Nikon Df General Discussion

1568101134

Comments

  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited November 2013
    bland, your reason to by a Df is perfectly valid as long as the form is what you are looking for. Just like a Rolex, people buy it to show off, to "invest", to bribe people, to give to mistress. etc. But people don't justify buying it to keep time. :)

    Our posts in this thread is to compare the different models to show it's no better than D600/610 functionality wise so that that people browsing can make an informed decision. That's all.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited November 2013
    tc88: But it will be better than the D600/610 "functionally wise" at higher ISO (as TTJ's graphs demonstrated) because it has the D4 sensor. It could be very good for a photojournalist or a parent shooting their kid's activities. Consider it a "lite" D4 which is using a slower autofocus module for about half the cost of a D4. Not a bad deal when you see it that way! Get that brown leather case/strap which was shown and a tan canvas messenger bag and you have one cool combination. I would love to get that combo myself but other things have a higher priority right now.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited November 2013
    donaldejose, you probably skipped the last 20 or so posts in this thread. :)

    It had been shown the graphs TTJ provided are not valid for sensor level comparisons. One can not use the pixel level data to compare, when the sensors have different MP/densities. Ade explained why normalized data should be used for comparison instead, and supplied the normalized graph which showed the 16MP is no better at 6400 and below. That's why all 3 Nikon FX sensors are a wash in term of low light performance.

    If you have further technical questions, feel free to ask.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited November 2013
    Thom Hogan reviewed the D4 thoroughly, and his analysis of the D4 sensor performance should apply to the Df as well:

    http://www.bythom.com/nikond4review.htm

    The section "D800 versus D4" may be of particular interest. In summary, Thom's empirical testing agrees with our theoretical discussion remarkably well.

    The main advantage of the D4 sensor is speed. However, in the Df, Nikon has taken away this advantage.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    In that section, ByThom said:
    Technically, the D800 is very close to the equivalent of the D4 at the most useful higher ISO values (e.g. ISO 1600 through 6400). That's assuming, of course, that you downsize the D800's results to 16mp, and do so with care

    Why would I want to do that? Actually, how do I do that? Image size only effects TIFFs and JPegs. I shoot Raw 14 bit lossless compressed plus JPEG Large Fine (might switch to JPEG Basic Small and save hard drive space, not sure I need the finer given my Raws). I suppose that your answer is post-processing in Lightroom/PS and when I become motivated enough, I will explore that.

    So Ade and TC88, it seems that you are saying that I have to through away about 20 megapixels to get D4 lowlight performance on my D800 and I that sounds reasonable if that is your point. But I am not in the habit of throwing away megapixels, so TTG's argument and DXo's non-normalized results seem more relevant to me, which indicates that I won't get the D4's lowlight performance on my D800. I am still happy with my D800's lowlight performance however.

    It seems like the argument is comparing apples to oranges..........

    Your point also seems to suggest that I can improve noise by "throwing away 20 megapixels" in Lightroom/PS somehow? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I might motivate myself to explore that further.

    And all this suggests that the Df really will have superior lowlight performance to my D800 unless I go through the trouble of downsizing my D800's results to 16mp (and MsMoto, this is why this is all related to the Df body, sorry about going back on my word that I was finished above).
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Yeah, I get that. But the apple seems to say go to 16mp and it the sensors are equivalent. The orange seems to say go to the D4/Df's maximum resolution vs the D800's, and the D4/Df are better low light performer.

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    I did see Ade's graphic. My belief that the D4 sensor has better IQ at higher ISO (more than 3,200) compared to the D800 sensor is based upon the photos I have seen, not just TTJ's graphs. I am not just talking about noise. I am talking about total IQ. But I must admit I do not have a D4 myself for a direct comparison test. I have a D600 and a D800 which I would say are about equal at higher ISO (3,200 to 6,400). From the photos I have seen I would give the D4 sensor about a one stop advantage over the D600 and D800 at high ISO which agrees with Nikon's maximum numeric sensor ratings for the cameras.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited November 2013
    But the proof is in the normalized data. If one sensor indeed has better efficiency, let's say a sensor made five years in the future, it should show up as an improvement in the normalized graph regardless the actual native MP.
    Theory is solid - but Dxo's practice is not. The tests use the term but are not "normalizing" data. The screen tests are "normalizing" the data, measuring them on the same level (or suppose to). Huge difference there.
    It's not comparing apples to oranges. Try upsampling a 16mp file to 36 sometime. It will look terrible. If you want the picture small, they will be equivalent. If you want the picture large, the megapixels will win.
    Invalid argument and a false equivalency- there is no need to upscale the D4 image, that is the point - you have to down scale a D800 file unless you are printing poster sized prints.


