blurrist Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Dear All, We mostly know the perception of DX to FX equivalent in focal length and pixel size. Is there noise equivalent available? We know bigger px. sensor produces less noise. But how much less, countable? Your idea please. Cheers, Blurrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_carlo_jorgensen Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I guess it varies continually. In the sense that the technology keeps getting better, so today you for sure can get DX cameras with a lot better noise performance than older FX models. According to some (like e.g. Ken Rockwell) the ISO performance of today is so fantastic that you can forget all about using flash, because you'll never need it. I do not quite agree about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Then there is pixel size to consider. Is my 12mp Nikon with gigantic sensors better than your 48mp with tiny sensors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Multiply the crop factor with itself (1.5x1.5=2.25) and multiply the smaller sensor's ISO setting by that, to gain the same noise level from the bigger sensor set to the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 No, the technology is moving forward, so noise is changing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 In general, a recent camera with ISO 25,600 is "better" than a heritage film camera with ISO 500 film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 I guess it varies continually. In the sense that the technology keeps getting better, so today you for sure can get DX cameras with a lot better noise performance than older FX models. According to some (like e.g. Ken Rockwell) the ISO performance of today is so fantastic that you can forget all about using flash, because you'll never need it. I do not quite agree about that... I think I 99.9% agree. Before digital, I used mostly Ektachrome 100, and often flash for indoors. With the D70s, I believe up to ISO 1600, I pretty much never used flash, except for unusually dark places, or unusually bad lighting. I now have a (bought used) D700, which goes even higher, especially with the + (higher than indicated number) ISO. I think I have never used flash with that one. Film has an amazing amplification, where a few photons make a (on the atomic scale) large grain developable. Digital doesn't have that built-in amplification. There is a thermal noise limit, which depends on the sensor (absolute) temperature. Cooled sensors will have a condensation problem, so are not normally used in cameras, but often are for laboratory experimental systems. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton5 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 Unless you are printing really big or doing heavy cropping sensor noise on newer cameras might as well not exist anyways. If it does chromatic noise is likely what you are seeing because it's pretty ugly. There are plenty of times flash is desireable because ambient light, even though 'grain free' just isn't pleasing. I used to shoot wedding receptions and other informals with my 35mm Nikon gear and used a SB-16B which had the ability to bounce and fill flash at the same time with dead on exposure. With a 8-10' white ceiling I'll take those shots over straight ambient regardless of grain/noise anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blurrist Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 From your comments, I would say there is relative noise to sensor size but it depends on technology which I suppose a so-called algorithm conversion from analog signal to digital signal, less and less electron diffraction produced. For me, I experience that high ISO noise made in highlight (for example to increase speed in shooting BIF daylight) is much more comfortable than lowlight (in the dusk, for instance). What is the root cause here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 For me, I experience that high ISO noise made in highlight (for example to increase speed in shooting BIF daylight) is much more comfortable than lowlight (in the dusk, for instance). What is the root cause here? I'd say that most likely your "lowlight" shots have unbalanced amounts of the three colors - reddish, greenish, and bluish light. (In daylight, each of these colors are roughly equal in strength, and a typical digital camera sees them as such.) Try looking at the individual color channels of your low-light noisy images. I'd guess that you'll find that most of the noise is in one of the individual color channels. If you're under tungsten light, it will be the blue channel - the relative strength of the bluish light is only about 20% of what it would by in daylight, meaning that the blue amplifiers have to be turned up higher to counteract that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blurrist Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 I'd say that most likely your "lowlight" shots have unbalanced amounts of the three colors - reddish, greenish, and bluish light. (In daylight, each of these colors are roughly equal in strength, and a typical digital camera sees them as such.) Try looking at the individual color channels of your low-light noisy images. I'd guess that you'll find that most of the noise is in one of the individual color channels. If you're under tungsten light, it will be the blue channel - the relative strength of the bluish light is only about 20% of what it would by in daylight, meaning that the blue amplifiers have to be turned up higher to counteract that. Really informative comment. I think it will help me in future processing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 3dB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now