# 24 cameras now pushed and compared for noise on the dark end at all ISOs



## Aglet (Apr 15, 2012)

I managed to get my mitts on another NINE cameras this weekend and have posted the results along with the previous 15 on one page. A big wide monitor is ideal to look at the whole picture.

Now, not only are there the usual suspects from Canon; 5D2, 5D3, 7D, 60D, 50D, 40D, etc. The G1 X has been added to the PowerShot group.

There are now the new Nikon D4 (seriously dark), and D800 along with previous D5100 and D90.

Also new to the comparison are Pentax medium format 645D, APS-C sensored K5, K01 mirrorless, and even the tiny Pentax Q.
Also Sony A900 full frame SLR and Panasonic G1X four-thirds class camera.

All are pushed +4EV using my usual procedure.

http://a2bart.com/tech/tech.htm


I handled a really neat little Olympus OM D but only a pre-production model so I couldn't get files from it. It did fit the hand nicely and featured plenty of dedicated controls on a squarish body with a bit of a retro look. The grip and extra battery (separate units) made nice additions to the basic body.

So, I've had the chance to play with a LOT of cameras this weekend, learned a few things and shook up my imaging world a little more. For instance, have you seriously looked at the Pentax K5?... What a control-freak's ultimate camera. It may not get used like the workhorses like the 5D3 are but it has a lot of things that would appeal to the creative shooter.
Pocketable Pentax Q puts out impressive images for such a tiny little unit too and it sure is "cute." A couple more lenses for it would be nice.

Unfortunately I forgot to get files from the new Fuji X-Pro 1. DANG. 

I DID remember to order my next new imaging tool though. (for delivery sometimes _later_ this year)

Well, I don't mean to do a whole whack of reviews here, just notify those who are interested in dark frame noise tests that there's a bunch more to look at now.
It'll still take me a while to post the whole-sensor reduced images to show larger scale noise patterns but some of them are pretty interesting and may reveal a few things going on inside some cameras for those with a serious tech interest.


----------



## nightbreath (Apr 15, 2012)

The same issue as it was before, 40D noise looks better to me than 5D Mark III noise at ISO 100 and 200. Is it possible to show 10% of image area rather than 100% crop?

It would give much better understanding on overall camera performance.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 15, 2012)

fascinating comparison...


----------



## Aglet (Apr 15, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> The same issue as it was before, 40D noise looks better to me than 5D Mark III noise at ISO 100 and 200. Is it possible to show 10% of image area rather than 100% crop?
> 
> It would give much better understanding on overall camera performance.



Agreed.
What I'm working on next is showing the whole image, reduced to 1/8 size in both dimensions, which gives a good indication of overall noise patterns and other interesting patterns that can provide clues to what's going on in the camera system.

I'm looking for a different scaling algorithm tho (I think I have a B-spline somewhere) as the usual ones for photographic work de-emphasize the overall luminance values too much so the scaled whole-image noise map is much darker than the 100% crop at a given ISO. That isn't a big issue either tho, since one scaled whole image noise map at one ISO will look pretty much like any other ISO level for a given camera. There's generally either repetitive fixed pattern noise (sensor or readout system irregularities) or random banding noise (internal power supply noise) which is never quite the same from shot to shot. 

I've attached some 1/8-samples here, based at 3200 ISO, until I can devise a better procedure for processing and presenting these images from all the cameras. Altho you can still make out the patterns, the actual range of luminance variation within each image is greatly decreased by the scaling and jpg compression.

Also just noticed, the CR posting system here seems to rescale attached images to a max width of 702 pixels so the variation and relative size difference of the images below has been compromised a little more.

5D2, 5D3, 40D, D800


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 15, 2012)

Its pretty apparent from the comments that intrepreting what you are showing is not being understood the same way by users. Thats why signal to noise ratios are a good way to help people understand.


Here is how I view it:

The luminance (brightness of the noise) is what causes you see the noise in a image, and, as the author notes, its greatly compressed in the examples below. 

At the same exposure levels with a 40D (And I loved all 5 of mine), the noise image below is brighter while the noise of a 5D MK III is darker and almost invisible. Even a bigger difference before compressing them for publication here.

Its the brightness or luminance of the noise with respect to the image signal (S/N ratio) that determines how much noise shows in your image. 

Thus, in the darker images here, the noise will be less in your image and in the lighter or brighter images, noise will be more easily seen.

The retention of detail is related as well, but is very important.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its pretty apparent from the comments that intrepreting what you are showing is not being understood the same way by users. Thats why signal to noise ratios are a good way to help people understand.
> 
> - clip -
> 
> ...



Nicely and succinctly re-stated, thank you.
This is what I'll be trying to convey to a wider audience on my (as yet incomplete) techblog on this topic by showing some real-world samples.
http://a2bart.com/tech/darknoise.htm

however, SNR can be looked at in imaging in a couple different ways and that's also important:

1. average signal to average noise ratio - not good as it obscures the impact large value (bright) noise can have
This seems to be a method a many review sites use (e.g. DxOmark print measurement) and that can lead to some skewed results and unhappy buyers of noisy cameras but this is also an effect of scaling images (downwards) for printing so it's not without some merit, especially when camera resolution is quite high compared to the final print size. I.E. 20MP image file printed to a 7 or 8MP print file.

2. signal to peak noise ratio - much better representation as small bright noise is more accurately weighted against the (image) signal level and it's something we perceive very readily as our eyes are contrast detection devices. This is even more obvious to us if there is a pattern to it, even just a simple line will become quite obvious. This is most apparent when "pixel-peeping" at full size on screen but can also be a factor when printing very large prints where individual pixel level noise can be seen on the print at close distances. or when using noisy lower resolution image files to make moderate size prints.


I've actually got some really good examples of this from real world shots to show, just no time to prep them yet.


----------



## zwoop (Apr 15, 2012)

Did you account for ISO differences between cameras?

For example, ISO 200 on the 5D2 is about ISO 143. The 50D's ISO 100 is about ISO 157. DxoMark has all the numbers.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/11227


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 15, 2012)

Aglet -thanks for this wonderful job.
I'm a bit surprised somewhere there:
1. 7d looks better than 5d2, what is difficult to be confirmed by me as I use both.
2. I'm surprised with g1x which looks awfull in comparison to g12.

Because of question No 1: have you assured the same conditions during tests? As conditions for Darks I can't imagine anything else as same temperature (also not so, that camera has shot before 100 photos and after that you took a sample dark frame). Were the baterries fully charged? Noise reduction of course Off? 
What was the exposure time? Have you tried different exposure times and compare it also in this dimension?

I'm asking just because of observation No 1 - If my experiences from using both show something different, then how can I trust and interprete the rest?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 15, 2012)

First, pushing shadows by four stops is about as meaningless as it gets. If you were to pull the highlights by an equivalent amount, you'd be attempting to add eight stops of dynamic range to the camera, basically doubling your DR. If you're trying to do that in the real world, either you know full well that the results are going to be crap or you're merging multiple exposures with HDR.

But even if you're only doing this to make the quality of the noise more visible, it's still a meaningless test because you're comparing 100% crops. A 100% crop of a 50 megapickle image can look much, much worse than a 100% crop of a 10 megapickle image and yet the 50 megapickle image might make a print that blows away the 10 megapickle one.

If you're serious about this, what you want is to pick a representative final print size -- 13" x 19" would be typical of the largest likely print size owners of those cameras might have in common -- and then scale, up or down as needs be, all the images to 100 ppi at that size. For this example, that would be 1300 x 1950 (to preserve the aspect ratio). You can then take a 100% crop of the 1300 x 1950 resized image for your comparison.

Why only 100 ppi instead of the 300 ppi you'd be printing at? Well, 300 ppi would make sense if you were going to print these, but you and everybody else will be making the comparisons on screen and not on paper.

Of course, the real way to do this kind of comparison would be with real-world images that get put through the full post-production workflow all the way to final prints, and then compare those prints...but nobody seems to do that sort of thing. I'm guessing it's because those who make prints don't waste their time with these sorts of tests, and those who waste their time with these sorts of tests don't make prints.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Aglet -thanks for this wonderful job. I'm a bit surprised somewhere there: 7d looks better than 5d2, what is difficult to be confirmed by me as I use both.



First, thanks for the effort to Aglet! My 2 cents critique:

* Comparing Canon to Sony's sensors (Nikon, Pentax): It is indeed the question how valid such an extreme underexposure and successive +ev correction is, or Canon would be broke by tomorrow. My idea: maybe another test with a dark grey background and moderate underexposure and post-processing +ev correction would put this into perspective? This is because that somewhat clever post-processing (software) will never try to raise black parts as far as you did.