    @jshickele - Neither Ade or Tc88 are living in the real world so be careful falling them down the rabbit hole. Ade just enjoys attacking whatever I post and TC88 seems to enjoy jumping on the pile this week. This has been going on for the better of 6 months and they enjoy the good ole' "life in a vacuum" arguments.

    Both are leaving out on glaring attribute to their argument - for their statements to be true you have to be printing at 8x10 or lower with zero cropping, and zero editing what so ever. Also all the "tests" do not actually measure anything but just colors (saturation, light, hue, contrast) with various algorithms. The tests to not indicate what so ever if you can make out individual hairs, pores, sharp details, or concentrations of noise, or how that all combines for the actual image quality. It also doesn't take into account at all the ability to edit files and where the thresholds are on those. All of that equals the output quality of the file. Some call that subjective to judge an image by how we look at it and base our opinion of quality by knowing this color is an eyelash, and this one is a blimpish seems rather unequivocal.

    I hope MsMoto doesn't mind but she has some great examples of what the D4 sensor can accomplish.
    D4 • Manual Exposure • 1/200th • f/4.5 • ISO 12,800 •
    image
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8709443733/in/set-72157633412302667#
    (Link is not working - I think she has the sharing turned off - there is the image address above)

    No downsizing makes my D800 look that good - there are details that the D4 retains that would be turned to mush from my D800.
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited November 2013
    jschickele, the logic is very simple. You say D4/Df gives a good low light image at 16MP, right? That's fine. We say that we can achieve the same result using D800/D600. How? By taking an image at the native 36/24MP and then downsize it to 16MP (which can be done simply by saving the image to a different resolution on computer). The image quality will be as good as your 16MP taken with D4/Df. That's what normalized comparison means and the normalized plot Ade provided from Dxomark validates that quality. Yes, the downsizing does throw away some information. But you need to keep two things in mind. (1) Your 16MP never had those information to begin with, so you shouldn't complain about it. (2) You actually throw out noise at a faster rate than throwing out information, so your SNR improves. So really the high MP offers you two options, (a) stay with high resolution with a little bit higher per pixel noise, or (b) downsizing to get a lower resolution with less noise, while if you start with a lower resolution, you are stuck with a lower resolution.

    donaldejose, I'm willing to give you that the 16MP can perform better at 12800. However, that does not automatically translate into advantages at any other ISO. I may even give you a slight leeway at 6400. But at 3200 and below, the D800/D600 sensors should do as good if not better. And considering the 39pt used in Df, I'm not sure that it can focus reliably at 6400, it's a moot point to argue any sensor advantage of Df at 12800.

    TTJ, I understand not everyone has a scientific background. However, the problem I see is that you talk about the things you don't know as if you know everything. What you are doing is called pick and choose, hand waving arguments. Your arguments about price/build/AF have all been proven false, so you are hanging last hope on sensor advantage through all those subjective arguments.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    This reminds me of my old audiophile days when we argued about transistors vs tubes.

    Thank god photography is cheaper than that hobby was.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited November 2013
    TTJ, I understand not everyone has a scientific background. However, the problem I see is that you talk about the things you don't know as if you know everything. What you are doing is called pick and choose, hand waving arguments. Your arguments about price/build/AF have all been proven false, so you are hanging last hope on sensor advantage through all those subjective arguments.
    Give it up Tc88, Yes I do understand the science and quite apparently better than either you or Ade. The issue is that you can't see past the limitations of the "scientific" tests that DxO has given you. In this little world that you two have created, everything must be structured one way, with one result all written by Dxo and no variables actually exist that can change the result - be damned what the real world results are.

    You can't see the forest for the trees sir, not at all.

