For the LAST TIME...raise your right hand and repeat:
RichA
demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do. Further, I will NOT post
shots concerning noise when I leave Photo Shops default 25% chroma
noise reduction ON during raw processing!"
Thank you.
egbert_no_bacon
i will try my bestest not to do so in future
sorry for any raw deal
Ray Fischer
Similarly, the materials used to construct the camera have nothing to
do with the quality of the images it produces.
Right?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rich
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
I'd agree with that except for two possible exceptions. Some users of
Nikon's D80 and D90 have reported intermittent focusing issues with
heavier lenses like the 17-55mm. This could very well be the result of
body flexture since no other cause has been isolated and the same problem
has not been seen with the D300. But, not many D90 owners are willing to
pay for a 17-55mm so the problem is not a hugely important one. Second,
plastic bodies, black ones, heat up much faster and hotter than black
metal bodies when exposed to the sun. This can lead to higher noise
levels due to the temperature of the sensor being higher, but testing
this possibility is needed with each camera. Additionally, you have to
use these plastic bodies within the realm of their capabilities, which
for Canon and Nikon mean in fair weather (neither has a water-resistent
plastic body).
nospam
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I'd agree with that except for two possible exceptions. Some users of
> Nikon's D80 and D90 have reported intermittent focusing issues with
> heavier lenses like the 17-55mm. This could very well be the result of
> body flexture since no other cause has been isolated and the same problem
> has not been seen with the D300. But, not many D90 owners are willing to
> pay for a 17-55mm so the problem is not a hugely important one.
nonsense. the chassis is metal.
> Second,
> plastic bodies, black ones, heat up much faster and hotter than black
> metal bodies when exposed to the sun.
metal will heat up and conduct it to the internals of the camera faster
than plastic will.
> This can lead to higher noise
> levels due to the temperature of the sensor being higher, but testing
> this possibility is needed with each camera.
have you actually measured the temperature on the sensor? thought not.
> Additionally, you have to
> use these plastic bodies within the realm of their capabilities, which
> for Canon and Nikon mean in fair weather (neither has a water-resistent
> plastic body).
low end cameras, metal or plastic, are not usually weather sealed and
most people don't generally shoot in the rain anyway. buy a plastic bag
if you're that worried.
Ray Fischer
>>>"I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>>>demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
>>>that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do. Further, I will NOT post
>>>shots concerning noise when I leave Photo Shops default 25% chroma
>>>noise reduction ON during raw processing!"
>>
>> Similarly, the materials used to construct the camera have nothing to
>> do with the quality of the images it produces.
>>
>> Right?
>
>I'd agree with that except for two possible exceptions.
One standard for Rich and another for everybody else.
> Some users of
>Nikon's D80 and D90 have reported intermittent focusing issues with
>heavier lenses like the 17-55mm.
Total non sequitur.
> This could very well be the result of
Where did you get your degree in engineering?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
RichA
nospam wrote:
> In article <s6qdna7SpdE_3bHW...@giganews.com>, Rich
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd agree with that except for two possible exceptions. Some users of
> > Nikon's D80 and D90 have reported intermittent focusing issues with
> > heavier lenses like the 17-55mm. This could very well be the result of
> > body flexture since no other cause has been isolated and the same problem
> > has not been seen with the D300. But, not many D90 owners are willing to
> > pay for a 17-55mm so the problem is not a hugely important one.
>
> nonsense. the chassis is metal.
What's it anchored to? Plastic.
> > Second,
> > plastic bodies, black ones, heat up much faster and hotter than black
> > metal bodies when exposed to the sun.
>
> metal will heat up and conduct it to the internals of the camera faster
> than plastic will.
>
Conducts heat better yes, heats up faster, no and not as hot. I've
tested this. Paint or anodizing on a metal surface (black) does not
absorb IR as much as black molded plastic used for camera bodies does.