* To me, the thing that kills my shots is banding. I guess there is no scientific number to measure this? If not, downsized shots would indeed offer a better basis for comparison since they'd show how much noise *pattern* is left.

* But most of all, I am stunned how much worse the 7d looks in this artificial test in comparison to the 60d. I have heard that the 7d is more prone to banding, but I'd never dared to mention it here because I'd get stomped. But looking at your 7d/60d pictures... am I missing something? They do use the same sensor, don't they? Is this banding due to some other processing in the 7d's dual digic cpus?


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 15, 2012)

It's insane how much less noise the Nikons produce at lower ISO's, and wow the D4 handles it very well. I am also surprised how well the 7D does against the 5DII and 5DIII, in my experience the 7D is always noisier and I hate shooting over ISO800 with it (for video anyways). It could be that the greenish noise from the 7D is just more visible on video, not sure though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 15, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I managed to get my mitts on another NINE cameras this weekend and have posted the results along with the previous 15 on one page. A big wide monitor is ideal to look at the whole picture.
> 
> Now, not only are there the usual suspects from Canon; 5D2, 5D3, 7D, 60D, 50D, 40D, etc. The G1 X has been added to the PowerShot group.
> 
> ...



yeah those exmors are just amazing at low ISO

the 5D3 does clean up deep shadows compared to 5D2 at high iso and the exmors no longer do better up there

all as expected (well D4 looks better than expected) but it's interesting to see it visually and wow you compared to many, many that have never been seen this way before.

you can see the nasty 7D vertical banding, it had a special form of it that none of the other canon cameras had, it also varies quite a bit from copy to copy of the 7D and across the frame, with some copies have noticeably more than others overall and most having it vary in degree across the frame


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 15, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I managed to get my mitts on another NINE cameras this weekend and have posted the results along with the previous 15 on one page. A big wide monitor is ideal to look at the whole picture.
> 
> Now, not only are there the usual suspects from Canon; 5D2, 5D3, 7D, 60D, 50D, 40D, etc. The G1 X has been added to the PowerShot group.
> 
> ...



yeah it does fit, the 40D always seemed to pushable at low ISO and the 50D not so much at all

the 40D/1D3/1Ds3 gen had some of the best low iso pushability and the 50D/5D2 gen some of the least, it was always said

the 5D3 is a bit sad though for a latest generation, it loses badly to the D4 at high iso and low iso (and the D4 doesn't even use exmor technology, so even without patent busting, Canon should be able to do a lot better than they are for low ISO)

the 60D, per 100% crop, actually does a touch better than the 5D3, even, it seems

the D800 does start messing up the shadow depths ISO3200+ compared to 5D3 though

i have a weird feeling the 1DX will test closer to the D4 than the D800 and Canon simply re-used cheaper tech for the 5D3, we will see, a real shame, since a bit better sensor and it would be a true beast of camera, but if they cheaped out on the sensor and charged more than competition, not so winning....

(of course these are not normalized for ISO rating differences, which make the 5D2/50D look even worse in comparison for instance, nor for MP count, which then bring the 5D2/50D back to looking better, accounting for both at once would need to be done to truly compare them all)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 15, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> It's insane how much less noise the Nikons produce at lower ISO's, and wow the D4 handles it very well. I am also surprised how well the 7D does against the 5DII and 5DIII, in my experience the 7D is always noisier and I hate shooting over ISO800 with it (for video anyways). It could be that the greenish noise from the 7D is just more visible on video, not sure though.



Don't forget that mid-tone SNR and near black noise performance are not the same thing.

The 5D3 collects light over 2.56x more surface than the 7D so, per frame, it should certainly have less noise, outside of the very deepest, darkest parts of the image than the 7D.

The D4 looks pretty remarkable doing so well at low iso and at high iso for shadow noise.

The 5D3 does look 1.5-2 stops better for near black shadow noise than the 5D2 (lighter shadows and up the difference should be much less though, hopefully 2/3 of a stop but perhaps only 1/3).

One strange thing though is I havent seen numerical data hinting at the D4 being so many stops better DR at high ISO or the 5D3 being that many stops DR better there either. Something seems odd even considering ISO gains are not normalized and MP counts are not normalized. 

