From: acl on
On Dec 4, 9:23 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)> wrote:

> > Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
> > iso 400 or so... If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
> > the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?
> It has less chroma noise for sure, Nikon has basically eradicated most
> of it. But, the D200 overall noise is still higher, it's higher than
> the D80, D40/x, etc. The little 6 meg D40 produces very clean images.

I'm not talking about jpegs, nor about high ISO. I've tried it
(systematically only at 100 and 200) and there is no difference. I
don't understand why people have such a hard time believing this (ok,
I do, but never mind).

Look, you can even look at the numbers Roger Clark measured: at ISO
100 he finds the 5d has 3 times the read noise of the d200 in
electrons; so, if the 5d has a full well capacity of 100000 electrons,
they'll be the same. And I don't think it does!

But above, say, 400 or so, there is a difference.
From: RBrickston on
In article <3pral3dcr2srrfkrin36jhrk4mr1du0a8b(a)>,
alancalan(a) says...
> I just don't understand why Nikon has taken these steps, no Full Frame
> for the D300 and the heavy emhasis on lenses which are not great for
> full frame cameras. It's hard to find reasonably priced Nikon lenses
> that are not DX. Yes there are older slower focusing lenses that are
> not DX and are reasonbly priced but I think DX was a mistake unless
> you are going to have a cheap line of cameras and a proline. The DX
> lenses that people are buying for their prosumer cameras will not be
> great for the D200 and the D300.
> Whether Rockwell is a joker or not, I haven't seen any comparative
> studies that show photgraphs taken with the D300 are equl to the 5D.
> Maybe it's stupidity on my part but I saw great wedding pictures taken
> with D200s but at closer look, they could have been sharper. Color
> saturation was incredible but focus or resolution could have been a
> little better. Even if that was an incorrect conclusion and if and
> the Rockwell photos were not apples to apples I still need a little
> resolution on these issues.
> Because of laziness and inertia, I am looking for a reason to stay
> with Nikon and I will check out the dpreviews articles.
> ok, I just went on dpreview where the 5D was compared to the D200. I
> have a wide screen on my laptop and I filled it and then went to 400%
> mag.
> Check it out
> Here is another difference that shows the 5D sharper than the D200. I
> didn't see a comparison for the D300

Not an accurate comparison; the exposure looks better and the picture is
larger for the Canon.
From: Paul Furman on
acl wrote:
> On Dec 4, 7:11 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
>> acl wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Alan Calan wrote:
>>>>> But it really is pretty simple, what takes better pictures, the D200,
>>>>> the D300 or the 5D. Until I see some kind of definitive answer, I'm
>>>>> not doing anything.
>>>> The 5D takes better images. In good lighting there isn't much difference
>>>> but even then, some shadow detail will be lost to noise and highlights
>>>> will blow a little sooner.
>>> Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
>>> iso 400 or so...
>> No I didn't try but underexposure (shadows) always has more noise, so
>> yeah, maybe similar on the 5D.
>>> If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
>>> the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?
>> More dynamic range. Perhaps only usable converting from raw.
> The DR is practically the same at low isos...

OK, I guess that's why cameras like the D2x sold to pros for studio use.
"At higher ISOs, it is obvious that large pixel cameras have
significantly better dynamic range than small pixel cameras, but at low
ISO there is not much difference. If 14-bit or higher analog-to-digital
converters were used, with correspondingly lower noise amplifiers, the
dynamic range could increase by about 2 stops on the larger pixel
cameras. The smallest pixel cameras do not collect enough photons to
benefit from higher bit converters."

BTW, a friend forwarded this message to me from an astrophotography
email list... it claims the D40x beats a 5D :-) I can't say how valid
that is:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Munro <dmunro munged(a)munged>
Date: 4 Dec 2007 13:25
Subject: [RASCals] DSLR Gain values.
To: rascals(a)

I have calculated preliminary gain values for the Nikon D40X:

Full well = ~55700e
ISO100 IG = ~13.6
IS0800 IG = ~1.63
ISO 100 read noise = ~18e
ISO800 read noise = ~9e

I have to recheck my figures and do some plots for ISO200, 400 and
1600, but this seems like a very efficient sensor.

