asaf_tzadok

Jonathan,

 

You raised an interesting point. I was aware to your claim, however, I have not read any technical support for that. The sensitivity level of the APS sensor is another issue (250mV/lux vs. 1040mV/lux) which represents 2 stops. These 2 stops comes in a form of ISO50 of 1/1.8 equivalents to ISO200 of APS sensor. Other aspects to consider is the dark current and smearing.

Greg,

 

You are right. I have just sold my D70 for its relatively shallow dynamic range (with saturation level of only 900mV). The HDR option is a nice posibility only when you shot static objects.

 

Maybe a compact digicam with an Super CCD SR II and 3MP can do a much better job. But for the next 2 months or so I need a compact digicam with the best dynamic range and a video clip capability.

 

I wonder why there is no reviewer who adds a dynamic range section in his/her compact digicam reviews.

 

Regards, Asaf.

I would like to know whether anyone compared the Canon A610 vs.

Fujifilm F11.

 

I read the Sony`s CCD specs and I found that the A610`s CCD has the

deepest well capacity among the 1/1.8 sensors. Furthermore, its

500mV saturation point is not that far from the 6MP APS sensor with

only 900mV.

 

OTOH, Fujifilm does not supply any datasheet for their CCD, probably

because it is not a CCD supplier.

 

I played a little with a F11 and I was not that impressed by its

dynamic range. However, I have not played with an A610 so I do not

have any opinion about it (besides its impressive CCD spec).

 

I really appreciate any direct dynamic range comparision between

those two.

 

Thanks, Asaf.

Rainer,

 

Thank you for your input.

 

I need it for low light scenes. Mainly for evening parties were you want to preserve the atmosphere.

 

Asaf.

>> "The DVcam has more noise at low light levels because the gain is higher, up to 20db for 1.1 Lux sensitivity. Difficulty downsampling? At normal light levels, the image is as good as anything on commercial television. The noise from my DSLR is much less, and the images map well into video. "

 

When you compare 2 CCDs with the same pixel size and technology - you should expect the same noise level, period. When the "gain" is equal - the noise is equal. When you capture the same scene - your DSLR has the same per pixel noise level but the overall noise averages.

 

>> "You have a lot of buzz words, but seem to be blowing smoke my way."

 

Interesting..

>> "I use a JVC minicam, 3x1/2 inch sensors, full-sized DV tape. I can assure you that the image in low light is noisier than anything I do with a DSLR. I would expect significantly poorer performance from 1/3 or 1/4 inch, single-chip sensors. Whatever makes you think downsampling will reduce noise?"

 

Edward,

 

Your JVC 1/2" with its 470,000 pixels has about the same pixel size as a 6MP DX DSLR like the Nikon D70/D50/D100. It also has a 12bit ADC. This means that you should expect the same noise levels. BUT, the reason is that when a CCD heats it produces a much noisier image. I think that a 1/1.8" can produce a similar result as your camcorder when you use all its pixels. The problem is that you have problem capturing 5MP/30fps in order to downsample it into VGA/30fps.

 

>> "Since much of the noise is random, and you are viewing 30 frames/second, video appears considerably less noisy than do single frames of the same recording. Viewing at normal speedis, in effect, perceptual multisampling."

 

When there is little noise - YES. When using ISO 800/1600 noise levels - NO WAY.

Guys,

 

The issue is not the format. I am familiar with the VGA/PAL/NTSC/EDTV/HDTV/.. formats.

 

For example, when a camcorder produces a progressive NTSC format it can capture it using 3,456,000 (720x480x10) effective pixels and resample it into 345,600 (720x480) pixels. That means a lot of noise reduction.

 

Sanyo, claims to use this technique in their new progressive camcorder/digicam.

 

Regards,

Asaf.

Digicams have a nice option of video capturing. I decided to test it

myself a little. I was very impressed with the Fuji F11 performance

in regular scenes. However, when I tried to capture in low light

condition, the result was not that impressive. The problem is that

the number of effective pixels for video is low. It seems that the

Fuji F11 uses the minimum 307,200 (640*480) pixels for video which

is only 5% of its pixels.

 

I wonder if anyone tested/compared low-light video capturing and can

tell/estimate the number of effective pixels for video of other

brands/models.

 

Asaf.

Les, your samples are a great help. The specs do not tell the whole story. I examined every ASA 800/1600 sample in your collection.

 

I have been using DSLRs for the last 2 years and I sold my D70 recently and I am waiting to the PMA 2006 and I hope Fuji will come up with the S4 Pro. Anyway, I really could not stand the D70 for its narrow DR.

 

Now, after being spoiled with a ISO 800/1600 that the DSLRs have to offer, I need a fast film with wide DR and fine grain.

 

The Fuji_Natura_1600-02-05 sample does show a wide DR. I remember strugling and bracketing with my D70 RAW and not being able to maintain both highlight and shadows.

 

Many thanks,

Asaf.

Les Sarile's Pictures show that the 800Z has finer grain than the Ultra Color 400. However, the exposure parameters look different and that can lead to it.

 

My main concern is whether the ability to use faster film hurts the dynamic range of the film. Meaning, that shooting outdoor with fast film will result in burning highlights.

 

According to the specs, the 800Z has the widest latitude -3.5/+5.0 which might suggest that it is also the best film for outdoors scenes on a sunny day.

I read in this forum that the Fuji NPZ 800 and the Fuji Natura 1600

are the recommended films for high speed with the little grain

issue. However, I could not find information about their dynamic

range.

 

How much dynamic range does one pay for not using a slower film ?