    Really funny thing is, that the base of all your arguments is that the D4 sensor is inherently better. Make sure you don't think too hard on that one, I would hate to hear your head exploded.
    --------------------------------

    I am finding it funny that no one is talking/calling for a Sony a7/r comparison to see how they will match up. Objectively that is what I want to see. Depending on what someone may already own, they are a viable option for cheaper.
    --------------------------------
    As for the rest of the "arguments", sorry but I am correct - I'm choosing not to call some morons. For what photographers it is designed for (and what they wanted), everything is just as good as anything else. There are bunch of people acting like babies stomping their feet and just can't accept the reality of the world we live in. It is a consumer camera (had for $2,000) with a PRO sensor (had for $6,000) in it, and it is cheaper than the other pro camera ($3,000). A basic average would put this at $4,000 - but Nikon said the premium sensor was only 12% of the D4 price and a premium price due to lower production, and added that to the D610 price. It doesn't matter that silicone wafers are made from sand, it doesn't matter if the same parts are used in other bodies, it doesn't matter if what your opinion is on any of those things are. It is what it is.

    Some on here want to prove how wrong Nikon is, how wrong this camera is, how wrong the marketing it, because they can't afford it. That is childish - and most are just waiting for you to cry yourselves to sleep so the adults can have a real discussion on the system.

    It is an amazing system - one that most on this thread have been wanting for years. And yes I have been searching and pulling people's past comments, and many are are those dogging this camera or not wanting it - only for price. Why do I know that, because this camera is exactly what people said they would buy in a heartbeat. Retro body, D3s/D4 sensor, save some $$ by using the D7000/D90 AF and Meter. If it is a smaller body, drop video since it may overheat the the chips. Basic weather sealing and build quality of the D7000/D90. The prices people were willing to pay? $1,500 - $2,500. So Nikon's $2,700 is just outrageous! Ahhhhhh! The world is going to end!!! It was $200 more than people's top price!!!!!!! How could a company that relies on profits do something like that!!!!!

    The Df isn't garbage or is Nikon headed to an ill fated existence just because you can't or choose not to afford it.
    I believe that is called "champagne taste on a beer budget."
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited November 2013
    heartyfisher Has the correct info.

    Allow me to expand-

    What I have noticed is that more pixels have noise (or in better terms, incomplete values/not reading enough or any light), and that is in part due to their size. So in the average of 3,4,6,9 pixels combined where 1 out of 3, 3 out of 5, etc didn't read a value, the resulting section has more incomplete data to create the correct color. The D4's pixels are larger and record "a value" or "more values" for the average so the calculations have a better set of data to create an image. The argument is, that down sampling 4.5 times the D800 image, that result creates the same image.

    The issue with the assumption is that the value of a 3 pixel average that is a direct result of the view-able image the D4 took, (where each pixel has a better chance to record a value) will equal the D800's image where first recording of the image (where many more pixels are not read) is outputted and then is recombined again by the computer which is a second average of the same image. Basically it is like taking a photo of the existing photo the D800 already took, and assuming the results, (details, color, etc.) are the same as the D4 image without this middle step. The belief, hopes, & some people's assumptions is that the extra processing doesn't change the re-produced image. When in reality, we know they do.

    This is where it get's interesting.

    DxO's Screen values vs Print (so called normalized) show "change" that shouldn't be ignored.

    All results of the Print show better Noise handling, yes, but also,
    Better dynamic range, Better Tonal range, & Better Color Sensitivity.

    The file improved? WTF? No, The file changed.

    The output of the sensor is the output of the sensor. That doesn't change.

    But the Print values became better. Why?

    Easy, the computer adds values during it's re-processing to "create a better image." And 99% of the time it does But we are not evaluating the computer, just the camera. The Print image readings, is not only the success of the camera, but the success of the camera AND computer.
    That is why the Print values are total BS.
    I'll illustrate:

    The SNR 18% @6400 (higher dB indicates better noise handling)
    ---Camera-----dB Screen----dB Print
    - D3s ------26.2 ------28
    - D4 ------24.7 ------27.9
    - D800 ------21.4 ------28
    Noise diminishes - hoorah! Makes since, more averages eliminates noise.

