paul goode
Well-known member
impotentspider said:
That'll be the 1D mkIII then
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Sony Alpha? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter PAULBOY
- Start date
That'll be the 1D mkIII then
RogW said:
Klaus on Photo Zone has used the Sony extensively during his long travels in Asia. He used to have problems with dust which is why he chose the Sony. I think his conclusion is that in the real world the Sony dust removal works very well. I suggest you ask Klaus though to get a proper summary of his experiences.
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
I believe that the Sony dust removal system is similar to the one in the 400D. (This is from memory, don't shoot me if I've got it wrong.) If it is, then it will be a very useful thing indeed - my 400D is just as prone to gathering dust as my 20Ds are (I started out with the dust shaker switched off as a test), and since I switched the shaker on, my dust problems went away and haven't come back. I'm a believer.
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
Leif said:
Leif said:
No problem reading here. Those are your words, not mine. I repeat the challenge: show me some evidence of a Sony sensor which comes even close to the high ISO performance of the 20D shot I posted earlier in this thread: http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/134943
Tannin said:
The clue is in the word "D200" rather than "Sony". I'll explain carefully. When I use the work "D200", I am referring to the D200. If I use the word "Sony" then I am referring to the Sony. Reread the text you quote if you are still struggling. Since I do not use or own a Sony I cannot comment on the Sony. But I do own a D200 and hence I can comment when someone gives a totally false impression of it.
Regarding that picture you posted, I can get that sort of performance from a D200. When the picture is that small it is not hard. It's when you go large (A3) that the noise is obvious. Do you own a D200? You are talking from an informed viewpoint aren't you?
Tannin said:
Sorry to be argumentative (that is not the purpose) but the Canon uses the piezelectric effect to vibrate the sensor cover. In other words, small vibrational waves pass over the surface, a bit like shaking a carpet. The Sony moves the sensor back and forth in its own plane. I think the Canon solution is more effective.
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
Here is the proof.
Image 1: 100% crop: same standard pp workflow I use on pretty much every image I shoot (with any camera): Neat Image, factory default settings but a touch of sharpening, adjust exposure if required, then crop/resize and final mild sharpen in PMView.
Even without any PP at all, it comes up pretty clean: (image 2).
I don't believe I have ever seen a Sony sensor produce images as clean as that at 3200 ISO. If a D200 can do it, by all means post samples - it would be very interesting indeed to examine them.
As for the sensor shaker, thankyou, that's good to know there is a difference.
EDIT: I forgot to say that the original image is a tad overexposed (to my eye), hence the difference between the processed and the unprocessed images.
Image 1: 100% crop: same standard pp workflow I use on pretty much every image I shoot (with any camera): Neat Image, factory default settings but a touch of sharpening, adjust exposure if required, then crop/resize and final mild sharpen in PMView.
Even without any PP at all, it comes up pretty clean: (image 2).
I don't believe I have ever seen a Sony sensor produce images as clean as that at 3200 ISO. If a D200 can do it, by all means post samples - it would be very interesting indeed to examine them.
As for the sensor shaker, thankyou, that's good to know there is a difference.
EDIT: I forgot to say that the original image is a tad overexposed (to my eye), hence the difference between the processed and the unprocessed images.
Attachments
Last edited:
Tannin said:
Only someone who does not even own or use a D200 could come out with such nonsense as the above.
The Sony Alpha and Nikon D200 do not even use the same sensor. They don't even have the same resolution (the Sony is sharper, due to different anti-aliasing filters). And they do not even use the same signal processing or in-camera noise reduction agorithms.
But you seem to have reached a conclusion without the need to do research.
I am at work and do not have access to my pictures, but I happened across the following example D200 ISO 1600 image:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=22713107
I came across it by accident, so it is just a random selection.
Tannin
Common; sedentary.
We will need better than that to be convincing. Let's see one in poor light, at 3200 ISO, and 100% crop - i.e., under similarly difficult conditions.
(No hurry for that, I'm off to New South Wales a birding trip shortly, talk to you when I get back in about 10 days or so.)
(No hurry for that, I'm off to New South Wales a birding trip shortly, talk to you when I get back in about 10 days or so.)
Tannin said:
I doubt anything would convince you since you have made up your mind without using the D200. But that one example blows out of the water the stupid claims that the D200 is unuseable at high ISO.
I would expect the 20D to be at least half a stop better based on pixel size alone (bigger pixels, better signal to noise ratio).