The ISO400 Gain values are probably on the order of ~3.3 which
actually exceeds the D300 or 40D but these values verify the DR data
from the 40D Images Resources Imatest results:
Model 1.0(Low) 0.5(Medium) 0.25(Med-High) 0.1(High)
Fujifilm S3 Pro
(Adobe Camera Raw 2) 12.1 11.7 10.7 9.0
Nikon D40x
(Adobe Camera Raw 4.1) 12.0 10.9 10.3 8.9
Nikon D40
(Adobe Camera Raw 4.1) 11.9 10.9 9.89 8.3
Pentax K-100D
(Adobe Camera Raw 3.6) 11.3 10.3 9.51 8.23
Pentax K10D
(Adobe Camera Raw 3.7) 10.6 10.0 9.29 8.19
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
(Adobe Camera Raw 3) 11.2 10.3 9.4 8.14
Nikon D40x 10.8 10.0 9.42 8.04
Fujifilm S3 Pro -- 9.9 9.4 7.94
Canon Digital Rebel XTi
(Adobe Camera Raw 3.6) 10.8 9.88 9.18 7.84
Canon EOS-5D
(Adobe Camera Raw 3) 11.0 10.4 9.21 7.83
Canon EOS-40D
(Adobe Camera Raw 4.2) 11.2 10.1 9.26 7.72
Canon EOS-5D
(Camera JPEG) 10.2 9.68 8.82 7.65
Nikon D200
(Adobe Camera Raw 3) 10.6 9.65 8.96 7.61
Nikon D80
(Adobe Camera Raw 3.6) 11.1 10.4 9.42 7.51

( )

I can confirm that the D40X does, indeed, have 12 stops of DR, in the
Low (engineering) category as measured by IR. This makes the D40X
sensor one of the most efficient sensors on the market, and at low
ISOs it will exceed the performance of the D300 and 40D:

camera: 5D,20/30D,40D,300D,400D,350XT,D50,D70,D200,D3,D40x,D300
Pixel size(PS): 8.2,6.4,5.7,7.4, 5.7,6.4,7.8,7.8,6.05,8.4,6.05,5.5
pixel area(PA): 67.2,41,32.5,55,32.5,41,61,61,37,71,37,30
relativePixelarea(RPA) 2.1,1.3,1,1.7,1,1.3,1.9,1.9,1.1,2.2,1.1,.93
IG 4.1,3.1,3.1,2.7,2.8,2.6,3.7,3,2,8.3,3.2,2.7
IG/RPA 2,2.46,3.1,2.7,1.6,2.7,2,1.6,1.8,3.8,2.9,2.9

(Ranking is alphabetical when equal)

Camera rank order by RPA
5D, 2.1
D50, 1.9
D70, 1.9
300D, 1.7
20/30D, 1.3
350XT, 1.3
D40X, 1.1
D200 , 1.1
D300, .93
40D, 1
400D, 1

Camera rank order by IG. Inverse Gain is a measure of effective QE, or
more properly, system throughput.

D3, 8.3
5D, 4.1
D50, 3.7
D40X, 3.2
20/30D, 3.1
40D, 3.1
D70, 3
D300, 2.7
400D 2.7
200D, 2

Camera rank order by IG/RPA:

D3, 3.8
40D, 3.1
D40X, 2.9
D300, 2.9
400D, 2.7
20/30d, 2.46
350XT, 2
5D, 2
D50, 2
D200, 1.8
300D 1.6
D70 1.6

This is a measure of the camera's QE/pixel area and demonstrates
effective QE per unit of surface area. It shows the D3 ahead, but not
by an amount which would require more than incremental changes in
technology, such as fill factor, dye transmission, etc. We can see in
this table, that Canon has made large gains in QE/RPA, and the 40D
remains outstanding in this area, but that Nikon has caught up, and
surpassed Canon, with the D3. We also can see, for example how the
D50, was able to match the 350XT and 5D in IG/RPA, and now the D40X
has caught up to its competitors.
Note the strong relationship between pixel area and IG, when comparing
cameras of similar development age.


rascals(a) ---
From: acl on
On Dec 5, 1:47 am, Paul Furman <> wrote:

> BTW, a friend forwarded this message to me from an astrophotography
> email list... it claims the D40x beats a 5D :-) I can't say how valid
> that is:

That's interesting, thanks. Do you have any idea how he measured the
read noise for the nikons?
From: ASAAR on
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:12:44 -0500, Alan Calan wrote:

> But I have to tell you where I am torn. I canot for the life of me
> understand why the D300 is not Full Frame. Nikon was pushing the DX
> format and Canon one upped them, in my opinion.
> I have an F5 and if I buy DX lenses, there are good chances that there
> will be vignetting?
> So my dependent tie to Nikon is not so strong.

Your tie is not so much to Nikon as it is to your film camera. No
matter which DSLR you get, whether D40x, D200, D300 or even Canon's
5D, after a short while it's very unlikely that your F5 will get
much more use. It's been years since I've put film in any of my
Nikon cameras, and for the rare instances that you'll be using your
F5, you can make do with your current lenses. I bought two
additional lenses for my DSLR. One is a DX lens, but even though
the other isn't, and it is fully compatible with my old Nikon film
SLRs, I doubt that I'll ever even try mounting it. Is it really all
that important that you be able to use any or all new lenses with
your F5? Getting a 5D won't change that desire. It'll just insure
that lens compatibility with your F5 won't even be an option.