Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
What do you guys think? Am I over-rating the importance of low shadow noise?
SPOOFE wrote:Not at all; but I do think you've made a mistake about which cameras actually incorporate backlit sensors. Right now, I'm pretty sure that no DSLR actually incorporates one and that they're relegated to compacts. Something about how the smaller photosites on the smaller sensors gets the most benefit.
End User wrote:A good camera body is only half the story. Don't forget about the lens. Something in the f/1.4-f/2.8 range -> http://goo.gl/p2N3X or http://goo.gl/4aVCe (ignore the brand, just look at the specs/price)
Even if you do get a good low light lens you may need still need to use a flash or tripod in low light situations. When I shoot in low light my equipment choices depend on the subject matter. I've shot long exposure night shots with my 12-24mm f/4G on a tripod. For portraits I'll use a 30mm f/1.4 (http://goo.gl/F6Osf) with a SB-800.
mattsteg wrote:Be somewhat wary of overfocusing on low-light low-noise capability. Anything you can get these days does a decent job (obviously some better than others, of course), and when not pixel-peeping shadow noise isn't necessarily the end of the world.
and the D90 is still a pretty good option despite its age.
Voldenuit wrote:Other than the D80 and maybe some of the lower-end Nikons, Nikon matrix metering is generally very reliable and imo a strength of the system. The D80 paid way too much attention to whatever you were focusing on for metering. The D90 still biases exposure toward what it focuses on, depending on focus mode, but not to the extreme that the D80 did. Any details on the specific hit/miss you experience with Nikon? Plenty of people seem to see metering as a strength (including me, but I really don't have enough experience with other systems to compare).Good advice by mattsteg. Nikon's JPEG colours are still one of my favourites, and the D90 is still a pretty good option despite its age. That and the K-r/K-x are probably my favourites right now. Unfortunately, Nikon's OOC exposures can be a bit hit and miss (except for dedicated flash metering, where they are among the best), so require a bit of hands-on photographic know how to get the best results (then again, all DSLRs do).
Voldenuit wrote:The size of the grip on the rebels multiplies the ergonomic compromises many times over for me. The last Pentax I hadnled wasn't super new, maybe the *ist. Ergonomically similar to Nikon is my recollection. ISO on the d90 isn't bad - not a camera to the face adjustment, but still just a button-hold + wheel spin away.As for ergonomics, I still like Canon the best, I think they and Ricoh have the best ergonomics in general for hands-on shooting (although the lower end canons without the rear dial do compromise usability IMO). I don't like how fiddly it is to get to ISO controls on the Nikons, haven't had much experience with modern Pentaxes (the last Pentax I handled was a Spotmatic ). Will definitely try to get him into a camera store to handle the cameras in person. Then again, by then he may have completely lost interest and latched on to something else.
mattsteg wrote:Voldenuit wrote:Other than the D80 and maybe some of the lower-end Nikons, Nikon matrix metering is generally very reliable and imo a strength of the system. The D80 paid way too much attention to whatever you were focusing on for metering. The D90 still biases exposure toward what it focuses on, depending on focus mode, but not to the extreme that the D80 did. Any details on the specific hit/miss you experience with Nikon? Plenty of people seem to see metering as a strength (including me, but I really don't have enough experience with other systems to compare).Good advice by mattsteg. Nikon's JPEG colours are still one of my favourites, and the D90 is still a pretty good option despite its age. That and the K-r/K-x are probably my favourites right now. Unfortunately, Nikon's OOC exposures can be a bit hit and miss (except for dedicated flash metering, where they are among the best), so require a bit of hands-on photographic know how to get the best results (then again, all DSLRs do).
Voldenuit wrote:The problem was that they focused on a black object with a bright background in single-area AF mode, which resulted in a boosted exposure. Nikon made the decision to weight the subject under the focus sensor more highly to make sure what you're focusing on is exposed well. Not ideal in this case (and I prefer the metering of my older D200 that doesn't have that enhancement), but predictable, if you know how the system works. The D80 introduced this bias and had it tuned up way too high. With the current cameras, as long as you know the camera is emphasizing where you focus, it should not be difficult to avoid. I believe different AF settings would not have metered the scene that hot. This is why jack-of-all-trades reviewers like dpreview can be a bit less useful than brand-specific reviewers for metering/autofocus information. They're more likely to know the ins and outs of the specific systems they use, and modern systems do bring in a fair bit of complexity!DPR recently tested the D7000 and D3100, and both cameras had a tendency to overexpose in high contrast and/or outdoor scenes. With RAW, this is not as big a deal, but when shooting JPEG, can lead to irrecoverably blown highlights.