    The Dynamic Range @6400 (higher Ev indicates better noise handling)
    ---Camera-----Ev Screen----Ev Print
    - D3s ------9.25 ------9.56
    - D4 ------9.21 ------9.73
    - D800 ------8.07 ------9.1
    That's correct, the D800 GAINS 1 stop of DR. The D3s gains 1/3 a stop, & the D4 gains 1/2 a stop of DR. Remember, the Screen is direct from the camera to sensor, no processing. After processing (the "normalization" process) each image gains color. (And also corresponds with MP I might add.)
    Begs the question - "What & Where, was color added?"

    This is the same with Tonal range and Color Sensitivity.

    That means when the "Normalization" happens, COLOR IS ADDED = IMAGE IS CHANGED = LOSS OF ORIGINAL IMAGE as colors (which result in details) are replaced. THAT IS NOT "NORMALIZING" DATA that is changing it.

    That is why Screen is a better evaluation - because it does not have the added computer processing where data is added.

    Because the D4's pixels records more actual values, less is guessed by the processor, & downstream through computer processing. With the D800, we can see more noise, which equals to more guessing by the processor & subsequently more processing downstream. If you say that "downsizing" the image creates the same noise output, that is incorrect. It is like a wall getting a second coat of paint. Sure it covers more "gaps" but it also covers up more texture of the wall.

    What is happening is that the computer knows cobalt blue or fire engine red, surrounded by black should probably be black, so the color is replaced or that color is removed when downsizing. That is great, until it happens on the defining edge of details. Like the separation of hair. Now it is really guessing, what to remove and leave. It is also trying to smooth jagged edges (My guess is this is where most of the color data is added to avoid posterization) out which also softens details as it does it across the whole image. (Why we utilize masks in Photoshop.)

    It is simple, Less processing = better quality of an image = D4.
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited November 2013
    PitchBlack: Cute, but not impossible! By far the best designer pattern would be a Louis Vuitton edition because his classic fabric (a plastic covered canvas fabric) is a nice brown with a pebble finish. In the US LV is carried almost only by women but in Europe I understand men also carry LV bags and LV used to make a camera bag (maybe they still do).

    Everyone: As to the question of whether or not the D4 sensor is superior to the D600/D800 sensors at high ISO I would ask "What does Nikon itself think?" Nikon must have some criteria for acceptable IQ and they label their ISO settings with ISO numbers for the range they feel is acceptable. Beyond that range Nikon uses letters/numbers such as H0.3. The ISO numeric range ends with 6400 for the D600/D800 sensor but ends at 12,800 for the D4 sensor giving the D4 sensor a one stop IQ advantage above the D600/D800 sensors. From the photos I have seen I would agree. If it is one stop better at ISO 12800 wouldn't you think logically the IQ will also be noticeably better at ISO 6400 and at ISO 3200?
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Nikon must have some criteria for acceptable IQ and they label their ISO settings with ISO numbers for the range they feel is acceptable.
    The labels relate to IQ on a per-pixel basis. (**) What are we discussing is what happens to the noise under downsampling. There are no labels for this, only math and a lot of experimenting.

    (**) the labels are also related to marketing.
    That means when the "Normalization" happens, COLOR IS ADDED = IMAGE IS CHANGED = LOSS OF ORIGINAL IMAGE as colors (which result in details) are replaced. THAT IS NOT "NORMALIZING" DATA that is changing it. ...

    What is happening is that the computer knows cobalt blue or fire engine red, surrounded by black should probably be black, so the color is replaced or that color is removed when downsizing. That is great, until it happens on the defining edge of details.
    Back in reality, image processing software work quite differently from what is being described above.

    Typically, there are two algorithms in common use for image downsizing, known as bi-linear and bi-cubic.

    Bilinear. Bilinear is simple (linear) averaging in two-dimensions (x and y), using the 4 closest pixels (2x2). It is called bilinear because the algorithm takes into account of the pixel distances (positions) using two linear interpolation steps. Using lines for averaging allows for downsizing on non-multiples (such as from 3 to 2).

    Bicubic. In bicubic, instead of using lines to average between 4 points, the algorithm uses curves ("splines") to smoothly interpolate between any number of points. Think of bicubic as a "weighed average" instead of the simple average used in bilinear. For practical reasons, most bicubic implementations will interpolate from 16 of the closest pixels (4x4). Bicubic takes much longer to process but can produce smoother, more accurate results.