 

How much grain does one pay for using slower film (with wider

dynamic range) and push it to 800/1600 ?

 

Which is your best compromising film ?

Godfrey,

 

At the end of the day - this is an amateur digicam. People buy it for shooting JPGs. Furthermore, The RAW files are huge (about 16M per file). For comparison, the Canon D20 with a RAW file of 12 ADC and 8MP is about 9M per file.

 

You should compare it against the new cameras with the Sony's 7MP sensor. For example: Canon A620, Nikon Coolpix 7600, Casio Exilim EX-Z750. The ones you mentioned are quite outdated.

Godfrey,

When I decided to try and buy myself a digicam the LX1 was the first on my list, having a Leica lens with image stabilizer and wide angle and unique 16:9 capture wowed me.

 

But, the dpreview noise comparison looked very bad. The noise is very high and blotchy. DCResource joined the complaints about the noise as well.

 

"Noise, noise, noise", LX1 review, dpreview.

 

"Images are too noisy, especially at high ISOs; some jaggies", LX1 review, dcresource.

 

Your test was LX1 against itself. The LX1 has a lot of noise from its basic ISO settings. You should compare it against the cameras with the Sony CCD.

 

BTW, it is not a HD video clip. It is EDTV (853X480).

The LX1 used to be in my list but the Matsushita sensor is very noisy. I think Panasonic should be Fujifilm partner.

I want to buy a slim digital camera. One major issue is the video

capture quality. Mpeg capture is an advantage but not a must. Low

light performance is a big advantage.

 

My current list is as follows:

 

1. Fujifilm F11. Pros: low light performance, best image capture.

Cons: no image stabilizer, mjpeg, thick.

 

2. Casio EX-Z750. Pros: slim & 1/1.8" sensor, mpeg-4. Cons: no image

stabilizer, low light performance.

 

3. Sony T-9: Pros: image stabilizer, slim. Cons: 1/2.5" sensor, low

light performance.

 

Which one makes the best video clip indoors ?

How do they perform vs. a 1/5" DV camcorder ?

The D70 is a great DSLR. But, for manual focusing - go for the D200. D70 VF is very small and not so bright.

 

The 18-70 is very sharp and contrast, but has a strange geomentric distortion which makes it practically unusable for shooting architecture.

I own it for several months and I can report that it is a little soft wide open but it is getting better at F/5.6 and slightly more at F/8. The build quality is solid and great. The size is also great to use handheld. Highly Recommended.

Tony,

 

What do you mean by saying "Image Quality".

 

What are the most important issue ? Sharpness, Bokeh, Ghosting, Flare ?

 

I think every reviewer (and the ones mentioned as well) agrees that the older version is superior when it comes to ghosting and flare.

 

Asaf.

I think the NEF includes an EXIF data and more. If you want further investigation, just check dcraw source code and see. The metadata is in the same format as the EXIF.

Greg,

 

You have been very helpfull.

 

Ronnie,

 

Is it the AF-S version ? I think that the older version is not D type.

 

Asaf.

Dennis,

 

You can not compare D2H resolution with a 1Ds Mark II. I tested my 18-70 vs. my 50mm F/1.8 AIS and I got comparable results at F/5.6 and a little edge at F/8. The wider the angle is, the softer the result is. 17-35 MTF is worst than 70-200 MTF. Canon does not offer any lens in this price range with the same quality. Furthermore, I was at a wedding recently and the cameraman used the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L and the Canon !D Mark II and I was not thrilled with its sharpness and my body was full of ghosting (many spots of lights). A side by side comparision is always welcome.

 

Asaf.

Greg,

 

I must say that you have a quite nice collection of lenses.

 

Here is where the 500mm shows more details:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3012576&size=lg

 

But I must say that the two-phase-sharpening you use does not exhibit any noticeable artifact, if any. After sharpenning, it is hard sometimes to distinguish, especially when you shoot different objects.

 

Can you explaine why you shoot with the 300mm+TC while you own the more reputable 500mm F/4 ?

Do you shoot hand held with any of the three telephoto lenses you have ?

 

Many Thanks, Asaf.

Greg,

 

Your images are beautiful.

 

I understand that all images are taken at F/8. Is it before or after multiplication of the magnification factor ? In other words, do you mean that the aperture ring was set to F/8 or F/5.6 (X1.4 = F/8) ?

 

Did you use any kind of sharpenning ?

 

Asaf.

I bought the Nikkor 300mm F/4 IF-ED three months ago. I must say

that I am really pleased with its build quality and size. I can

carry it easily and shoot hand-held. I must say that it is quiet

soft wide open but sharpness improves at F/5.6 and reaches its

maximum sharpness at F/8. Flare and ghosting is quiet controlled. It

is certainly worth the price.

 

However, it is too short for shooting birds. I am considering on

buying a Tamron SP TC or Kenko Pro TC.

 

I would like to see some samples to decide whether I can live with

the result of 300mm with a TC(1.4X,2X) or to buy a Nikkor 500mm F/4.

I really like the idea to shoot hand-held and I think that a 3kg

lens might be too heavy.

 

Asaf.

Jean,

 

I used to own a DRebel and an old Sigma. I could not use the Sigma. There was an compatibility error of the electrical circuit. I am afraid he will not be able to use the Tamron. Is this is the case ?

 

BTW, I also had the 18-55 & the 50 F/1.8. Both have a very poor build quality and the first one has a very poor optical performance. Unfortunately, he does not want to invest on a decent glass(17-40 F/4), and Canon does not offer an equivalent to the amazing (for its price) Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5