From: ray on 8 Mar 2007 15:33
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:11:20 -0800, nospam wrote:
> In article <pan.2007.03.08.17.45.28.383321(a)zianet.com>, ray
> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
>> my own comparison tests any time soon.
> digital slrs start around $500ish.
Right. With a fast short lens and a good 400mm lens.
From: ray on 8 Mar 2007 15:38
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:05:30 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2007.03.07.18.44.00.473793(a)zianet.com>, ray
>>>>> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>>>>>> what is available with film.
>>>>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>>>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>>>>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
>>>>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
>>>> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
>>>> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
>>>> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
>>>> light levels.
>>> Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
>>> and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
>>> digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
>>> repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
>>> aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
>>> stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).
>>> Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
>>> sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
>>> pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
>>> own comparison tests.
>> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
>> my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
>> with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are. I also have my trusty
>> old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
>> - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
>> that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
>> enough. The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
>> would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
>> could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other. BTW - I've produced
>> shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
>> - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.
> "Good enough" (or fine enough) is an extremely important milestone in
> the development of a technology, definitely.
> I've got at least 5 8x10 prints from a 2 megapixel Epson 850Z camera
> framed and on the walls in the house here; that's less than 150 pixels
> per linear inch, and they "shouldn't" look that good. My examples are
> also "best case" situations, and I couldn't count on 2mp for 8x10 reliably.
I would certainly concur with that.
> I don't expect you to buy the equipment you think won't work too well
> just to run tests, not; that wouldn't be reasonable.
> I will tell you, as a matter of personal experience, confirmed by LOTS
> of paper and online writers, that DSLRs perform *much* better than the
> P&S cameras. Sensor size is a key factor in image quality.
I've come to the same conclusion. My current requirements evolve much more
around portability and long lenses than getting the ultimate performance.
When I'm hiking (or snowshoeing) for several miles, I want to keep things
pared down as much as possible. When that phase of my requirements change
significantly, I will be looking with more emphasis on sensor size than
number of pixels.
> There are a LOT of high-ISO pictures in my online snapshot album from my
> old Fuji S2 and my current Nikon D200, with the full EXIF data so you
> can tell what ISO they're shot at (and what camera, there are a couple
> other digital cameras contributing too). I'd be willing to send you the
> camera original of a modest number of them (your choice) for careful
> comparison and analysis, and use in a web page or article if you want to
> take the trouble to write up your results carefully. (The S2 was
> 2003-spring 2006, when I got the D200; the root of the snapshot album
> site is at <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/>.).
> This one from a wake for a good friend, last October, was only ISO 800,
> but I gotta say that for me, TRI-X at 400 doesn't look this good.
> Or if you prefer color,
Thanks for the references - I'll have a look at your shots.
From: Scott W on 8 Mar 2007 16:24
On Mar 8, 7:45 am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote:
> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
> my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
> with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are.
The Kodak may be able to produce a good looking image but it will not
close to the ISO performance that a DSLR will have, its sensor is just
small for that. It would be a mistake to judge what a DLSR is capable
of based on a point and shoot digital. The point and shoot cameras
that I have are pretty much limited to ISO 100 or less.
To see just how much better a DSLR is first look at how the P850 does
at ISO 400
Now look at how the a number of DLSRs do at ISO 800 and 1600
>I also have my trusty
> old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
> - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
> that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
The reality is that a DSLR is far better at getting the good shots
when conditions are not idea, it is far better in low light and it is
far better when white balance might be tricky.
>The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
> would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
> could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other.
Does not matter if you are going for prints or files a DSLR will do
way better in low
> BTW - I've produced
> shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
> - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.
I have never gotten a 8 x 10 print from a 1 MP camera that I really
liked, they always looked really soft to me.
> I don't often use high ISO - I hope, as I said, to do some shooting in
> that area as time permits.- Hide quoted text -
If you use either film or your point and shoot you will likely get
frustrated pretty fast,
unless you do B/W and really like grain, some people do.
From: John Sheehy on 8 Mar 2007 17:10
John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in
> So. all told, the practical noise floor
> is 1.1 stops higher with the XTi, for the same real (not metered)
I made a distinction there, but in this specific case, both meter about the
> The XTi seems to be a better imager at ISOs 100 and 200, though, with
> more pixels and less read noise.
This is in the sense that the XTi has a lower noise floor than any Canon
DSLRs except the 1-series at ISOs 100 and 200, relative to maximum signal.
If you let the camera meter the scene without an extra 1/2 stop of EC,
there will be more noise in the shadows in the XTi. Fortunately, the -2
contrast setting in the XTi recognizes this extra headroom, and rolls it
well into the JPEGs, so a white or green highlight clips in the review and
histogram just barely below where the RAW data does, so you can use the
histogram to feel out white and green RAW highlights.
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 8 Mar 2007 17:14
ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>> The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
>> true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
>> at high ISOs.
>Interesting references. Only problem is that they seem to be addressing
>what might be achieved under optimal conditions rather than addressing
>high ISO - low light action shots. I'm still not convinced.
You do have to actually *read* them, not just scan them. The do
each address it specifically, though some in less detail than
others. The point in the number of cites was merely to
demonstrate there is a consensus. For specifics you can't do
better than the discussion by Roger N. Clarke.
Regardless, you've made it quite clear that you are not
interested in definitive analysis of the question; and won't
accept anything that disturbs your current bias.
I don't have the time to waste with detailed discussion of the
above reference under those circumstances.
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com