Which Nikon DSLRs have lossless raw or uncompressed raw?

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

I doubt there was any forethought to conspiracy marketing. The D200 was the predecessor to all the cameras you're talking about and was released in 2005...

Noise reduction, file formats, and methods of compression have evolved dramatically over the years... the market wants faster, and better performance. Nikon answers that desire for the photography community. They design cameras for the consumer photography community. If a feature satisfies the scientific community, then that's okay. That community, isn't their target market... I'm sure you understand that...

 

[Ben321]

I doubt there was any forethought to conspiracy marketing. The D200 was the predecessor to all the cameras you're talking about and was released in 2005...

Noise reduction, file formats, and methods of compression have evolved dramatically over the years... the market wants faster, and better performance. Nikon answers that desire for the photography community. They design cameras for the consumer photography community. If a feature satisfies the scientific community, then that's okay. That community, isn't their target market... I'm sure you understand that...

I get that, but what's strange is that newer models usually have more features than old ones, and cheaper ones usually have fewer features than more expensive ones. However in this case, the cheapest in the series started off with more features (noise reduction) and in fact forced that feature on you, whether you wanted it or not, and only by purchasing a more expensive one do you get the opportunity to remove that feature. So in this case, the more expensive it is, the fewer features it has (if you disable them) but the cheaper ones have more features (and they are forced on you). That seems completely backwards, and is why I assumed that this was part of their marketing strategy, to force you to buy a more expensive camera, if you wanted to be able to disable features that you didn't want to use.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

The only thing backwards is your perception of costs. The D200 in 2005 was NOT a cheap camera in 2005 dollars...Body Only was 1300pounds sterling. It is now. As far as I know, subsequent cameras did not have the NR ON/OFF ON even if over ISO 800...

Is there a Canon, and/or other camera that meets your criteria?

 

[Ben321]

The only thing backwards is your perception of costs. The D200 in 2005 was NOT a cheap camera in 2005 dollars...Body Only was 1300pounds sterling. It is now. As far as I know, subsequent cameras did not have the NR ON/OFF ON even if over ISO 800...

Is there a Canon, and/or other camera that meets your criteria?

My criteria are for a camera that can simply acquire raw pixel data, to be processed later on the PC. The camera should do absolutely zero pre-processing (or should have settings that you can configure to achieve this). The kinds of settings I'm talking about are ones that let you set it to:
Take ncompressed or lossless compressed raws only

Disable all noise reduction completely (this means disabling any dark frame subtraction, convolution/kernel filter, median filter, etc, as I plan to proccess any image entirely in software after taking it)

Disable all contrast adjustment completely (usually cameras have +2,+1,-1,-2,and "normal" modes for contrast adjustment, and I fear that "normal" means "normal amount of contrast adjustment", rather than "no contrast adjustment", even though I desire no contrast adjustment)

Disable all sharpening completely (in other words, disabling any dark frame subtraction, convolution filter, median filter, etc)

Disable all white balance completely (auto and manual-preset are what's typical to find in a Nikon camera, but I don't plan to correct/process anything, until I have it in software on my PC)

ISO settings of 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800

Exposure duration (in seconds) settings of 1/10000, 1/5000, 1/2000, 1/1000, 1/500, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50, 1/20, 1/10, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15 (1/4 minute), 16, 30 (1/2 minute), 32, 60 (1 minute), 64, 120 (2 minutes), 128, 240 (4 minutes), 256, Bulb



And it should be the cheapest camera available that supports all of the requirements that I have just mentioned. If Nikon doesn't have one with these specs, does Canon, or some other company?

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

D300

 

[Ben321]

D300

Nope. Doesn't meet my ISO requirement of having a maximum ISO of 12800. It only goes up to 6400. And even then it's not truly ISO 6400. It's some kind of fake ISO 6400 mode called "HI-1", which I think is a processing technique which simply takes an ISO 3200 exposure, and then multiplies all the pixel values by 2, to simulate ISO 6400. I need a camera that can truly take up to ISO 12800 exposures.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

Okay...then using that as your criteria... There are no nikon cameras that meet that ISO criteria... Good luck in your search.

