Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dangerspouse" data-source="post: 770602" data-attributes="member: 46690">I'm aware that the D500's sensor is good enough that amplifying the signal from Base to 200 will not increase noise perceptibly. However, and this is what is critical for me, the lens is a mitigating factor. I want to do BIF photography, but my longest lens is an inexpensive AF-P 100-300mm Nikkor. My only real option for anything in flight is either lots of negative space, or cropping. However cropping with that setup produces poor results, even with the vaunted D500 and at 200 ISO. The lens just doesn't give acceptable resolution pushed to that limit, as you can see in the first OOC cropped picture of the hiker. You can imagine what a bird a quarter of his size, at that distance, looks like when cropped down.So, while there may not be enough noise to warrant a run through Topaz, the program's AI was able to predict and reconstruct details that - to me and my budget, anyway - mimicked having taken the shot through a sharper lens. And for me, that's huge. Distinctions between &quot;noise&quot; and &quot;sharpness&quot; and how a sensor should or shouldn't handle given levels of amplification, are all academic. I want better pictures than I can get with my current gear, and this program allows me to do that. Everything else is irrelevant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dangerspouse, post: 770602, member: 46690"] I'm aware that the D500's sensor is good enough that amplifying the signal from Base to 200 will not increase noise perceptibly. However, and this is what is critical for me, the lens is a mitigating factor. I want to do BIF photography, but my longest lens is an inexpensive AF-P 100-300mm Nikkor. My only real option for anything in flight is either lots of negative space, or cropping. However cropping with that setup produces poor results, even with the vaunted D500 and at 200 ISO. The lens just doesn't give acceptable resolution pushed to that limit, as you can see in the first OOC cropped picture of the hiker. You can imagine what a bird a quarter of his size, at that distance, looks like when cropped down. So, while there may not be enough [I]noise[/I] to warrant a run through Topaz, the program's AI was able to predict and reconstruct details that - to me and my budget, anyway - mimicked having taken the shot through a sharper lens. And for me, that's huge. Distinctions between "noise" and "sharpness" and how a sensor should or shouldn't handle given levels of amplification, are all academic. I want better pictures than I can get with my current gear, and this program allows me to do that. Everything else is irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification