| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 6874 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:
I will be interested to see the results of you experiment as I never had the S version, just the straight D300. Jonathan said the D3S was better at handling noise than the D3 so maybe at the same time they improved the D300.
There is no doubt that cropping any cameras image will amplify whatever noise is there as well. The basic question is whether the capture noise level in an FX is sufficiently better ...such that on enlargement it is STILL better or as good as the image out of the DX camera.
My assessment of the two was under good lighting ...ie 200iso. So no noise to worry about. To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of noise when I did the test, just the need to carry round the DX body as ell as the D3. Perhaps had I done the test at 2000iso it might have given me a different slant. Because I do feel that noise and the specifically the handling of noise has an important influence on perceived sharpness.
I probably need to talk this out face to face rather than here in text as these days I dont like writing long technical papers.
If you look at the controls that affect sharpness, noise, etc..
Exposure (not sure if this should be included as we should be trying to expose correctly).
Contrast (apparent sharpness but in reality no change in sharpness).
Clarity (apparent increase in sharpness due to some highlight boost and mid-range levelling and shadow deepening).
Luma noise (reduction in light effected noise).
Chroma noise (reduction in colour effected noise).
Sharpness/Unsharp (too little and it is unsharp, too much and you get horrible artifacts).
Have I missed others?
All these effect apparent sharpness. We are looking at a mulifactorial problem which means there is huge complexity.
____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none