What software was used to make these? Pre-raw processing software or just ACR which might do different things under the scenes for each?

Anyway interesting, never seen such an extensive comparison of this type before.


----------



## Hill Benson (Apr 16, 2012)

Very interesting read. I'm sure it took a bit of time to get all that together. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 16, 2012)

zwoop said:


> Did you account for ISO differences between cameras?
> 
> For example, ISO 200 on the 5D2 is about ISO 143. The 50D's ISO 100 is about ISO 157. DxoMark has all the numbers.
> 
> http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/11227



HI, Thanks for asking.
I gave it only slight consideration as it adds a lot of work to normalize all those test shots using their tested actual ISO. And, since this isn't my day-job  My reasoning is that pretty much all the decent cameras out there have an actual ISO that should be within 1/2 stop of rated ISO you set them to so the worst case would be comparing one that's a half stop low to another that's a half stop high; and the latter rarely ever happens from what I've seen on DxOmark. My intent here is to show the noise structures of various cameras across their ISO range in a way they can be loosely compared.

More importantly, it is the structure of the noise distribution on the image, not just the total amount of it, that is key to how well your images may hold up in post before the dreaded banding type noise structures put a halt to your intentions.
The comparisons I've put up so far will at least allow people to see for themselves the type of noise these camera sensors are generating on a small scale relative to the whole image. When I get the whole-sensor noise map up it's another story. Larger noise structures may then show up, as they do on the 40D sample near the beginning of this thread where you can see lots of strong horizontal lines.


====



marekjoz said:


> Aglet -thanks for this wonderful job.
> I'm a bit surprised somewhere there:
> 1. 7d looks better than 5d2, what is difficult to be confirmed by me as I use both.
> 2. I'm surprised with g1x which looks awfull in comparison to g12.
> ...



Glad you find this info helpful or at least interesting. 

Re: 1. IMO, I don't think the 7D looks better than the 5d2 in this comparison. They have similar levels of average noise at similar ISO settings but the 7D's noise is more coarse and has more obvious vertical banding at low ISO settings. Vertical banding on the 5d2 is more subtle and cleans up a little better in post with some software.

Re: 2. Yes, G1X is a very different beast with a Canon CMOS sensor in it vs the previous G12 which, I think, uses a Sony-made sensor. I was actually surprised the G12 was noticeably less noisy than the G11 despite the G12 having more advanced video features on it.

As for testing conditions, all the above cameras were tested at ~21C ambient temperature and were only operating for a minute or so before starting the test shots to turn off any in-camera NR or other toning. Batteries actually were all right near fully charged for the above cameras. The set of cameras I added this weekend had battery charge at various levels (beyond my control) and temperatures may have been a little higher as some of them had been operating occasionally prior to my testing.

Exposure times have all been done at 1/200s. An arbitrary choice on my part but picked to be representative of a typical daylight landscape exposure speed; fast enough for the sensor not to exhibit any hot pixels that would add another dimension to the testing.
i have also done some long exposure tests and long exposure with in-camera dark-frame subtraction NR applied. The results are surprising!  i will get around to posting them sometime too.

===




TrumpetPower! said:


> First, pushing shadows by four stops is about as meaningless as it gets. If you were to pull the highlights by an equivalent amount, you'd be attempting to add eight stops of dynamic range to the camera, basically doubling your DR. If you're trying to do that in the real world, either you know full well that the results are going to be crap or you're merging multiple exposures with HDR.
> 
> But even if you're only doing this to make the quality of the noise more visible, it's still a meaningless test because you're comparing 100% crops. A 100% crop of a 50 megapickle image can look much, much worse than a 100% crop of a 10 megapickle image and yet the 50 megapickle image might make a print that blows away the 10 megapickle one.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your feedback but I have to disagree with you on some of your points. Of course, if you don't know the background to this whole saga I can understand your point of view. 

First, it's not meaningless at all, unless you don't do any serious adjustments in post, as some of us do. .. And not necessarily as a "correction" for something missed in taking the shot but as a way to help map the maximum dynamic range of our cameras to the very small dynamic range of a print or even a digital display. You can't multi-shot HDR moving subjects worth a fly-spec, neither should you have to with 14bits worth of camera raw data.

