Canon says more megapixels is bad...

bit pedantic to go on about a specific definition, if it does the same thing then what does it matter what you call it?

indeed- i'm just asking if his objection was to my definition of fill or technique.

petersmart said:
Not quite - a single photon or electron has very little energy - for example it takes about 624 Eev to power a 100 watt bulb for 1 second (The E here stands for Exa which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000) - so even if the photodiodes were 100% efficient - which they're not - amplification would still be necessary to reach the energy levels required for the memory cards.

i imagine there are a number of intermediate steps between sensor and memory card - ultimately there could be a process where the low energy signal is interpreted and converted into whatever the memory card needs to process.
 
Fair question!

QE or quantum efficiency is the ability of the sensor to convert photons to electrical signal and is therefore a fair comparator of different manufacturers.

I see what you mean by QE but QE goes hand in hand with lots of other factors, most people, for example, would be shocked at the effect a piece of wire or a length of track can have on a signal and that's before you get into the effects that other devices, and signals and material and design decisions may have and that's my point - you / we / test labs can never isolate pixel size as such as the only change and the difference between cameras or sensors and can never really say what is either improving or holding back things such as noise and dynamic range as there are always other things changing at the same time to add to the mix.
 
i imagine there are a number of intermediate steps between sensor and memory card - ultimately there could be a process where the low energy signal is interpreted and converted into whatever the memory card needs to process.

There already is - amplification and digitisation - but all are subject to the laws of physics.

.
 
i'm guessing that by varying ISO we'd be varying the amplification portion right?

That's right, the output from the sensor depends on the amount of light hitting each photodiode and has to be amplified before it can be digitised and fed to the memory cards.

The ISO is really a measure of the amplification applied to this output.

.
 
Rich, actually the D7000 is probably better for this than the D700 due to it's dynamic range.

Below is a quick test from today, so far the files from the D700 seem to be of similar quality when lifting shadows.

b1700.jpg


b1.jpg
 
Shadows have lifted okay, but you seem to have lost Bruce's syrup ;)
 
Below is a quick test from today, so far the files from the D700 seem to be of similar quality when lifting shadows.

b1700.jpg


b1.jpg

Not sure I am a scientist but could you try something similar at f8 and the equivalent shutter speed just for arguments sake so we can look at the background noise.

And I reckon you have desaturated the edit too..... but I know nothing...................
 
Last edited:
^^^
The processed version just has my normal processing applied which does slightly alter the colours/saturation.

As for the noise, it's actually easier to see in bokeh than any areas that are in focus, even normally exposed shot's at ISO100 will show grain in bokeh.

Below is a 100% crop of some dark shadow area where noise will be at it's worst, no noise reduction was applied except the LR default that always applies 25 in the colour noise reduction, however this does not destroy detail like luminance noise reduction that remained at zero.
Also no further PP was applied, only the shadows were lifted.

bcrop.jpg


Edit:

For reference below is a 100% crop from an image that hasn't had it's shadows pushed.

bcrop2.jpg


100% Crop of the eyes

bcrop3.jpg
 
Last edited:
I can't see that properly on my phone and I haven't had a chance to do a test with both cameras yet.
 
Rhys, I should point out that I actually really like the processing you use. Is not particularly flattering, but it shows character.
 
Below is a quick test from today, so far the files from the D700 seem to be of similar quality when lifting shadows.

b1700.jpg

rhys, is there any reason why you insist on shooting with the subject not facing the natural light? In this example it seems it's an overcast day so it wouldn't make the subject squint and the background is so blurred that it's hardly going to affect your composition.
 
^^^
The weather forecast said it should be overcast but the light was largely like below, although in the short time I was out, it did occasionally go partially behind a cloud but not for long.

b2.jpg


b1700.jpg


What your seeing above is the evaluative metering trying to retain detail in the background due to semi-direct sunlight hitting it as it happens to be on a corner, although by the looks of it, the meter is also trying to rescue his grey/silver hair (silver hair blows out easy).
The subject himself is currently in shade from the buildings, and to my eye the quality of light looked rather pleasing at the time, and looking at the back of the LCD, it was a bit dark but I knew I had what I needed so I moved on.

Also Joe when it comes to attaining either technical perfection or good expression, I always sacrifice technical perfection, as there is no value in a picture that's technically good but lacking in character.

The next picture I took that day is a good example, I doubt I would have ever have captured the below expression if I started issuing them with to many instructions, instead I simply told them roughly where I wanted them to stand.
As it happens they were facing the opposite direction as the previous example, however needed just the same PP.

b3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Also Joe when it comes to attaining either technical perfection or good expression, I always sacrifice technical perfection, as there is no value in a picture that's technically good but lacking in character.

how does taking the shot into natural light affect character negatively?
 
^^^
Please read my post again Joe, if you still don't know then I give up, unfortunately I just don't have the patience, sorry...
 
^^^
Please read my post again Joe, if you still don't know then I give up, unfortunately I just don't have the patience, sorry...

i re-read it and i don't understand.

You say that you tell people roughly where to stand so why would you opt for that rough position to be facing away from natural light?

I don't see how that is an unreasonable question :shrug:

and for the record i think the best shot of the three is the first one which takes the most advantage of natural light
 
Last edited:
Back
Top