    Other algorithms exist (e.g., nearest neighbor, fractal) but they are not typically used for downsizing.
  • moreorlessmoreorless Posts: 120Member
    edited November 2013
    The problem here is I think that people tend to only look at the headline DxO dynamic range number at base ISO and not how it changes as ISO rises. You do that and even a normalised D800 sensor falls behind the D4 once you hit ISO 400 and is almost 1 stop behind it by around ISO 1200.

    Whats more consider the DR numbers involved, by ISO 1600 its around 10.5 vs 11.5, that's a difference your going to see without pushing shadows hard so seems well suited for a street/social shooting style.

    I think this shows it pretty well...

    http://photographylife.com/nikon-df-vs-d610

    The difference in the well exposed parts of the shot at minimal but go into the shadows(the piece of wood behind the ship here) and the Df(well D4) sensor clearly has less noise at higher ISO's.
    Post edited by moreorless on
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    @moreorless

    Here's a direct quotation from the article you linked:

    "Now keep in mind once again that we are purely looking at pixel level performance here. Once 24 MP images from the D610 are resized to 16 MP, the performance differences shrink more. Only at ISO 12800 and above the Nikon Df seems to offer an advantage when down-sampled."

    So even the author of your article agrees with normalization.
  • moreorlessmoreorless Posts: 120Member
    edited November 2013
    I'm not disagreeing with normalisation, the figures I quoted are from the normalised DxO chart.

    As to where the advantage lies that's in the eye of the beholder, to me ISO 12,800 is the point where the D610 image becomes worthless not where the difference is first noticble.
    Post edited by moreorless on
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    TTJ, you keep on inventing new invalid arguments.

    A few posts ago, you claimed cropping with have affect image quality differently on D800/D4. If you take the same composition and crop the same amount, they should create the same image with same quality left.

    Now you claimed that increased DR, tone range after noise reduction means color has shifted. I don't know when you get some connection. All it means is that the color like highest red stays the same, but the weakest red that was overwhelmed by noise before is now detectable. So the range is increased. That's well understood that with lower noise you can pull out more from shaddows if needed. Somehow your claimed better than us scientific background didn't allow you to comprehend.

    There is a saying that the most dangerous people are those who don't know anything and think they know everything. To be honest, I think you are approaching that. Somehow, in your mind, people like Dxomark, Tom Hagan, Ade, Pitchblack and me who pointed out the theoretical explanations are all wrong at the same time and you are the only one correct. Figureatively, your posts are baring yourself to show how much knowledge you only have, just like the emperor without clothes.

    I probably won't be able to respond to all your mis-cited refereneces and long rumblings, some of which I can't even summarize what the points are. The following was my first response to your postings before. I'm pretty confident that most people reading this thread will agree with me.
    @TTJ, let's correct some of the facts you presented.

    Price. Df $2750. D610 $2000 (not $2500 as you mentioned).

    Build quality. I don't think Df is full Magnesium as D4/D800. It's comparable to D600 instead.

    Sensor. Nikon's 16, 24, 36MP are a wash in low light noise. If anything, D600/D800's images down sampled to 16MP may have less noise. I believe yourself boasted before how impressive D800's low light quality is. The 16MP choice in D4 is dictated by the fps requirement and processing power of EXPEED3.

    AF. I don't think the 39pt is known for low light accuracy. D4 is great as a low light camera because it has the 51pt AF.

    Now let's compare Df with D800. Price (wash). Sensor (wash). AF (D800 better). Build (D800 better).

    If we compare Df with D600. Sensor (wash). AF (wash). build (wash). Price (D610 better).

    So I think it's obvious how Df compares to the other Nikon FX cameras other than the retro look.

    Of course, if someone wants to buy a camera that makes one look good taking pictures, I don't think people care.
    Msmoto, I think it may be time to lock this thread. There are enough information presented, correct and incorrect, that people should be able to make their own informed decisions. I'm not sure there is much to be added anymore.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited November 2013
    The ISO numeric range ends with 6400 for the D600/D800 sensor but ends at 12,800 for the D4 sensor giving the D4 sensor a one stop IQ advantage above the D600/D800 sensors.
    First, just having an additional number doesn't mean it has same amount of noise as D800 at 6400. There is marketing involved, and there could also be a threshold where D4 at 12800 falls just under and D800 at 12800 falls just past. So I don't know where you get that 1stop advantage from.
    If it is one stop better at ISO 12800 wouldn't you think logically the IQ will also be noticeably better at ISO 6400 and at ISO 3200?
    As I said, I'm not sure it's full 1 stop better at 12800. But even if that, it doesn't automatically translate to lower ISO as I mentioned before. I think the electrons go through different paths/amplification circuits at different ISOs. Also D4 sensor may be less sensitive to light so that it has more headroom at 12800.

