I'm just sayin, that's all...

I don't think that Nikon would have a problem with their wide angle lenses if they go full-frame. As I've already shown here on Wetpixel, the Nikon 17-35 is up to the task.

If you want a DX sensor, then you have to live with pixels that are 2/3 as big as they could be. Nikon had enough trouble controlling noise in their FOUR megapixel D2h - what makes you think they will do better with a TWELVE megapixel sensor of the same size?

Cheers

James

Nikon had enough trouble controlling noise in their FOUR megapixel D2h - what makes you think they will do better with a TWELVE megapixel sensor of the same size?

THIS (WARNING, THERE IS A HUGE JPG AT THE END OF THIS LINK) D2X 800 ISO Firmware 0.1

Above is a file from the same source as the disaffected dude photo that has been doing the rounds of the web.

If the D2X could do this with FW 0.1, I certainly hope they have not gone backwards since :?

Dang! That's the best looking out of focus brown mailbox-lookihng-thing I've ever seen! :-)

Now I see why Nikon doesn't want people releasing samples early.

Thanks for posting Craig - I'm just giving you a ribbin'

Cheers

James

I'm not convinced that Nikon needs to go to full frame. In previous tests on this board I've seen some pretty poor results from wide angle lenses in the corners on full frame. Compare these to the results with from dx lenses like the 12-24mm in the corners and to me (its pretty hard to judge these because there are no direct equivelents except subjectively) its a wash.

Full frame enables superior macro performance because the circle of confusion is larger thus allowing relatively greater f-stops. In other words, you can stop down more with full frame macro than you can with cropped frame. For a given pixel pitch and identical process you get higher pixel counts with full frame and therefore greater resolving power.

The point of full frame for me is not to improve wide angle performance although I think it does that too. In Nikon mount the 12-24 is not Nikon's best wide lens. By most people's reports the 17-35 works well with full frame and is a superior lens to the 12-24.

What you get is a more compact system with smaller lenses giving essentially the same performance.

I don't think you have any basis to claim that a cropped sensor camera provides either of these two things. The two full frame cameras that exist in the market vastly outperform all cropped frame cameras and there's no reason to believe a full frame camera cannot be made compact.

So there is a theoretical limit to how closesly you can space the photosites on the sensor until s/no becomes an issue. But I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. I'd be willing to bet that the differences in noise performance between Canon and Nikon have more to do with chip technology and processing than photosite pitch. We'll see when the D2X finally comes out.

SNR is always an issue and it's a continuum. At any given time in the technology larger pixel sites outperform smaller ones. Engineering improvements may make future sensors better than existing ones but that can't make small pixels outperform larger ones using the same process. Eventually resolving power is limited by the lens so if you want more detail you have to go full frame to get it. There's just no getting around the fact that you need to use the entire available image to get best performance.

Differences in noise performance can be attributed to all things including imager design, noise reduction, camera electonics, heat, pixel pitch, etc. It's not simply one thing or another.

I have no doubt the D2x will be a fine camera but I have every doubt it will be a match for the 1DsMk2. No matter how good it is I still can't stop it down past f/22 shooting macro and I will always get better DOF out of the full frame camera. That's why I switched and that's why I would want a full frame F6-derived Nikon digital. I would love a 16MP full frame camera that uses Nikon lenses and is half the weight of the 1DsMk2 but with a larger finder.

Dang! That's the best looking out of focus brown mailbox-lookihng-thing I've ever seen! :-)

Ahh, grasshopper, you must look for the noise in the shadows...

Specifically, the dark area in the sort of "keyhole" thing in the middle of the "mailbox thing".

I will grant you, it is not the most impressive subject matter to be looking closely at :roll: :roll:

The thing that amuses me is that it is slightly backfocused (Oh NO, the D2X backfocuses!!! That DOES IT, I'm going to Konica-Minolta ), it is actually in sharp focus just behind the twany metallic plate thingy (for want of a better description).

Hi Craig,

FWIW, it would be easy to eliminate any noise in that black shadow by just using the shadow slider in ACR. That's what I used to control noise in my Kodak photos and it works the trick.

It's hard to do an assessment of noise w/o a RAW file or at least a JPEG that you know how it was developed.

Cheers

James

There are no blacks in the sample image. That's probably good for a test image but it's hard to say with this one sample. I think you should suspect there's shadow noise in the "keyhole" but maybe it's just freckly in there.

In order to assess noise performance properly you need to determine dynamic range and I don't think a jpg with unknown processing is good for that. 7 stops max in an sRGB jpg remember.