Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nikon D800 DSLR with 36 MP to be announced on February 7, 2012
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Bruce
Feb 3, 2012, 8:08:28 AM2/3/12
to
At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
It will have a 36.3 MP Sony sensor and 1080p video, but we shouldn't
expect the same low noise/high ISO performance of the D700.
While the D700 is officially discontinued, I would not be surprised to
see a successor with lower MP than the D800 and therefore lower noise
and a lower price too. A D700s, perhaps?
No mention of the D400 yet.
Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
It will have a 36.3 MP Sony sensor and 1080p video, but we shouldn't
expect the same low noise/high ISO performance of the D700.
While the D700 is officially discontinued, I would not be surprised to
see a successor with lower MP than the D800 and therefore lower noise
and a lower price too. A D700s, perhaps?
No mention of the D400 yet.
Darrell Larose
Feb 3, 2012, 12:15:18 PM2/3/12
to
Bruce wrote:
> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>
In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>
replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here at
$2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
> It will have a 36.3 MP Sony sensor and 1080p video, but we shouldn't
> expect the same low noise/high ISO performance of the D700.
>
guess would be a D800 will feature the chipset of the D3s, with some
features disabled (either via hardware or firmware). My logic is based
on Nikon's previous methods, to recover as much R&D from their chips.
I note most camera rumour sites peg a new camera pixel count at higher
than what appears. I also note most of the Canon 5D mk.III peg it at
21-25 MP. The trend lately is to improve video performance (not that is
a selling point for me) and noise reduction. That is a sales point for
me. All dSLR cameras on the market have outstanding signal-to-noise
performance, I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films
out of the water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address
dynamic range (the other weak area of digital!)
>
> While the D700 is officially discontinued, I would not be surprised to
> see a successor with lower MP than the D800 and therefore lower noise
> and a lower price too. A D700s, perhaps?
>
higher pixel sensor, but I won't hold my breath.
>
> No mention of the D400 yet.
>
>
Darrell Larose
_____________________________________________
web: http://DarrellLarose.ca
blog: http://DarrellLarose.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________
RichA
Feb 3, 2012, 12:33:08 PM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 12:15 pm, Darrell Larose <Darrell.Lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> > At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
> > Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>
> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here at
> $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
$3699. My guess.
> Bruce wrote:
> > At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
> > Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>
> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here at
> $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 3, 2012, 5:54:38 PM2/3/12
to
Darrell Larose <Darrell...@gmail.com> writes:
> Bruce wrote:
>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>
> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
> at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
> Bruce wrote:
>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>
> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
> at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.
>> It will have a 36.3 MP Sony sensor and 1080p video, but we shouldn't
>> expect the same low noise/high ISO performance of the D700.
>>
> I also don't buy a 36.6 MP, as that would be higher than the D3X. My
> guess would be a D800 will feature the chipset of the D3s, with some
> features disabled (either via hardware or firmware). My logic is based
> on Nikon's previous methods, to recover as much R&D from their chips.
I'd much prefer if you were right -- the D800 as rumored is NOT a
successor to the D700 any more than the D3x was a successor to the D3.
> I note most camera rumour sites peg a new camera pixel count at higher
> than what appears. I also note most of the Canon 5D mk.III peg it at
> 21-25 MP. The trend lately is to improve video performance (not that
> is a selling point for me) and noise reduction. That is a sales point
> for me. All dSLR cameras on the market have outstanding
> signal-to-noise performance, I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will
> blow high ISO films out of the water. I see many cameras now with
> in-camera HDR to address dynamic range (the other weak area of
> digital!)
can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
P&S cameras often (though not universally).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Trevor
Feb 3, 2012, 9:03:53 PM2/3/12
to
"Darrell Larose" <Darrell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgh4ng$at6$1...@darrelllarose.eternal-september.org...
>I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
>water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
>(the other weak area of digital!)
Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
>water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
>(the other weak area of digital!)
noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 3, 2012, 9:08:12 PM2/3/12
to
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfkhaz7...@dd-b.net...
> Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
> can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
> P&S cameras often (though not universally).
With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
> can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
> P&S cameras often (though not universally).
definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
universal.
Trevor.
Floyd L. Davidson
Feb 3, 2012, 9:56:13 PM2/3/12
to
In about 3 days you are in for a big surprise!
Other than the estimate for a price tag, none of your
conjecture is very likely.
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Other than the estimate for a price tag, none of your
conjecture is very likely.