    As I said to you earlier, it may be a moot point that you may not even be able to AF using the 39pt at 12800.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    @tc88: Hold it. You're asking for a thread to be locked? Why don't you just stop reading it?

    Threads get closed too quickly around here as it is. Please don't encourage it.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    LOL ! lock it NOW! So i can have the last word !! ... ;-)
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Well said shawnino. It is convenient to have a thread locked just after you have made your point.

    My, this is getting personal. Remember that we are arguing about nuances that only us 1 per enters would notice or care about. I would love to start a thread one how the 1 percent's benefits trickle down to the 99 percent.

    I am in a business role where I have a decent technical knowledge and deal with people that have a much greater technical knowledge than I have. I don't try to match them. I channel my educational efforts into enhancing my "smell detector" so that I can more efficiently administer the "smell test".

    I am in the same situation in this forum and am administering the smell test.

    On balance, TTJ's arguments smell less to me than Ade's and tc88's. Because the arguments are personal, there is smell all around. I always remember that an argument should be evaluated based on debate about the merits of the argument, not the merits of the debaters.

    What is the basis of the conclusion about my smell test? There are a few points?

    One is the unspoken assumption that Nikon are evil capitalistic liars dominated by there marketing department. I reject that. Do they make mistakes? Sure! Do they spin? Sure! But overall I think they are competent, even brilliant, and truthfully.

    Second, and this is connected with the first when people think that Nikon is spouting marketing bs to justify charging double for the D4. If it is just marketing bs, there must be a way to get something for nothing. D4 for D800 price, D800 for D600 price, Df for D600 price. "If I can only prove that the low light ability of the Df is not any better than the D800, then I can justify why it is only worth the price of a D610." In my experience, if you want more, you usually have to pay for it. Sorry Ade's and tc88. While I doubt that TTj is the brilliant engineer that none of us are, his argument smells right and yours don't because you are implying that something can be had for nothing. If that was true, why wouldn't Nikon just do it and do it first before Canon or Sony.

    I love my D800, but I am not going to kid myself that I will get the same low light performance as a D4 or Df. Maybe some day I will buy the Df and use a short fast lens for street photography and my manual focus in m-mode when I want to live "pure photography".
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    PS:
    I love the Burberry Df. It would perfectly coordinate with the coat I am wearing.

    :-))
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    @ade - the process used 1) is unknown and 2) not remotely the topic I wrote about - at all. The topic is the difference between Screen and Print of DxO's tests show an increased (better result) of all color measurements. The only thing done (and I believe Dxo is honest) is the processing of the image to "Print" output. No one cares about how those work, or the various choices, or theory, just the results matter. And the "Print" results are inconsistent with the sensor output results. If it is "normalized" Dynamic range should not change or at a minimum the increase shift should be equal no matter the sensor size (MP) and should not show an exponential shift as it does.

    @Tc88 - try re-reading what I wrote and comment on that, attacking me doesn't help anyone else. So far your arguments consist of "because I, Tc88, said so" and have not proved anything but that you assume more than you practice or test.
    image
    Now that is funny!
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited November 2013
    I wouldn't close the thread just because the "what happens to noise under downsampling" issue has been thoroughly debated. That isn't even the title of the thread! Let's get back on track and let some Df bodies get into the hands of users and see what they think of it.

    tc88: you say the D4 sensor and the D800 sensor are a "wash." I would like to hear from someone who has both sensors. My expectation would be that the D800 would clearly be superior in IQ (especially detail rendering) at lower ISOs and the D4 would clearly be superior in IQ (especially dynamic range) at higher ISOs. But, as I said before, I don't have both sensors so I cannot state this from personal knowledge, just from my viewing of images I have seen posted.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
Sign In or Register to comment.