Thom Hogan wrote:Likewise, the "overexposes" complaints often end up being not liking the change in gamma that the Standard Picture Control imparts coupled with things like Single Point AF (there it is again) telling the matrix meter to put more emphasis on the thing that's being focused on. Unless that's skin tone or brighter, the camera will "overexpose." It's one of the reasons why my books are so well received: I point out these things and what you should do about them.
liquidsquid wrote:What about the better Olympus u4/3 models? With a fast lens like the Panasonic f1.7 20mm pancake they make quite a small system with excellent OOC JPG images (some consider the OOC JPG from Olympus the best there is). Many dSLRs with lens attached are so big and heavy they get left at home. Also the Panasonic's G2 is pretty nice as well. It may not be "the best" at low light, they are still far better than a compact. When paired with a fast lens will make you pretty happy with the results.
The entire u4/3 system can be roughly 1/2 the weight of a similarly equipped Canon/Nikon equivalent with little sacrifice in performance. Example with 14-150mm lens attached, or even better with the 20mm f1.7 pancake. Now with a decent 100mm-300mm IS lens we are firmly in wildlife zone (200mm to 600mm equivalent).
Film would have a tough time keeping up with digital in low light in most of today's larger-sensor cameras.
-Mark
Voldenuit wrote:It just seems to me as if Nikon hasn't struck the right balance here, especially for beginners, who are struggling to get the basic concepts down let alone making allowances for how the gear will stray from its normal behaviour to "please" them.
swampfox wrote:If low light is the concern, getting a camera with a larger image sensor is a better idea. Due to the size of the sensor, the m4/3 cameras aren't going to compete with an APS-C camera in low-light quality. Nikon (D3100 if you're planning to just buy new lenses, D90 if you're thinking otherwise) or Canon's equivalent (Rebel something or other...) is just going to do a better job with the low light. Then you buy a nice fast lens (the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is great)...
On the other hand, all of them will be better than a compact, unless you're buying a premium compact with a larger sensor in it.
(In the interests of disclosure, I have a Nikon D40 with a serious hankering to upgrade.)
liquidsquid wrote:[/quote]
Actually that is quite a load of bulls**t now. You, like many others have not been following recent developments (however the new Sony sensor DOES rule when used in the Pentax and Nikon) and are spitting out old info. For instance the new GH2 with its new u4/3 sensor competes quite well with the A55 using Sony's flagship 'C' sensor. There is more to it than sensor size these days.
Bear in mind that if you intend to PRINT your images, pixel-peeping no longer counts since noise becomes binned/lost therefore averaged out. A high resolution 16Mp image sensor in the GH2 will print MUCH better noise-wise than a 10Mp lower-density sensor on the same-sized paper.
The other thing to consider is the GH2 (top-end u4/3) by all accounts focuses faster and more accurately in very low light than any camera to date (all else the same). Having a low light sensor but inability to auto-focus reliably sort of kills the point of taking a picture in the first place. However the GH2 is probably out of the OP's price range.
liquidsquid wrote:What about the better Olympus u4/3 models? With a fast lens like the Panasonic f1.7 20mm pancake they make quite a small system with excellent OOC JPG images (some consider the OOC JPG from Olympus the best there is).
bimmerlovere39 wrote:To the OP: Just how high are you thinking the ISO has to go, or do you have any idea?
bimmerlovere39 wrote:That said, I don't know of any stupid-fast primes for u4/3s - the fastest I can think of offhand is the f/1.7 pancake.
bimmerlovere39 wrote:No clue where Pentax is.
I'm not sure how the SLT Sonys and u4/3 Olympuses handle it - is the EVF showing a stabilized view full-time, or does it only kick in when autofocusing (like the in-lens solutions)?
liquidsquid wrote:Actually that is quite a load of bulls**t now. You, like many others have not been following recent developments (however the new Sony sensor DOES rule when used in the Pentax and Nikon) and are spitting out old info. For instance the new GH2 with its new u4/3 sensor competes quite well with the A55 using Sony's flagship 'C' sensor. There is more to it than sensor size these days.
Bear in mind that if you intend to PRINT your images, pixel-peeping no longer counts since noise becomes binned/lost therefore averaged out. A high resolution 16Mp image sensor in the GH2 will print MUCH better noise-wise than a 10Mp lower-density sensor on the same-sized paper.
etilena wrote:It really does depend on how much into it your father in law wants to get into the whole digital photography thing.
swampfox wrote:Thanks, but I do keep up with photography news. I know that sensor size isn't everything, I'm aware that m4/3 sensors produce nice results. I haven't seen anything that would indicate the basic physics of sensor size and light-gathering capability have been overcome though. Comparing cameras of significantly different pixel counts is obviously going to produce a difference, but comparing cameras where things are relatively equal, the larger sensor is going to be "cleaner" (precisely because the larger sensor creates an advantage in an otherwise equal situation).