100% crops are useful just to see the small scale noise structure, like the fine banding of the 7D and 5D2 or some of the G-series cameras.

If I wasn't serious about this I wouldn't waste more of my time on it. It's my gift to you, free information on a topic that's so far been poorly addressed and inadequately covered, leaving many confused or uninformed. I'm presenting it in a way that will hopefully help more people understand the limitations of their gear so they can work around it and be more aware when they can encounter problems between shooting and processing.

I was ignorant of my camera's shortcomings and overly relied on it, being a bit of a fanboy at the time. Then, being unable to process some of my real-world shots for large scale printing, because the banding noise was an issue, is what started this whole project. However, even little 18x12 inch "snapshots" can show some banding noise structures under some conditions.

I'm tempted to say that anyone who hasn't run into this sort of problem is either shooting with some better cameras or hasn't yet had to learn how to wring the utmost from the equipment they have.
... But i won't. 

=====



Marsu42 said:


> * Comparing Canon to Sony's sensors (Nikon, Pentax): It is indeed the question how valid such an extreme underexposure and successive +ev correction is, or Canon would be broke by tomorrow. My idea: maybe another test with a dark grey background and moderate underexposure and post-processing +ev correction would put this into perspective? This is because that somewhat clever post-processing (software) will never try to raise black parts as far as you did.



Perfectly valid and that is one of the things I'm trying to devise a good in-studio test for because the black levels and the shadow levels can behave differently. The tests I've done and displayed certainly do not tell the whole story. But they are a good prolog for generating more awareness that noise structure issues are of some concern under certain conditions.



Marsu42 said:


> * To me, the thing that kills my shots is banding. I guess there is no scientific number to measure this? If not, downsized shots would indeed offer a better basis for comparison since they'd show how much noise *pattern* is left.



YUP. That's it and I wish there was some measurement of this. I haven't found any yet so decided to try cover this topic.
I don't often downsize my shots so for me, pixel-level evaluation is where it's at.
If you're printing smaller then some of these things do get averaged out a bit.

Some cameras, with strong but fine-grained noise and no obvious banding, will not have major issues in post as NR can often mitigate the noise without hurting the actual image too much. Another camera can have weak levels of noise but a regular banding pattern to it may make it far less amenable to being pushed in post. The comparisons I've put up so far will at least allow people to see for themselves the type of noise their camera sensors are generating on a small scale. When I get the whole-sensor noise map up it's another story. Larger noise structures may then show up, as they do on the 40D sample near the beginning of this thread.



Marsu42 said:


> * But most of all, I am stunned how much worse the 7d looks in this artificial test in comparison to the 60d. I have heard that the 7d is more prone to banding, but I'd never dared to mention it here because I'd get stomped. But looking at your 7d/60d pictures... am I missing something? They do use the same sensor, don't they? Is this banding due to some other processing in the 7d's dual digic cpus?



7D uses a "dual readout" circuit for faster shooting speeds. This may be the problem, with each signal path taking alternate 8-pixel wide swipes of data?.. If they're not perfectly matched, then banding errors show up in the final file dark areas. Fine vertical banding still exists (iso200, 400) on the 60D but it's MUCH more subtle, barely perceptable for the most part. The 5D2 is a bit worse than the 60D.

I've tested a second 7D and 5d2, they were nearly identical with the first samples. I suspect there may be some 7Ds that are cleaner, some that may be worse. if it weren't for the 8-pixel banding, I'd be pretty happy with mine! 

=====


LetTheRightLensIn said:


> all as expected (well D4 looks better than expected) but it's interesting to see it visually



it is impressive - I hope there wasn't some hidden NR feature that I didn't find and turn off! The thing is almost TOO good to believe.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> you can see the nasty 7D vertical banding, it had a special form of it that none of the other canon cameras had, it also varies quite a bit from copy to copy of the 7D and across the frame, with some copies have noticeably more than others overall and most having it vary in degree across the frame



I've only looked at mine and one other and they both exhibit virtually identical noise behavior across the frame but I'd not be surprised there's variations, given the design.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> .. i have a weird feeling the 1DX will test closer to the D4..