Here are some side by side tests:
http://www.camerahobby.com/Digital_High_ISO.htm
impotentspider
Well-known member
Tannin said:
Tannin,
Does the 400D's system remove everything everytime, or is it still prone to stubborn spots? I'm a bit peeved that the Pentax system leaves the occasional speck that I have to take a cotton bud to, OK I know its easy to clone them out later but I'm pretty lazy when it comes to editing images, I like mine straight out of the camera, slight contrast and saturation tweak, crop, sharpen and print.
Here's a couple of pictures I found on my PC. The first is a 100% crop from an ISO 1600 image taken in (very) low light, with the in-camera noise reduction at the lowest setting, and with no post processing, apart from some sharpening. The second is the full frame, at ISO 100. I could not find the ISO 1600 full frame image. Notice the shadows and the absence of chroma noise. Incidentally these are the same images that I posted many months ago in response to Keith Reader's assertions that the D200 is unusable at high ISO.
There are also some interesting graphs on Photozone.
Canon 350D resolution against ISO
Sony Alpha resolution against ISO
Nikon D200 resolution against ISO
I don't know what settings he used on the Sony Alpha, so I'm not sure if the results are representative or not. I am not sure how literally we can take these graphs but taking them at face value shows that the loss of sharpness of the D200 at high ISO roughly matches that of the 350D though the 350D is a shade better.
Klaus uses all three cameras, and as far as I know he is not partial to any particular brand, except perhaps Olympus due to the in-camera sensor cleaning.
There are also some interesting graphs on Photozone.
Canon 350D resolution against ISO
Sony Alpha resolution against ISO
Nikon D200 resolution against ISO
I don't know what settings he used on the Sony Alpha, so I'm not sure if the results are representative or not. I am not sure how literally we can take these graphs but taking them at face value shows that the loss of sharpness of the D200 at high ISO roughly matches that of the 350D though the 350D is a shade better.
Klaus uses all three cameras, and as far as I know he is not partial to any particular brand, except perhaps Olympus due to the in-camera sensor cleaning.
Attachments
paul goode
Well-known member
As this forum is titled 'Birdforum' I thinks its resonable to assume that most people are interested in photographing birds. Therefore would it not be reasonable to use bird photographs to illustrate points.
Manufacturers make no secret of the fact that certain cameras are designed for certain markets, Fuji S3 for instance, designed for portrait and wedding photographers. The S5 with its extended dynamic range is still aimed at the same market. Therefore, while these cameras are very good at what they are designed for, they may (and I emphasise MAY!) not be the best for the very specific requirements of bird photography.
Therefore using non bird photography examples could mislead people. Retaining feather detail in a long tailed tit, for example, is very difficult and its important to know how a camera's noise and noise reduction will handle this. Noise reduction software that loses fine detail may be perfect for a celebrity snappers studio but not so great when chasing a firecrest through a bush!
Attached iso1600 shot of a Robin
Manufacturers make no secret of the fact that certain cameras are designed for certain markets, Fuji S3 for instance, designed for portrait and wedding photographers. The S5 with its extended dynamic range is still aimed at the same market. Therefore, while these cameras are very good at what they are designed for, they may (and I emphasise MAY!) not be the best for the very specific requirements of bird photography.
Therefore using non bird photography examples could mislead people. Retaining feather detail in a long tailed tit, for example, is very difficult and its important to know how a camera's noise and noise reduction will handle this. Noise reduction software that loses fine detail may be perfect for a celebrity snappers studio but not so great when chasing a firecrest through a bush!
Attached iso1600 shot of a Robin
Attachments
Last edited:
Superb shot Paul - retained all the detail you could want :t:
Paul: I can see plenty of detail in that ISO 1600 image I posted. Note also that the image that I posted has some dark areas with very little noise. That is a much harder test than mid-tones.
Mmmm. You did remember to turn on your monitor didn't you ? BTW I learnt the patronising remark followed by a wink from Keith Reeder. Annoying isn't it?
Regarding your image, where is the 100% crop? A small JPG from the full frame tells you nothing. I've seen a 9 by 6 print from a D200 at ISO 3200 taken at night that looked fine. (I avoid ISO 3200.)
But as I've said before, no amount of examples will convince you lot.
Reeder says that the D200 loses significant detail at high ISO. The example picture and the graphs from Photo Zone disprove that one.
I think the problem with you and others is that you take Keith Reeder's review literally. He seems to have 'status' on this forum (hence he must be right). Has it occurred to you that he was wrong? I know that much of what he said is incorrect as I own and use the D200, and I simply do not have the problems that he had. As far as I know other D200 users also don not have his problems.
Several people on this forum suggested to him that the D200 is not for beginners. (The comments went over his head.) It is possible that for someone who likes auto-everything, the D200 is not so good. Perhaps the default settings are not suitable for birding and need changing. As far as I can tell his problems are (apart from the banding) the result of user error.