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Rich
Feb 3, 2012, 10:29:26 PM2/3/12
to
Darrell Larose <Darrell...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jgh4ng$at6$1
@darrelllarose.eternal-september.org:
> Bruce wrote:
>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>
> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here at
> $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
>
>> I
$3699 Can. $3599 U.S. My guess. 36mp! Remember what the D3x cost with
it's "meagre" 24mp?
@darrelllarose.eternal-september.org:
> Bruce wrote:
>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>
> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here at
> $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
>
>> I
it's "meagre" 24mp?
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:17:32 AM2/8/12
to
In article <jgi3lt$321$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:
> >I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
> >water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
> >(the other weak area of digital!)
>
> Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
> noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
> film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
> because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
digital is already well beyond anything film could manage, and has been
for many years.
wrote:
> >I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
> >water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
> >(the other weak area of digital!)
>
> Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
> noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
> film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
> because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
for many years.
Mike
Feb 8, 2012, 10:24:47 AM2/8/12
to
shoot with medium format.
--
Mike
nospam
Feb 8, 2012, 10:29:19 AM2/8/12
to
In article <jgu43u$vvv$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mike <no...@none.invalid>
different types of film.
the fact is that pretty much everything you can do with digital could
only be imagined with film, such as shooting iso 3200 with no
perceptible noise.
wrote:
> >>> I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
> >>> water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
> >>> (the other weak area of digital!)
> >>
> >> Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
> >> noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
> >> film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
> >> because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
> >
> > digital is already well beyond anything film could manage, and has been
> > for many years.
>
> Wasn't 35mm colour negative film about 6-8 megapixels? That's why pros
> shoot with medium format.
there's no direct number equivalent, especially since there are so many
> >>> I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
> >>> water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
> >>> (the other weak area of digital!)
> >>
> >> Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
> >> noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
> >> film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
> >> because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
> >
> > digital is already well beyond anything film could manage, and has been
> > for many years.
>
> Wasn't 35mm colour negative film about 6-8 megapixels? That's why pros
> shoot with medium format.
different types of film.
the fact is that pretty much everything you can do with digital could
only be imagined with film, such as shooting iso 3200 with no
perceptible noise.
Darrell Larose
Feb 8, 2012, 12:30:26 PM2/8/12
to
based on real world opinions.
From my experience in photo labs, a 2004 6-8 megapixel APS-C dSLR
camera beat the larger 35mm ISO 100 Kodacolor negative, as there was
always a bit of quality loss in most machine prints. And considering the
APS-C format was closer to a 35mm half-frame, that is very telling. The
4x6" print was a large as 75% of all prints made. The film may have
recorded more lp/in but suffered losses in machine printing. Color slide
film like Fuji Velvia and Astia was 8-10 megapixels. Kodak Techpan was
around 15-20 MP. Again comparing a 24x36mm film frame with the 15.7 x
23.6 mm (APS-C).
So an APS-C printed 4x6" is the same as a FF 35mm neg printed 5x8". If I
shoot any current dSLR at 1600ISO I have left film behind in the grit of
grain. IMHO the noisiest sensor is still cleaner than high ISO film. The
reason all the big (white) f:2.8 lenses were invented, was to permit a
pro to shoot a lower ISO film, so he/she would get higher quality.
400ISO with a f:28, was preferred to 1600ISO of an f:4 zoom...
Trevor
Feb 8, 2012, 8:54:35 PM2/8/12
to
news:jgubf8$vjo$1...@darrelllarose.eternal-september.org...
:-)
People still like their fast lenses even with 6400ISO being usable on quite
a few cameras now.
> 400ISO with a f:2.8, was preferred to 1600ISO of an f:4 zoom...
Of course, since the latter would be overexposed if the former was correct!
(quite apart from any grain issues :-)
Trevor.
> If I shoot any current dSLR at 1600ISO I have left film behind in the grit
> of grain. IMHO the noisiest sensor is still cleaner than high ISO film.
> The reason all the big (white) f:2.8 lenses were invented, was to permit a
> pro to shoot a lower ISO film, so he/she would get higher quality.
Agreed, but then there is the idea of throwing backgrounds out of focus too.
> of grain. IMHO the noisiest sensor is still cleaner than high ISO film.
> The reason all the big (white) f:2.8 lenses were invented, was to permit a
> pro to shoot a lower ISO film, so he/she would get higher quality.
:-)
People still like their fast lenses even with 6400ISO being usable on quite
a few cameras now.
> 400ISO with a f:2.8, was preferred to 1600ISO of an f:4 zoom...
Of course, since the latter would be overexposed if the former was correct!
(quite apart from any grain issues :-)
Trevor.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 9, 2012, 1:57:10 PM2/9/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
> Darrell Larose <Darrell...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>>
>> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
>> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
>> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
>> at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
>
> nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
> is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
> observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.
And in fact you were right on. Good going!
> Darrell Larose <Darrell...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>>
>> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
>> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
>> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
>> at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
>
> nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
> is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
> observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 9, 2012, 1:57:54 PM2/9/12
to
they're not the same thing.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 9, 2012, 2:01:08 PM2/9/12
to
Darrell Larose <Darrell...@gmail.com> writes:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article<jgi3lt$321$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor<tre...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
>>>> water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
>>>> (the other weak area of digital!)
>>>
>>> Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
>>> noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
>>> film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
>>> because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
>>
>> digital is already well beyond anything film could manage, and has been
>> for many years.
>>
> Generally film and digital can't really be compared, these points are
> based on real world opinions.
>
> From my experience in photo labs, a 2004 6-8 megapixel APS-C dSLR
> camera beat the larger 35mm ISO 100 Kodacolor negative, as there was
> always a bit of quality loss in most machine prints. And considering
> the APS-C format was closer to a 35mm half-frame, that is very
> telling. The 4x6" print was a large as 75% of all prints made. The
> film may have recorded more lp/in but suffered losses in machine
> printing. Color slide film like Fuji Velvia and Astia was 8-10
> megapixels. Kodak Techpan was around 15-20 MP. Again comparing a
> 24x36mm film frame with the 15.7 x 23.6 mm (APS-C).
Resolution is important for aerial and scientific photos and such. For
> nospam wrote:
>> In article<jgi3lt$321$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor<tre...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I shot film since 1970 and a dSLR will blow high ISO films out of the
>>>> water. I see many cameras now with in-camera HDR to address dynamic range
>>>> (the other weak area of digital!)
>>>
>>> Not compared to film it aint, and it's getting better thanks to that low
>>> noise. Hopefully we'll see true 16 bit capabilty soon, well beyond anything
>>> film could manage. HDR is just another useful tool, because you can, not
>>> because it's necessarily a particularly weak area.
>>
>> digital is already well beyond anything film could manage, and has been
>> for many years.
>>
> Generally film and digital can't really be compared, these points are
> based on real world opinions.
>
> From my experience in photo labs, a 2004 6-8 megapixel APS-C dSLR
> camera beat the larger 35mm ISO 100 Kodacolor negative, as there was
> always a bit of quality loss in most machine prints. And considering
> the APS-C format was closer to a 35mm half-frame, that is very
> telling. The 4x6" print was a large as 75% of all prints made. The
> film may have recorded more lp/in but suffered losses in machine
> printing. Color slide film like Fuji Velvia and Astia was 8-10
> megapixels. Kodak Techpan was around 15-20 MP. Again comparing a
> 24x36mm film frame with the 15.7 x 23.6 mm (APS-C).
pictorial uses it's much less important.
Generally, with film, "acceptable enlargeability" (subjective, of
course) was limited by grain artifacts well before lack of resolution
became a visible problem. With digital this is much less the case.
Darrell Larose
Feb 9, 2012, 7:16:28 PM2/9/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> Darrell Larose<Darrell...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>>>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>>>
>>> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
>>> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
>>> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
>>> at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
>>
>> nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
>> is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
>> observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.
>
> And in fact you were right on. Good going!
Thank you David, I've sold cameras for 15 years or so here in Ottawa,
> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> Darrell Larose<Darrell...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> At last, the much-delayed Nikon D800 will be announced next Tuesday.
>>>> Rumours suggest a price around US $4000 or GBP 3000 (incl. 20% tax).
>>>>
>>> In Canada the current MSRP on a D700 is CAD $2,500. In the past the
>>> replacement camera tend to come in at or around the same introduction
>>> price point. I would therefore think a D800 will hit the shelves here
>>> at $2,999. which the D700 was when it was launched.
>>
>> nikonrumors.com gave their highest confidence to a $4000 price. Which
>> is not to say they're right and you're wrong; your historical
>> observation is accurate, and history is a decent predictor in general.
>
> And in fact you were right on. Good going!
Canada. I would like to think I have a handle on trends. The price point
(Nikon MSRP is CAD $3150) but the street price is likely below $3,000
after the initial "I want to be first" buying rush. I was a bit
surprised with the big jump in pixel count, after the D4 was announced
with a small increment over the D3s. That suggests to me a D4x with
similar sensor to the D800 might be announced this fall, or next spring.