Chris Malcolm
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4b2c3837$0$1619
> $742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Second,
> plastic bodies, black ones, heat up much faster and hotter than black
> metal bodies when exposed to the sun. This can lead to higher noise
> levels due to the temperature of the sensor being higher,
Or it might the base that while black plastic bodies acquire a high
surface temperature faster than black metal bodies due to their low
thermal conductivity, the sensor inside will be at a lower temperature
due again to the low thermal conductivity. After a long time both
plastic and metal bodies of the same colour would end up the same
temperature all the way through, including the sensor, but that would
take much longer to happen with the plastic body.
BTW, if the higher sensor temperature would give rise to noise
problems, then using your DSLR to take video is really going to mess
things up isn't it?
--
Chris Malcolm
Bristolian
>
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <s6qdna7SpdE_3bHW...@giganews.com>, Rich
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd agree with that except for two possible exceptions. Some users of
>>> Nikon's D80 and D90 have reported intermittent focusing issues with
>>> heavier lenses like the 17-55mm. This could very well be the result of
>>> body flexture since no other cause has been isolated and the same problem
>>> has not been seen with the D300. But, not many D90 owners are willing to
>>> pay for a 17-55mm so the problem is not a hugely important one.
>> nonsense. the chassis is metal.
>
> What's it anchored to? Plastic.
Bristolian: Really Rich, think about what you have just written. If
taken literally (i.e. the metal chassis is anchored to the plastic body)
then you are saying that the plastic is the stronger material of the
two. Kinda goes against your previous ramblings.
>
>>> Second,
>>> plastic bodies, black ones, heat up much faster and hotter than black
>>> metal bodies when exposed to the sun.
>> metal will heat up and conduct it to the internals of the camera faster
>> than plastic will.
>>
>
> Conducts heat better yes, heats up faster, no and not as hot. I've
> tested this. Paint or anodizing on a metal surface (black) does not
> absorb IR as much as black molded plastic used for camera bodies does.
Bristolian: Are you saying that only the IR element of the sun's rays
have a heating effect? Hmm, that's gonna screw up the laws of physics
(as we know them). Metallic substances are denser than plastics (with
one or two very specialised exceptions) which means that their molecules
are packed tighter together resulting in a) more rapid heating (due to
the molecules bumping into each other more) and b) greater heat transfer
through the material (for the same reason).
So, you're either a fucking liar and have never done any tests at all or
just an imbecile - or both.
Have a nice day :-)
--
Regards
Bristolian
bugbear
Aren't you the idiot who competely misinterpreted
the noise in a sub-sampled G10 shot?
BugBear
egbert_no_bacon
wrote:
g10
is that good also?
John Sheehy
e1ebc2...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
> that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do.
I can understand the sentiment here, especially when the Exposure indices
are not especially high. but when we start talking about ISOs of 50K and
greater on high MP cameras, we're not talking about somethiong where large
images are expected. Web-sized images, for journalistic purposes and small
prints, are what we are using these super-high-ISO shots for, in general.
Here's my 7D at ISO 3200, under-exposed 4 stops, for ISO 50K:
http://www.pbase.com/image/118813835/original
You can't do that with a 10D, even a 5D (without banding). You can't do
that with any Olympus or Pentax. You can't do that with the older Nikons,
like the D200 or D2X.
So, I would say there is some value in showing small images - *IF* it
actually means something.
John Sheehy
5b47-449e-a49...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> g10
> is that good also?
Not as good as the 18MP G12! :)
egbert_no_bacon
> egbert_no_bacon <egbert_no_ba...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:b15c1243-
> 5b47-449e-a492-c1c2a08fa...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > g10
> > is that good also?
>
> Not as good as the 18MP G12! :)
do nikon supply a compact with this 18mp
do you know please
Jeff R.
Its a joke. He's being funny.
--
Jeff R.
Chrlz
> > metal will heat up and conduct it to the internals of the camera faster
> > than plastic will.
>
> Conducts heat better yes, heats up faster, no and not as hot. I've
> tested this. Paint or anodizing on a metal surface (black) does not
> absorb IR as much as black molded plastic used for camera bodies does.
OK, Rich, I CALL. Please post all the details of your 'test'.
After all, this goes to the core of your credibility here...
I *do* hope it was done correctly and scientifically.