 

[Ben321]

Okay...then using that as your criteria... There are no nikon cameras that meet that ISO criteria... Good luck in your search.

I'm pretty sure that the Nikon-1 (albeit, not a DSLR, but rather a mirrorless digital camera) has up to ISO 12800, but I'm not sure if the low end can go down to ISO 50. I'm also not sure whether the raw files saved by the Nikon-1 are lossless compressed, lossy compressed, or uncompressed. I'm also not sure how many in-camera processing steps it does, and which can be turned off from the settings menu.

 

[RON_RIP]

Sounds like you might have to build your own. If you could build a camera that meets all that criteria you might have a ready market here on this forum.

 

[Ben321]

Sounds like you might have to build your own. If you could build a camera that meets all that criteria you might have a ready market here on this forum.

But where do you get the parts? The machine tools (you gotta build a case too, not just the circuits)? How do you read out a CCD chip? What is the minimum number of required electronic components needed to do read out a CCD? Where do you buy a standalone CCD chip (I know not at Radio Shack)? And a lot more questions than this come to mind, when thinking about how to build a digital camera from scratch.

Might be easier to just flash the firmware of a Nikon DSLR camera with hacked firmware. I don't think the specs I've asked for are beyond the limits of the hardware in most of the Nikon DSLR cameras. It would just be a matter of flashing the firmware with modded firmware, to enable the features that I want. But I've never found any customized firmware for any Nikon camera. Are all the owners of Nikon DSLR cameras not hackers, and are all hackers not owners of Nikon DSLR cameras, such that the hackers never have a chance to try to make their own firmware? Or are they just so afraid of voiding their warranty that they don't take on the task? Lots of other devices have hacked firmware available, and I'm sure it voids their warrenty. Is Nikon firmware encrypted with military grade AES-256 encryption or something, so that it is for all practical purposes unhackable? I've never seen any hacked Nikon firmware on the internet, ever, at all.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

google "nikon hacker"

You won't find many hackers in this forum. This forum is a photography forum...

The 12,800 won't be your stumbling block as much as the lossy-compression issue... The Nikon 1 cameras are considered point & shoots on steroids... and as such, you might find, turning automatic stuff OFF is more problematic that the other issues...

 

[pforsell]

The noise reduction applies to jpeg only. Raw is raw, don't worry.

 

[Ben321]

google "nikon hacker"

You won't find many hackers in this forum. This forum is a photography forum...

The 12,800 won't be your stumbling block as much as the lossy-compression issue... The Nikon 1 cameras are considered point & shoots on steroids... and as such, you might find, turning automatic stuff OFF is more problematic that the other issues...

Are any of the DSLR cameras from Nikon able to go up to ISO 12800? And can somebody explain just what Hi-1 ISO is? I explained in my last post, that my hunch is it just takes an ISO 3200 exposure and then multiplies the pixel values by 2, but I'm not sure if this is correct. And hacking the firmware can actually benefit photography, by adding features, and combinations of features, that don't exist by themselves in any existing camera.

 

[J-see]

Yes, I saw that comparison 9 years ago. Perhaps a new one is in order with current 14-bit sensors?

It's indeed an old comparison. These days we can easily recover four, five stops of shadow information or a degree of highlights info during processing and when doing that, what was visually lossless first can very easily become obviously lossy.

As long as the data transfer isn't an issue while shooting, I max everything in regards to quality. I see no reason to lower quality for no reason.

 

[J-see]

Are any of the DSLR cameras from Nikon able to go up to ISO 12800? And can somebody explain just what Hi-1 ISO is? I explained in my last post, that my hunch is it just takes an ISO 3200 exposure and then multiplies the pixel values by 2, but I'm not sure if this is correct. And hacking the firmware can actually benefit photography, by adding features, and combinations of features, that don't exist by themselves in any existing camera.

I'm not 100% sure but I think the Hi and Lo ISO are the photon/electron count afterwards multiplied by a specific value for that ISO setting. In essence it doesn't make too much difference since all other ISO settings except the native one are also but a certain value applied to the photon count.