Darrell Larose
Feb 9, 2012, 7:23:32 PM2/9/12
to
Genrally photojournalists I know when they shot, packed 400ISO, and
1600ISO emulsions, seldom went with an 800ISO. Grain was grain. Often
they just shot 400ISO, or went with a +2 push to 1600ISO.
Trevor
Feb 9, 2012, 9:09:18 PM2/9/12
to
news:ylfk8vkb...@dd-b.net...
matter) true dynamic range being well above what an 8 bit file can handle.
If you think jpeg compression simply reduces "brightness steps" you are the
one mistaken.
Trevor.
>>> Dynamic range is not a weak area of digital, the usable range (that you
>>> can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
>>> P&S cameras often (though not universally).
>>
>> With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
>> definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
>> universal.
>
> You're confusing number of brightness steps with brightness range;
> they're not the same thing.
Rubbish, I'm talking about nearly all DSLR sensors (and many P&S for that
>>> can put into prints) is bigger than film was in good light, even with
>>> P&S cameras often (though not universally).
>>
>> With most P&S camera's still stuck with 8 bit jpegs, dynamic range is
>> definitely not their strong point. I'd say the exceptions are far from
>> universal.
>
> You're confusing number of brightness steps with brightness range;
> they're not the same thing.
matter) true dynamic range being well above what an 8 bit file can handle.
If you think jpeg compression simply reduces "brightness steps" you are the
one mistaken.
Trevor.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 9, 2012, 10:49:07 PM2/9/12
to
Doug McDonald
Feb 10, 2012, 10:26:52 AM2/10/12
to
>>
>> You're confusing number of brightness steps with brightness range;
>> they're not the same thing.
>
> Rubbish, I'm talking about nearly all DSLR sensors (and many P&S for that
> matter) true dynamic range being well above what an 8 bit file can handle.
> If you think jpeg compression simply reduces "brightness steps" you are the
> one mistaken.
>
the bottom couple of bits are pretty useless making an
effective range of perhaps 10,000:1. That's very good.
If this is unclear, understand "gamma".
Doug McDonald
Trevor
Feb 11, 2012, 6:31:22 PM2/11/12
to
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:jh3cvk$uc5$1...@dont-email.me...
provide the same dynamic range as my Canon 5D raw? Perhaps you can tell me
where to look in the menu, or just what percentage of other P&S camera's
have it if mine doesn't?
Fact is I CAN adjust gamma for the 5D raw files before converting to jpeg,
but as I said originally, most P&S 8bit jpeg only files do NOT have the same
dynamic range. Perhaps you should try them instead of sprouting irrelevent
theory?
Trevor.
David J Taylor
Feb 12, 2012, 1:50:35 AM2/12/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jh6tnq$hu7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
[]
a greater dynamic range (max/min value), but lower precision which may
restrict the ability to post-process the file. It's not as simple as RAW
= 12 bits, JPEG = 8 bits, therefore there is 4 bits less range in the
JPEG, as is sometimes mistakenly stated.
Cheers,
David
news:jh6tnq$hu7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
[]
> Am I missing the pre-shot gamma adjustment in my Canon IXUS that will
> provide the same dynamic range as my Canon 5D raw? Perhaps you can tell
> me where to look in the menu, or just what percentage of other P&S
> camera's have it if mine doesn't?
>
> Fact is I CAN adjust gamma for the 5D raw files before converting to
> jpeg, but as I said originally, most P&S 8bit jpeg only files do NOT
> have the same dynamic range. Perhaps you should try them instead of
> sprouting irrelevent theory?
>
> Trevor.
It really depends exactly how you define dynamic range. 8-bit JPEGs have
> provide the same dynamic range as my Canon 5D raw? Perhaps you can tell
> me where to look in the menu, or just what percentage of other P&S
> camera's have it if mine doesn't?
>
> Fact is I CAN adjust gamma for the 5D raw files before converting to
> jpeg, but as I said originally, most P&S 8bit jpeg only files do NOT
> have the same dynamic range. Perhaps you should try them instead of
> sprouting irrelevent theory?
>
> Trevor.
a greater dynamic range (max/min value), but lower precision which may
restrict the ability to post-process the file. It's not as simple as RAW
= 12 bits, JPEG = 8 bits, therefore there is 4 bits less range in the
JPEG, as is sometimes mistakenly stated.
Cheers,
David
0 new messages