Bob Larter
I thought that was the P&S Troll. (Admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised
if RichA did it as well...)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>On 20/12/2009 9:55 PM, bugbear wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>>> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
>>> that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do. Further, I will NOT post
>>> shots concerning noise when I leave Photo Shops default 25% chroma
>>> noise reduction ON during raw processing!"
>>
>> Aren't you the idiot who competely misinterpreted
>> the noise in a sub-sampled G10 shot?
>
>I thought that was the P&S Troll. (Admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised
>if RichA did it as well...)
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Paul Furman
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in news:72119278-6bf3-43d0-913e-
> e1ebc2...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
>> that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do.
>
> I can understand the sentiment here, especially when the Exposure indices
> are not especially high. but when we start talking about ISOs of 50K and
> greater on high MP cameras, we're not talking about somethiong where large
> images are expected. Web-sized images, for journalistic purposes and small
> prints, are what we are using these super-high-ISO shots for, in general.
>
> Here's my 7D at ISO 3200, under-exposed 4 stops, for ISO 50K:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/118813835/original
Well done.
> You can't do that with a 10D, even a 5D (without banding). You can't do
> that with any Olympus or Pentax. You can't do that with the older Nikons,
> like the D200 or D2X.
>
> So, I would say there is some value in showing small images - *IF* it
> actually means something.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Rich
news:Xns9CE8B493E...@216.168.3.70:
The bird shot looks pretty good. There can be some value in showing any
image, at any size. But, not to illustrate noise control or resolution.
If I were to simply take that shot at face value, I'd say, yes, it looks
like 6400 ISO on a D300. But that would be at 100%. Knowing that is a
reduced-size crop, I have no way of actually understanding how noise
looks in the camera for comparative purposes. I'd literally need another
shot, taking at the same exposure levels with a camera I did know in
order to determine what the Canon's actual noise levels were.
Chrlz
So Rich, this was a post and run, then?
You are not coming back to tell us about your test?
Just a reminder - you said:
"I'VE TESTED THIS."
..while referring to thermal effects on images taken on metal v.
plastic cameras.
So now, I'm asking you to back that up. Tell us all about the test.
John Sheehy
news:6pWdnW5PHdl826jW...@giganews.com:
> John Sheehy <J...@no.komm> wrote in
> news:Xns9CE8B493E...@216.168.3.70:
>> So, I would say there is some value in showing small images - *IF* it
>> actually means something.
>
> The bird shot looks pretty good. There can be some value in showing
> any image, at any size. But, not to illustrate noise control or
> resolution. If I were to simply take that shot at face value, I'd
> say, yes, it looks like 6400 ISO on a D300. But that would be at
> 100%.
Uh, no. This is so far from reality; I don't know what to say. The D300
is very good at base ISO; there it has more DR and less patterned deep
shadows than any Canon at the pixel level, but the read noise is almost
proportional to ISO and grows very quickly as ISO is raised. By 6400 it
is well behind any recent Canon. If you're used to looking at
conversions from Nikons, they have traditionally removed all high-
frequency chroma in the shadows, and virtually removed all color in the
deepest shadows. Nikons have just as much chroma noise relative to
luminance noise as any other camera using a CFA; luminance and chroma
noise are virtually inseparable, as they have the same source. They tend
to differ only when one camera has pale CFAs relative to another, then
conversion boosts chroma noise. The D300 and 7D seem to have nearly the
same RAW color space, though. I don't see any noticeable color response
difference between them. I just did an unbiased "conversion" of the
Imaging-Resource 6400 versions of the table with the crayons and black
mug for both the D300s and the 7D, and while the D300s does quite well,
without any visible pattern noise, its noise is more intense and coarser-
looking at the pixel level. When you scale the images to the same image
size, the difference becomes greater. The D300s is a bit duller-edged,
and clearly noisier, including chroma noise. This image you have of
Nikons having extremely low chroma noise is an illusion created by the
default style of NR for Nikons.
> Knowing that is a reduced-size crop, I have no way of actually
> understanding how noise looks in the camera for comparative purposes.
> I'd literally need another shot, taking at the same exposure levels
> with a camera I did know in order to determine what the Canon's actual
> noise levels were.
That's not possible. The closest you will get is to downsample the IR
samples, in the RAW color space.