Maybe it is not an easy camera to use, but all I can say is that I find it very easy to use. I grew up with slide film which has little exposure latitude, and learnt the basics of metering. Maybe the problem is that he did not understand the fundamentals and needed automatic operation? Who knows. Or maybe he received a camera with faulty metering, faulty auto-focus, and a faulty sensor that gave much more noise at high ISO. It does seem unlikely that one camera would have so many faults. Sorry, two cameras, as the first one was replaced.
Reeder clearly did not understand the noise reduction settings and made incorrect statements. It is only always on at ISO 800 and above, and can be set low, or increased. I use it low, as higher settings are poor in my opinion. In fact I think Keith probably did lots of daft things: leaving in-camera noise reduction on high, using JPEG and ISO 1600, not understanding the basics of metering. It's the only way I can understand him getting such weird results.
And why do other reviewers not come out with criticisms that he does? Birding is not the only activity that needs auto-focus. So why don't reviews by sports photographers and others trash the auto-focus? And birding is not the only activity that uses the metering. So why don't other reviews trash the D200 metering? And why doesn't everyone trash the high ISO performance? So why is it that he produces a review that trashes almost every aspect of the camera? And yet other reviews do not. In fact the camera sold in astonishingly large quantities. (The Canon 20D offered significantly better value. Go figure.) He received two dud cameras with serious faults (poor calibration of the sensor read outs) and it does seem as if he was so angry at Nikon that he let loose with all barrels blazing. The original version of his review was an angry emotional rant. He has toned it down somewhat, and given some absurd example high ISO shots. He also turned up on numerous forums making angry emotional rants against the D200.
Oh and why did he say that the D200 had worse high ISO performance than the D70? I owned both (I still own the D200) and that is false. He made that assertion on many forums and was promptly told he was talking nonsense by many people. The high ISO performance of the D70 was poor.
The truth is that non-biased reviewers will say quite openly that the Canon 20D has better high ISO performance. I would guess it is at least half a stop better, and maybe 1 stop. That is to be expected given the larger pixels and better signal to noise ratio. They might (shock horror) even point out advantages of the D200. I have read that Nikon auto-focus works in dimmer conditions. Is that so? To be honest I have no idea not having done comparisons. And I have heard reports of the 20D suffering moisture damage in tropical jungle and the Antarctic. Fortunately we never have rain here.
As someone else suggested, a decent photographer will get good results from the Canon 30D and Nikon D200, as the skills of the photographer matter more than any differences in the performance.
And I take it you say the Canon 400D is unsuitable for birding do you? It has similar performance to the Nikon D80 and D200. I wonder why? Maybe the fact that it has the same pixel pitch is an important reason. Oh I know Canon came out with lots of marketing bull when it was announced to explain that it had no more noise than the 20D. But once you looked behind the smoke and mirrors you found that it has more noise. (According to online reviews.)
Oh and one of the really funny things is that many people will pixel peep at ISO 1600, and search for loss of detail. And what lens do they use? A Sigma 50-500, perhaps with a tele-converter. Or an 80-400 zoom used at 400. So they are more often than not using a lens that is slightly soft and which goes nowhere near the capability of the sensor anyway.
By the way I would probably recommend Canon to new users who do bird photography based on the system. The 1DsII and 1DIII camera and the 400mm F5.6, 500mm F4 IS, 600 F4 IS lenses have no Nikon counterpart. Those in my opinion are valid reasons to choose one system over another. But they really only apply to someone with aspirations to become a semi-pro photographer given the price of most of those items.
But I do not see myself swapping. The Canon equivalents of the 60mm and 200mm micro lenses are not good enough. And people always complain about the 20D and 30D fill flash.
And back on the ranch, I suggest that the original poster should check balanced reviews, for example those on dpreview. The Sony Alpha MIGHT have poor high ISO performance. It might not. I have no idea. But it DOES NOT use the same sensor as the D200. And I would not trust statements about it from people who have never used it (including me).
Oh, and technique and fieldcraft matter. Dare I say they are more important than equipment?
Mmmm. You did remember to turn on your monitor didn't you ?
BTW I learnt the patronising remark followed by a wink from Keith Reeder. Annoying isn't it? Regarding your image, where is the 100% crop? A small JPG from the full frame tells you nothing. I've seen a 9 by 6 print from a D200 at ISO 3200 taken at night that looked fine. (I avoid ISO 3200.)
But as I've said before, no amount of examples will convince you lot.
Reeder says that the D200 loses significant detail at high ISO. The example picture and the graphs from Photo Zone disprove that one.