To be sure you'd have to check the dynamic range values of the cam; as long as they in/decrease it is "real" ISO. If 12800 and 25k have the same DR stops, it is the first value adjusted towards the second. The electron count for both would be identical but they're factored differently.

 

[pforsell]

Are any of the DSLR cameras from Nikon able to go up to ISO 12800? And can somebody explain just what Hi-1 ISO is? I explained in my last post, that my hunch is it just takes an ISO 3200 exposure and then multiplies the pixel values by 2, but I'm not sure if this is correct. And hacking the firmware can actually benefit photography, by adding features, and combinations of features, that don't exist by themselves in any existing camera.

D7200 ISO range is 100 to 25600 plus hi-modes up to 102,500 (Hi +2.0).


D750, D3S, D4, D4S and DF all go to at least ISO 12,800 plus hi-modes up to 409,600 and some have lo-modes down to ISO 50 (Lo -1.0)

The extended ISO values without a number, designated just as Hi +x.x or Lo -x.x are emergency modes for situations where even a very bad image is better than no image. Think of meeting the Jeti in starlight with no moon.

In the hi-modes in Nikon cameras the signal from the sensor is "amplified"* only digitally, meaning that the raw data numbers are just multiplied. These modes are useful only for the jpeg shooter, since every raw developer software can adjust image brightness in processing with an "exposure" slider or some similar control anyway.

This next part will cause controversy in web forums. There's not enough time nor room right now to go to the bottom of the issue, but I'll just say it anyway. We can continue this later, if you wish.

Raising ISO does not increase noise in any of Nikon DSLR cameras. On the contrary, raising ISO decreases noise.

There are two outlier cameras, D2X(s) and D7000, which are almost ISOless meaning that the ISO setting does not actually affect image quality and noise at all. All the rest behave as I wrote in the bolded section above.



* it is not amplified, it is just scaled, but I used the incorrect word to emphasize what's happening

 

[J-see]

Raising ISO does not increase noise in any of Nikon DSLR cameras. On the contrary, raising ISO decreases noise.

I think you got this wrong. The problem with ISO is that it is a multiplication of the photon count which only affects the electron release and in that multiplies the inevitable photon noise. There's always noise since it is a part of the incoming signal and by adjusting the electron release, the incoming noise gets multiplied by the same factor. Any in-cam noise that creeps in during the count also is affected by that factor.

ISO does not affect the incoming light and in that, increasing it does not lower that noise either.

If the sensor collects 100 photons/electrons in a pixel, it would have 10 noise (square root of the collected signal). If I'd double the electron count using ISO, I'd end up having 20 noise while if I'd have been collecting the double of light without an ISO increase, I'd only have about 14.

If you have to use ISO, it matters little since you can't do much about it but as long as you can increase the light intake by either shutter or aperture, that should be prioritised.

 

[pforsell]

I think you got this wrong. The problem with ISO is that it is a multiplication of the photon count which only affects the electron release and in that multiplies the inevitable photon noise.

You ignore read noise which does not depend on the signal. Different noises add in quadrature. As a matter of fact read noise dominates in the shadows where signal is weak and thus photon shot noise is low.

If the sensor collects 100 photons/electrons in a pixel, it would have 10 noise (square root of the collected signal).

This is the photon shot noise, yes. In the same time there's always read noise present. With Nikon D3X the read noise scales with ISO as follows:

ISO 100 -> read noise 6.0 electrons
ISO 200 -> read noise 4.7 electrons
ISO 400 -> read noise 4.2 electrons
ISO 800 -> read noise 3.7 electrons
ISO 1600 -> read noise 3.2 electrons (minimum)
HI +1 (3200) -> read noise 3.8 electrons
HI +2 (ISO 6400) read noise 3.8 electrons

In your scenario (very low light) adding the shot noise (S.N.) and read noise (R.N.) in quadrature delivers total noise for example at ISO 100 and ISO 1600 as follows:

ISO 100: S.N. 10.0 + R.N. 6.0 -> total noise 11.7
ISO 1600: S.N. 10.0 + R.N. 3.2 -> total noise 10.5

The ISO setting in most cameras is not only digital scaling of the electron counts, but also analog amplification of the signal. Only D7000 and D2X to my knowledge use purely digital scaling without an analog front end.