I certainly hope so. I was able to play with a pre-production one a little. menu is very similar to the 5d3, overall handling and feel was pretty sweet with decent ergonomics for the 10 minutes I played with it. If it wasn't for that sealed memory card door!... 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> One strange thing though is I havent seen numerical data hinting at the D4 being so many stops better DR at high ISO or the 5D3 being that many stops DR better there either. Something seems odd even considering ISO gains are not normalized and MP counts are not normalized.
> 
> What software was used to make these? Pre-raw processing software or just ACR which might do different things under the scenes for each?
> 
> Anyway interesting, never seen such an extensive comparison of this type before.



All processing done in ACR, so yes, could be some differences in the way it treats various camera files that user controls can't access. Best tool i've got for the job at the moment tho.

OTOH, the K5, D4, D800 and even the sub $700 D5100 all start off about the same in this race and the $ value starts to sort itself out as you move up the ISO scale.

This is still more of a noise measurement than a signal to noise measurement at this time.
Thus the various suggestions of doing this again at a low exposure value (not = to black) will bring a different context to put this in which will be more representative of real-world images and also may show some different behaviors from the cameras.

It's on the list of things to do.


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 16, 2012)

Aglet said:


> For instance, have you seriously looked at the Pentax K5?...



Yeah, my mum's got one, and honestly, if I didn't already have a 7D, i'd be seriously considering the K-5 instead.
Weather-sealed kit-lens, in-built timers (because opening the flap for my TC-80N3 doesn't make it waterproof anymore, does it...), auto-iso that actually freaking works with +/- EV Comp, almost all other 7D features at a 60D price.
Frankly, being able to use the magnificent EF-lens-lineup is probably the only plus to buying a 7D over a K-5 imho...


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, have you seriously looked at the Pentax K5?...
> ...



I nearly got a K5 (same sensor as the Nikon d7000) instead of the 60d - but the catch is that lenses are much more expensive because of the limited selection and there's a much smaller market for used ones, not to mention the equipment like flashes etc. That's a good reason to stick to Canon or Nikon, although it's not fair towards Pentax because this results in a Catch 22 and them sticking in the same market niche forever.



Aglet said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > all as expected (well D4 looks better than expected) but it's interesting to see it visually
> ...



You might not be far from the truth there! I remember back when deciding between the d7000 and the 60d I read a review about the raw files of the d7000 - I cannot find the link because I concentrated on Canon since then. But it said that the d7000 applies more *forced* nr to raw files than the d90 to cover up for the increased noise that goes along with the 12mp->16mp transition. The guy who wrote this was a long-time Nikon insider and obviously really knew what he was writing about since he was able to figure out this at all comparing the raw files of the different models at different iso settings.

But this might be an indication that the Nikons have a built-in nr gimmick that is designed to make them shine in artificial tests just like yours. Maybe Nikon sites have more information on this. Graphics chip manufacturers like ATI or NVidia do this all the time when "optimizing" drivers for specific benchmark suites.

If you suspect something like this, too (and the differences between Nikon and Canon are indeed too good/bad to be true) it's really time for a more real-life oriented test.


----------



## Aglet (Apr 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I nearly got a K5 (same sensor as the Nikon d7000) instead of the 60d - but the catch is that lenses are much more expensive because of the limited selection and there's a much smaller market for used ones, not to mention the equipment like flashes etc. That's a good reason to stick to Canon or Nikon, although it's not fair towards Pentax because this results in a Catch 22 and them sticking in the same market niche forever.



I had a good chat with my local Ricoh/Pentax Rep, Bill Gouge, a fantastic fellow who works with tireless enthusiasm to promote their product. He showed me features on the K5 I never even imagined a camera could do; like the GPS-based ability to do astrophotography shots without making star-trails, without needing an equatorial mount. YUP. The camera's sensor stabilizer mechanism is used to maintain relative image stillness as the world turns. Just amazing! And that's just one of many unique abilities on that body.
I was also told that Ricoh is in the process of working up some ads to promote their lines and they do need to increase mindshare.

I've always been rather ignorant of the Pentax group of products, never knew anyone that had one until more recently in my life. The Pentax followers I do know now are quick to sing the praises of the platform, like the ability to use many old and easily obtained Pentax lenses from WAY back, sort of like Nikon who'd maintained a great deal of backward compatibility. Their new lenses aren't necessarily expensive either, actually, I was quite surprised at their pricing. They've really put a lot of photographer-engineering details into their stuff. I do wish they had some better zooms but they have some great primes and 3rd party support is there too.



Marsu42 said:


> .. the d7000 applies more *forced* nr to raw files than the d90..
> - clip -
> If you suspect something like this, too (and the differences between Nikon and Canon are indeed too good/bad to be true) it's really time for a more real-life oriented test.



There are multiple kinds of NR processes. Some are desirable hardware methods that reduce noise signal by clever use of electronics. This improves rather than detracts from the end result.
NR done after data-collection is more of a software based approach and can have a negative impact on the signal or image quality.
Without knowing how much of each is applied it's hard to say without more rigorous testing but when it comes to properly designed electronic hardware NR methods, bring it on! That's the way we get quiet sensors. 
When the D3s first came out it looked very impressive for a moment but then I noticed the dark levels were artificially crushed and that helped kill noise. i don't know how it fares now but there IS noise on the darkest of Nikon frames, it's just super low level. Things are a little different and, ultimately, it's the final IQ that matters. So I sit at my desk over lunch and daydream of a good test regime to use to compare these things.


----------



## ers811 (Apr 16, 2012)

First of all.... THANK YOU! This is really great free info.



TrumpetPower! said:


> A 100% crop of a 50 megapickle image can look much, much worse than a 100% crop of a 10 megapickle image and yet the 50 megapickle image might make a print that blows away the 10 megapickle one.
> 
> If you're serious about this, what you want is to pick a representative final print size -- 13" x 19" would be typical of the largest likely print size owners of those cameras might have in common -- and then scale, up or down as needs be, all the images to 100 ppi at that size. For this example, that would be 1300 x 1950 (to preserve the aspect ratio). You can then take a 100% crop of the 1300 x 1950 resized image for your comparison.



Yes, yes, and YES!

This is what I'd really love to see. For any shot that's framed more-or-less correctly to start with (I'd say most are), the larger resolution noise is going to be compressed and never look like the 100% crop.

My inner nerd really loves seeing all these comparisons, but the rational part of me that PPs and prints photos would love to see how 22 MP and 36 MP noise compress into the same final print size....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



The thing is that people have shot the same real-life scene side by side with D800/D7000 and Canon cameras and you could pull so much more nice looking detail out of the shadows, the real world difference WAS there.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 16, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I had a good chat with my local Ricoh/Pentax Rep, Bill Gouge, a fantastic fellow who works with tireless enthusiasm to promote their product. He showed me features on the K5 I never even imagined a camera could do; like the GPS-based ability to do astrophotography shots without making star-trails, without needing an equatorial mount. YUP. The camera's sensor stabilizer mechanism is used to maintain relative image stillness as the world turns. Just amazing! And that's just one of many unique abilities on that body.
> I was also told that Ricoh is in the process of working up some ads to promote their lines and they do need to increase mindshare.



wow that's awesome

at least some companies are being less than boring


I


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 16, 2012)

Aglet said:


> The Pentax followers I do know now are quick to sing the praises of the platform, like the ability to use many old and easily obtained Pentax lenses from WAY back, sort of like Nikon who'd maintained a great deal of backward compatibility.



Well yeah, but canon gets the best of the adaptable-bunch, we can use old Pentax M42 (I do), Olympus OM (I do), more Nikkor lenses than Digital Nikon bodies can, C/Y, and Leica R, plus all Medium Format (I do).
Pentax K bodies can only use M42 through good adapters (i've heard chinese ebay adapters can break lens and/or camera mounts), they should be able to use Nikon F but I don't know.
Nikon bodies get boned by only being able to use some old nikkors (that you need a big table to navigate) and only Medium Format above that.

I've been meaning to buy a PK-EF adapter to try out the weather-sealed 18-55 kit lens from the K-5 on my 7D, see how it stacks up against my 15-85 for sharpness etc (maybe i'll borrow my mate's EFs18-55IS to compare too)


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> at least some companies are being less than boring



Indeed, that's just what I was thinking, too when I read this. And it is what I am missing from Canon, e.g. when reading the 5d3 specs. Nikon D800 has face detection and the like, but Canon seems to be quite conservative here except putting in newbie features like the "creative zone" on the 60d. I'm not a pro (yet), and thus I'd like to see more innovation to play with and I like magic lantern - the camera body has a built-in computer, why not use it?


----------