I think the problem with you and others is that you take Keith Reeder's review literally. He seems to have 'status' on this forum (hence he must be right). Has it occurred to you that he was wrong? I know that much of what he said is incorrect as I own and use the D200, and I simply do not have the problems that he had. As far as I know other D200 users also don not have his problems.
Several people on this forum suggested to him that the D200 is not for beginners. (The comments went over his head.) It is possible that for someone who likes auto-everything, the D200 is not so good. Perhaps the default settings are not suitable for birding and need changing. As far as I can tell his problems are (apart from the banding) the result of user error.
Maybe it is not an easy camera to use, but all I can say is that I find it very easy to use. I grew up with slide film which has little exposure latitude, and learnt the basics of metering. Maybe the problem is that he did not understand the fundamentals and needed automatic operation? Who knows. Or maybe he received a camera with faulty metering, faulty auto-focus, and a faulty sensor that gave much more noise at high ISO. It does seem unlikely that one camera would have so many faults. Sorry, two cameras, as the first one was replaced.
Reeder clearly did not understand the noise reduction settings and made incorrect statements. It is only always on at ISO 800 and above, and can be set low, or increased. I use it low, as higher settings are poor in my opinion. In fact I think Keith probably did lots of daft things: leaving in-camera noise reduction on high, using JPEG and ISO 1600, not understanding the basics of metering. It's the only way I can understand him getting such weird results.
And why do other reviewers not come out with criticisms that he does? Birding is not the only activity that needs auto-focus. So why don't reviews by sports photographers and others trash the auto-focus? And birding is not the only activity that uses the metering. So why don't other reviews trash the D200 metering? And why doesn't everyone trash the high ISO performance? So why is it that he produces a review that trashes almost every aspect of the camera? And yet other reviews do not. In fact the camera sold in astonishingly large quantities. (The Canon 20D offered significantly better value. Go figure.) He received two dud cameras with serious faults (poor calibration of the sensor read outs) and it does seem as if he was so angry at Nikon that he let loose with all barrels blazing. The original version of his review was an angry emotional rant. He has toned it down somewhat, and given some absurd example high ISO shots. He also turned up on numerous forums making angry emotional rants against the D200.
Oh and why did he say that the D200 had worse high ISO performance than the D70? I owned both (I still own the D200) and that is false. He made that assertion on many forums and was promptly told he was talking nonsense by many people. The high ISO performance of the D70 was poor.
The truth is that non-biased reviewers will say quite openly that the Canon 20D has better high ISO performance. I would guess it is at least half a stop better, and maybe 1 stop. That is to be expected given the larger pixels and better signal to noise ratio. They might (shock horror) even point out advantages of the D200. I have read that Nikon auto-focus works in dimmer conditions. Is that so? To be honest I have no idea not having done comparisons. And I have heard reports of the 20D suffering moisture damage in tropical jungle and the Antarctic. Fortunately we never have rain here.
As someone else suggested, a decent photographer will get good results from the Canon 30D and Nikon D200, as the skills of the photographer matter more than any differences in the performance.
And I take it you say the Canon 400D is unsuitable for birding do you? It has similar performance to the Nikon D80 and D200. I wonder why? Maybe the fact that it has the same pixel pitch is an important reason. Oh I know Canon came out with lots of marketing bull when it was announced to explain that it had no more noise than the 20D. But once you looked behind the smoke and mirrors you found that it has more noise. (According to online reviews.)
Oh and one of the really funny things is that many people will pixel peep at ISO 1600, and search for loss of detail. And what lens do they use? A Sigma 50-500, perhaps with a tele-converter. Or an 80-400 zoom used at 400. So they are more often than not using a lens that is slightly soft and which goes nowhere near the capability of the sensor anyway.
By the way I would probably recommend Canon to new users who do bird photography based on the system. The 1DsII and 1DIII camera and the 400mm F5.6, 500mm F4 IS, 600 F4 IS lenses have no Nikon counterpart. Those in my opinion are valid reasons to choose one system over another. But they really only apply to someone with aspirations to become a semi-pro photographer given the price of most of those items.
But I do not see myself swapping. The Canon equivalents of the 60mm and 200mm micro lenses are not good enough. And people always complain about the 20D and 30D fill flash.
And back on the ranch, I suggest that the original poster should check balanced reviews, for example those on dpreview. The Sony Alpha MIGHT have poor high ISO performance. It might not. I have no idea. But it DOES NOT use the same sensor as the D200. And I would not trust statements about it from people who have never used it (including me).
Oh, and technique and fieldcraft matter. Dare I say they are more important than equipment?
paul goode
Well-known member
Leif said:
Couldn't agree more. BIRD photography is difficult . I still say people on BIRDforum aren't interested in Baseball players and Banknotes!
Edit: Removed some of post
Last edited:
Similar threads
