Nikon Confirms It Will Have a High MP Camera Sensor Soon Made By Sony

[Geoffc]

Landscape not necessarily but for bird/nature and if needed macro 3200 should be an option. Astro too.

I think most people who need that many pixels would shoot in a controlled way, but maybe this is the same debate that people had when the D800 was announced. For me more pixels would be a negative, but I don't need big images.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[J-see]

I think most people who need that many pixels would shoot in a controlled way, but maybe this is the same debate that people had when the D800 was announced. For me more pixels would be a negative, but I don't need big images.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I would not mind more pixels. Cards these days are cheap and can manage quite a load. It will slow everything down a bit but it is worth the advantage for cropping. For macro/birding this would be a great improvement for the FX.

But when going larger, I do hope the rest remains as good as it is now or also improves. There's no use in having more pixels if it comes at the expense of something else. There's this pixel-craze as if it is the only thing that matters and although I do like my pixels, they're worthless without the rest.

 

[Blacktop]

Who takes landscape or billboard destined studio shots at ISO 3200?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I don't.

 

[J-see]

I don't.

I was reading an article about ETTR and there seems to be a point when upping the ISO has a better trade off in regards to quality. The common idea is that we expose to the right because of the increased RAW levels but it actually seems to have more to do with an improvement in signal to noise ratios. But there's a point when there's more benefit in higher ISO. It's about read noise vs photon noise. I know that when I try to shoot stars and am limited to a fixed aperture/shutter, pushing the ISO to 6400 does not add much more noise compared to what 800 or 1600 adds but it has a benefit when it comes to the star light itself.

I have to read it a couple of times more to fully understand the theory and implications and how to apply it to my advantage out there.

 

[aroy]

The analog gain of the signal is increased to up the ISO. So only the noise generated during to A-D conversion of the signal is reduced. Increasing ISO in camera and shifting the levels in post would have shown the same noise, as both the read and shot noise are generated before the amplifier.

Increasing ISO in camera does show marginally less noise compared to shifting levels in post.

 

[J-see]

Photon noise isn't affected by ISO since it is "real" but can improve by using longer exposures. The more collected, the better the signal/noise ratio. But upping ISO can improve the shadow parts of a shot while having little negative effect on the brighter parts.

I only need to figure out when what works best. For my night shots, I can halve the shutter or double the ISO for the same exposure but it might lead to different quality.

Generally the longer and wider at the lowest ISO will generate the best signal/noise ratio and thus better quality but I'm not sure when it hits its maximum benefit. From a practical point, upping ISO is better at night. Shutter quickly becomes time-consuming; 30s, 1min, 2min... and that doubled if LE-NR is used. Upping ISO is much faster.

But since upping ISO increases read noise, I first have to find out what cost/benefit there is.

 

[aroy]

One method of decreasing both the shot noise and thermal noise in long exposures is to take a series of short exposures and then merge them. This is method used extensively by Astronomers.

 

[J-see]

One method of decreasing both the shot noise and thermal noise in long exposures is to take a series of short exposures and then merge them. This is method used extensively by Astronomers.

Maybe they have different material than me but the shorter my exposures, the less light data I have to work with in post. Which is why I always try to maximize my exposure. I read that read noise can be overcome by taking multiple exposures at slightly different angles and then use software to blend them all together. The noise would cancel itself out by using this technique but, like I said, I don't have the gear to make this a worthwhile technique.

After reading some articles I now always try to maximize my light intake and I do this for every sort of photography when it is possible. Yesterday I was shooting landscape and shot all at ISO 50. It's not that there is a direct quality gain in ISO 50 for my cam but because it allows me to increase the shutter speed without changing the aperture and as such, collect more data and in that benefit indirectly.

Improvement might be minimal but for the one click of a button it takes, I see no reason to not do it.

 

[Marcel]

Maybe they have different material than me but the shorter my exposures, the less light data I have to work with in post. Which is why I always try to maximize my exposure. I read that read noise can be overcome by taking multiple exposures at slightly different angles and then use software to blend them all together. The noise would cancel itself out by using this technique but, like I said, I don't have the gear to make this a worthwhile technique.

Fuji does just this in one of it's advanced mode and automatically creates the jpeg file.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

One method of decreasing both the shot noise and thermal noise in long exposures is to take a series of short exposures and then merge them. This is method used extensively by Astronomers.

That's called "Exposure Stacking"; sort of like focus-stacking but with one obvious difference. I think one of the main advantages to it is you don't have to worry about hot-pixels since every exposure is, relatively, short in duration.
....

 

[aroy]

Exposure stacking is quite simple, as long as you have an intervalometer and software. The former is available at a reasonable cost (if not supported by the body), and latter is either free or of nominal cost. Here are some articles for your perusal :

Photo Stacking and Long Exposures - Part 1: Introduction | Shutter Photo Magazine
Astrophotography: Star Photo Stacking
Great Astrophotography - A How-To Guide
Astrophotgraphy with a camera and tripod (part 2) - stacking - BudgetAstro

Stacking averages out the random noise, so that the final S/N ratio is much better than that of a single long exposure of equivalent length. Then there are software which remove non static objects (planes, comets, birds) from the final results, which a single long cannot.

Finally you can peruse the net for the theory of noise reduction in exposure stacking.

 

[J-see]

It's something I'm going to pass upon. I like the occasional moon and stars and certainly if during the night, it completes a shot but knowing myself, if I get too deep into this, I'll quickly be dragging along a 100 pound telescope attached to my cam.

I'm doing too many different things already.