I read your posts in the "Before and After" thread http://nikonites.com/post-processing/28233-post-your-before-after-pictures.html#axzz3ltQleuo5 and you are already halfway there. Please do not turn back now, but follow the path to where it leads.

 

[J-see]

You ignore read noise which does not depend on the signal. Different noises add in quadrature. As a matter of fact read noise dominates in the shadows where signal is weak and thus photon shot noise is low.



This is the photon shot noise, yes. In the same time there's always read noise present. With Nikon D3X the read noise scales with ISO as follows:

ISO 100 -> read noise 6.0 electrons
ISO 200 -> read noise 4.7 electrons
ISO 400 -> read noise 4.2 electrons
ISO 800 -> read noise 3.7 electrons
ISO 1600 -> read noise 3.2 electrons (minimum)
HI +1 (3200) -> read noise 3.8 electrons
HI +2 (ISO 6400) read noise 3.8 electrons

In your scenario (very low light) adding the shot noise (S.N.) and read noise (R.N.) in quadrature delivers total noise for example at ISO 100 and ISO 1600 as follows:

ISO 100: S.N. 10.0 + R.N. 6.0 -> total noise 11.7
ISO 1600: S.N. 10.0 + R.N. 3.2 -> total noise 10.5

The ISO setting in most cameras is not only digital scaling of the electron counts, but also analog amplification of the signal. Only D7000 and D2X to my knowledge use purely digital scaling without an analog front end.

I read your posts in the "Before and After" thread http://nikonites.com/post-processing/28233-post-your-before-after-pictures.html#axzz3ltQleuo5 and you are already halfway there. Please do not turn back now, but follow the path to where it leads.

I haven't got the time for a lengthy debate since I'm waiting on a store to open before I can hit the road but if more ISO would deliver less noise, don't you think we'd all be shooting 12K ISO all the time? I think about everyone will agree if I state that more ISO usually results into more noise. I've never had an ISO 6400 shot look better (noise-wise) than an ISO 100.

About me being halfway there; I'm shooting native ISO since what? Ten months having used 4 cams to do so and the experience tells me I'm fully there ("there" being how I want to shoot). At least as fully as current technology allows me.

Btw; you also have to take the loss of quality (DR, colors and gray levels) into account when using ISO. It is not just affecting noise when amplification kicks in.

Part of the experimenting you'll find here:

http://nikonites.com/general-photography/28332-balancing-exposure-processing.html

 

[pforsell]

I haven't got the time for a lengthy debate since I'm waiting on a store to open before I can hit the road but if more ISO would deliver less noise, don't you think we'd all be shooting 12K ISO all the time?

I am not debating, I am having a good humored chat. But to answer your question, no to ISO 12k8 always, since raising ISO by 1 stop decreases the highlights headroom by 1 stop. Base ISO is usually the best, unless the scene lighting is so low that read noise will dominate shot noise. In these circumstances it is better to reduce read noise judiciously keeping in mind the danger of clipping highlights.

I think about everyone will agree if I state that more ISO usually results into more noise.

Those that agree with that claim bark up the wrong tree. It is the low light that brings out the noise, not the ISO setting. And by the way you have almost proved it in your previous thread. You just haven't realized the full implications yet. Just a fun tidbit, why do you think camera manufacturers would have added a control (ISO) in the camera which increases noise?

I've never had an ISO 6400 shot look better (noise-wise) than an ISO 100.

Depends on the camera. You can do this easily by using an ISOful camera (Not D7k or D2x) by using your standard method of keeping the exposure constant. I could do it too and post the images, but there's always those that will whine about "unfair" or "rigged" setup.

Anyway, I'm not into debating but just chatting and I can stop anytime if you feel offended. If I come through as argumentative or terse it is not my intention, but please note that english is only my third language and I am far from fluent and may easily miss nuances that are clear as day to the native speaker.

And have a safe journey.