Do I need a 16 bit sensor?

XEyedBear

XEyedBear

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Of course I actually want one, but do I need one?

An old friend showed me his Hasselblad with a 31 Mp digital back the other day. More importantly he showed me some true 16 bit images taken with that camera and displayed on a high quality calibrated monitor and printed on an Epson 3800 A2 printer. I was quite simply amazed at the additional impact these images showed, compared to what my D.80 and reasonably good Nikon lens can achieve. I wanted this setup immediately but lack the near £25,000 that has been spent on the total system.

Can I get close to this impact using, say, a Nikon D300 (which is neither full frame nor 16 bit allegedly).

Could I get some where near it using a lower cost MF camera? Are there suitable 645 cameras, with digital backs, available at around the D300 price these days? (I would prefer to avoid a film-based MF camera because I would have to invest in a suitable quality negative scanner - say Epson V9000 - as well as the film purchase and development costs. I would prefer to put that investment into glass).

My photography is predominantly landscape, architecture and macro (flora). Being a hobbyist, my technical skill is lower quartile; my compositional skill is lower decile at best. I currently use an A3 printer in a colour managed workflow.

PS. What is 16 bit anyway? Yes, I understand it refers to 2^16 different quantisation levels - but how does a sensor manufacturer know that his device is capable of this level of photon sampling accuracy? How many of these bits are noise?
 
Not sure how to read this one. Is it gen or a wind up

You talk as if you understand a lot, then say you print A3 yet your printers you have on your profile are A4's and to end you ask what is 16bit with what looks like a cut and paste terms, terms which if you know you would not be asking the question.

Can you have a ride in a Mini that matches a Bentley?
 
We can only guess at the quality of the prints you've seen, but I suspect the closest you'll get to the sumptuous quality you get from an image that is so heavily laden with quality in every dimension, is a D700. Or a D3 or D3x. At least for sensible money.

I also wonder about your friend's workflow. I wonder if you could give him one of your best Raw files and see what he gets out of it. Then at least you'll know it is a camera thing.
 
HoppyUK said:
We can only guess at the quality of the prints you've seen, but I suspect the closest you'll get to the sumptuous quality you get from an image that is so heavily laden with quality in every dimension, is a D700. Or a D3 or D3x. At least for sensible money.

I also wonder about your friend's workflow. I wonder if you could give him one of your best Raw files and see what he gets out of it. Then at least you'll know it is a camera thing.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. I shoot in RAW + Jpeg all the time now and process in Capture NX2 under Windows/XP. I'm not sure what the Hasselblad equivalent is, but I guess that ACR/Photoshop CS3 or 4 on MAC can handle 16 bit images.
 
Chaz Photos said:
Not sure how to read this one. Is it gen or a wind up

You talk as if you understand a lot, then say you print A3 yet your printers you have on your profile are A4's and to end you ask what is 16bit with what looks like a cut and paste terms, terms which if you know you would not be asking the question.

Can you have a ride in a Mini that matches a Bentley?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the few kind words and spotting my typing error. I under-designated my paper size 33.3% based on name and over designated it by 50% based on content. Still, life is full of imperfections isn't it?

Sorry, no cut and paste in what I wrote - anyway, it would be 'copy and paste' wouldn't it?

The article on 16 bit CCD sensors by Syngene (who provide imaging systems for gel documentation) (their Tech. Note 44) shows that it is not quite so straightforward as one might first think to say whether or not a sensor is truly 16 bit. I was wondering how Hasselblad or Nikon (or is it Sony ?) actually measure their sensors, but having been told that I 'would not be asking the question' perhaps this is the wrong forum in which to try to extend one's knowledge. Only experts need apply, hmmm?.

And yes, I have ridden in a Mini that matched a Bentley (in that case the match was one of age, but matches on the basis of many other properties are possible, I believe).
 
XYBear, you might find this article interesting. Comparison of prints from a little Canon G10 and a Hasselblad - apparently it was very close!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Which reinforces my comment about getting your friend to run out one of your files.
 
Even if there is any image quality benefit from moving from 12 to 16-bits (its certainly unproven in my eyes there is any benefit from 12 to 14-bits), can the printer resolve this extra information?

Personally I doubt it would be capable of that sort of subtley.
 
XEyedBear said:
More importantly he showed me some true 16 bit images taken with that camera and displayed on a high quality calibrated monitor and printed on an Epson 3800 A2 printer. I was quite simply amazed at the additional impact these images showed, compared to what my D.80 and reasonably good Nikon lens can achieve.
Click to expand...

Do you need one? No.

You probably need something a bit more than a "reasonably good lens". You need a quality lens. Then you need a properly calibrated monitor and a decent printer. After that you might need to think about moving to full frame, although you would get 14 bits with a D300, if you feel that's imortant. I don't.

That's your order of priorities, I'd suggest. You certainly don't wan't to go forking out to get more "bits".
 
foodpoison said:
It was! :lol:

So now we'll see a swarm of guys you previously had Canon 1DSmk3's and 70-200L's doing weddings with G10's :lol:

It was very interesting however :)
Click to expand...

I thought so too. But I'll tell you one thing - that G10 is one horrible looking wee camera. It has all the style qualities of a Ford Cortina circa 1970. :woot:
 
aberal said:
Do you need one? No.

You probably need something a bit more than a "reasonably good lens". You need a quality lens. Then you need a properly calibrated monitor and a decent printer. After that you might need to think about moving to full frame, although you would get 14 bits with a D300, if you feel that's imortant. I don't.

That's your order of priorities, I'd suggest. You certainly don't wan't to go forking out to get more "bits".
Click to expand...

Pun intended?

People think that having lots of lenses and cheapy filters and tripods and god knows what else that their images will improve.
You need quality glass!
 
