously limited my photography was a D70. The dim viewfinder annoyed the cr*p out of me, it lacked features I wanted, the aa filter was too weak and produced moire & aliasing, the rear LCD was way too small, and the out of camera jpegs were bad with random blobs and artifacts. Canon's dslrs at the time were streets ahead on sensor performance. However, the old D70 got me hooked - being able to take a photo and produce a pretty damned good 12x8" print a few minutes later with a desktop inkjet photo printer was priceless.

These days, choose the camera you want, and you can't really go too far wrong. I bought the used D800E I'm using on a whim, price was too low for me to resist, it exceeds my needs - and I'll never use a lot of the features. Having used Nikon bodies for years it fits me like an old boot - don't need to think about what I'm doing when using it.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160517 23-Oct-2014 10:24

Umm the signal to noise ratio in the shadows on the current gen nikon fx sensors beats everything else to 400/800 iso.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160519 23-Oct-2014 10:25

A god given giftt for landscape and outdoor photographers

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1160534 23-Oct-2014 10:43

joker97: Umm the signal to noise ratio in the shadows on the current gen nikon fx sensors beats everything else to 400/800 iso.

Yes. D800E / Canon 5DIII :

No contest.
So long as you expose to not blow highlights, recoverable (without increasing noise to objectionable levels) shadow detail offers incredible dynamic range.
That can still be improved in future, by further reduction in read noise and increase in full well capacity = increased dynamic range at even lower ISO settings.
And/or - with all other things being equal - with larger sensors.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1160546 23-Oct-2014 11:15

joker97: A god given giftt for landscape and outdoor photographers

Yes - but often overstated IMO.
You can push shadows so hard from a low ISO exposure to produce an excellent technical quality HDR effect image from a single raw file. But would you really want to do that - except as a "special effect"?
Pushing shadows to recover detail that the naked eye sees, but isn't well captured by a camera without some post-processing can create a natural looking image. Pushed too hard - it looks unnatural.
Landscape went through a few fads, over-saturated exaggerated colours was one - it looked unnatural but caught the eye. Then everybody started doing it even TV programs. Time exposure with seascape/rocks etc using ND filter etc - it looked unnatural but caught the eye. Then everybody started doing it. HDR from multiple exposure so that the darkest shadows became light, and people became cartoon caricatures of reality - it looked unnatural but caught the eye. Then everybody started doing it. Same with movies, time lapse scenery shot from a camera mounted on a sliding rail (think opening credits for "House of Cards" etc). Prior to this was freeze-frame shot with multiple cameras set on a rail, then assembled as a rotating viewpoint moving scene with a subject frozen in midair etc (used in many movies, TV ads etc - but not so much lately as everybody started doing it.
I struggle with this. Is it okay to drop a cut and paste sunset sky behind a picture of the lemon tree in your back yard, and hang the photo on your wall as art? I don't have the answer to that. I suppose if you like the result - then anything goes.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160555 23-Oct-2014 11:26

You don't need to push shadows to benefit from this. When I pixel peep (ok ok I confess my sin) my 5d3 has despicable chroma noise in the shadows and midtones without pushing. And don't even think about pushing.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1160589 23-Oct-2014 12:14

joker97: You don't need to push shadows to benefit from this. When I pixel peep (ok ok I confess my sin) my 5d3 has despicable chroma noise in the shadows and midtones without pushing. And don't even think about pushing.

What we need more than anything is:
Cheap iMac 5k Retina screens - but with IPS panels - to keep our "pixel peeping" under control. 1:1 pixel view of a D800 file on a typical monitor is like looking at a 2 metre wide print from 25cm away. Seeing detail is great on landscape prints - but if you stuck your nose up that close to a 2m wide print in a gallery, a security guard would scrag you and throw you out on the street, with a "don't come back soon" trespass notice.
At least then, obsessives will need to press "200% view" or "400% view" - so will know without doubt they're being obsessive. "But I can see the noise on my 30" screen, at 100% view, when I'm really up close and wearing my +2.5 diopter reading glasses" has that hint of moderate insanity to it.
Epson and Canon to produce printer ink at prices that no longer make Walter White look like a philanthropist.
I've printed 18 x 12s from files from my D300 which looked a little grainy in the sky or in pushed shadows when viewed on screen, but were as smooth as a baby's bottom when printed.
I'm too scared to hit the print button often enough these days - I'm getting meaner in my dotage - I hate knowing when I'm being fleeced.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1160596 23-Oct-2014 12:22

I use a 4k screen on a 15" laptop.

Anyway, someone said files sizes not an issue, for nomads who only use laptop like me it is somewhat an issue

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1161770 24-Oct-2014 22:07

joker97: I use a 4k screen on a 15" laptop.

Anyway, someone said files sizes not an issue, for nomads who only use laptop like me it is somewhat an issue

It's an issue for me for the same reason.

I was on the road for 2 months this year (same last year) and now use Thunderbolt drives and a USB3.0 card reader. Even 24Mp RAW files take a while - I have yet to experience downloading a day of 36Mp RAW files but fully expect to be making a cup of tea while waiting!

Certainly a new Macbook Air this FY I think.

Also the memory card prices in NZ are very high (and Lacklands just put Sandisk prices up again!) when compared with say the US - I usually order mine from there. Large RAW files fill them up PDQ to be honest.

A Sandisk Extreme Pro 256 GB card is NZ$1800 here and the equivalent of NZ$1000 cheaper in the USA...!!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1161941 25-Oct-2014 10:01

D810 has USB3 so you can connect the camera directly. If it's like my 800E though, then my Lexar USB 3 reader seems to be a little bit faster. I just measured time to transfer 10 x 42MB average raw files (14 bit lossless compressed) from a Sandisk Ultra CF card (50 MB/s claimed speed) and "400x" (60MB/s claimed read speed) Lexar SD card - which wasn't very expensive. Just over and just under 10 seconds - 1 second per raw file and very close to claimed read speeds. That's not using the fastest cards. I don't see that as a bottleneck in any way. Direct from camera, speeds were a little slower, just over 10 seconds from the SD card.
IMO it's certainly not enough to warrant paying a huge premium for faster cards. If I shot video - then perhaps - but I never do. YMMV.
Beware counterfeit cards.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4