My understanding is the human eye can only really discern an 8-bit image (approx 16 million colours I think?) and that shooting higher allows for greater play with the highlights and shadows.

I think you would use medium-format for resolution, surely?

I think DXOMark does a comparison across all cameras and there's only one which is above the D3X, D700, et al.
 
mr_v_s said:
My understanding is the human eye can only really discern an 8-bit image (approx 16 million colours I think?) and that shooting higher allows for greater play with the highlights and shadows.
Click to expand...

Yes, I accept the biological facts (mainly that the range of colours available with 12 bits (possibly 10) or greater of quantisation levels is beyond the capability of the human eye). But I am also strongly presuaded by the arguments for the advantages of the extra levels when trying to correct exposure problems in highlights and shadows. All the demos. I have seen in ACR and Photoshop seem to work and work well.

So I want to get more than 12 bits sensitivity. Is it the general opinion that to see the difference between 14 bit and 16 bits requires adherence to the laws of diminishing returns? i.e. I would have to be making a significant investment in lens quality, monitor quality, printer quality and calibration equipment in order to see the difference between 14 and 16 bit sensors?
(And, in the expereince I have just had, it would appear that there really is a difference, providing that investment has been made).

Or should I, as some seem to be saying, invest in becoming a better photographer, on the basis that perceived 'quality' is the result of little understoood activities deep within the brain that take into account compositional/artistic value as well as technical capability?

mr_v_s said:
I think you would use medium-format for resolution, surely?
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about the full frame/resolution argument. Perhaps the larger sensor will result in lower noise which might be of benefit when I move to A3 printing (or even perhaps A2). I think my APS-C sensor in the D.80 is probably capable of delivering enough data to make a good A3 print - is this correct?

What I am fairly sure of is that CMOS makes for a lower noise sensor than CCD. Is the D.300 the lowest spec/cheapest Nikon to use CMOS technology?


It was these two factors of sensor sensitvity (16 bit) and sensor noise (need for a larger sensor) that lead me to consider an MF camera in the first place. Will a D.300 give me similar benefits at a more affordable level of investment?

On the matter of better glass: I currently use an 18-200 VR lens because I need those extremes and don't like carrying around too much equipment. What is the recommendation for say 2 alternative lenses that would give me better quality? Would they be prime lenes?

mr_v_s said:
I think DXOMark does a comparison across all cameras and there's only one which is above the D3X, D700, et al.
Click to expand...

Where do I find this comarison?
 
Too be honest, you are asking all the wrong questions and getting tied up in technicalities, and not really focusing on what matters.

So I want to get more than 12 bits sensitivity.

Why?

I currently use an 18-200 VR lens because I need those extremes and don't like carrying around too much equipment.

Oh dear. Perhaps your lens is the real reason you see such a difference between the Hassleblad and your D80 output?

I think you need to focus on what you need to do, and don't get tied up in counting bits.
 
I'm going off what I've read by Thom Hogan. The differences between 12 bit and 14 bit imaging when shooting RAW with the D700, for example, shows little difference except in certain circumstances. To quote the great man:

"The gains made from 14-bit versus 12-bit in image quality only show up in a few circumstances. In general, you'll clearly see the difference if you have to bring up deep shadows by many stops. A low contrast image properly exposed wouldn't show any visible difference, even after large adjustments. A high constrast image underexposed and needing substantive exposure change in the shadows may show visible difference in the deepest shadows. In the highlight realm there is also a very small difference in values between 12-bit and 14-bit but here it is generally too small to make visible during even extreme image processing."

I certainly now shoot RAW, 12-bit and it's great (I used to be a JPEG-only junkie). I've had images of mine blown up to 60 x 40 for exhibition and I can compare images from the 10 megapixel D80 to the 12 megapixel D90 and D700 and, to me, they all look great! Large printed images are designed to be viewed from a distance but I'm wondering if high-resolution cameras can maintain pixel count at such large dimensions (i.e. a 24 megapixel camera, a 31 megapixel camera) so if you're up close, the image is as sharp as it would be if was printed small-format. But that's a seperate issue.

Personally I think RAW, 12-bit is fine and better glass would be the way to go. Bodies are worth noting if they offer something truly exceptional (like the D700's high noise-tolerance).

By the way, I've had prints from the 10 megapixel D80 printed to 60 x 40, as noted, and they look fine.

http://www.dxomark.com/ for more info.

I should point out I'm no expert on this matter and I'm sure there's more knowledgeable people about who can elaborate on this. Personally I would hold out on the D300 and look at the D700 or D3.
 
I think what the OP is saying is that he's seen some wonderful prints taken with mega expensive gear, and concluded that 16-bit Hasselblad was the way to go. What I am saying is that while that route certainly works, there may be other more affordable ways.

Nikon D700/D3 is a possibility as it has a reasonably high pixel count but low pixel density, meaning big photons capture and low noise. My guess is that this is less a lens sharpness issue, more about what the sensor can capture, and how it is processed. Almost any decent lens at f/8 delivers huge sharpness, at least in the centre; good enough for test purposes in the process of elimination (even though the 18-200 may not be the ultimate weapon of choice).

I'm thinking that Annie Leitovitz used a full frame Canon 1Ds3 to photograph the Queen, presumably in preference to a Hasselblad. Those prints at the National Gallery, a few feet wide, were fabulous :) (apparently, sadly I didn't go).
 
I greatly appreciate the depth and breadth of advice and opinions that have been offered up in response to my original post about 16 bits.

Right now I am thinking that I should look for better glass first, invest in a more capable (and, ideally, A3) printer (which can be used in any system), then print some of my own images before deciding whether or not I need a new body (actually, that's not in any doubt: at my age I need a new body......).

I'll browse other posts for recommendations on better glass.

Thanks again for all the advice and observations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top