Discussion in 'Nikon Chat' started by cliveva, Jan 7, 2019.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said?
Now let's look at this phrase…"...pretty much exactly…"
Indeed. I wrote exactly what Geoff said - apart from it being different.
Ah good old fashioned alternative truth
As to why 2 slots, one for RAWs the other for jepegs, so I can manage uploads to the computer more efficiently and view the jepegs on a t.v.
My cameras have an HDMI connector so I can review images on any TV with HDMI input using a suitable lead.
I think I understand why you want two slots but would having only one be a deal breaker?
Actually Andrew you said, as did I, that the theory didn't match practice. You may have used different words but, I suggest, the meaning was the same.
As Eric said to Mr Preview..... but not necessarily in the right order....
What does a castrated ram have to do with the discussion?
I also use wikipedia but once got a snotty letter from the parent of one of my students for writing that question in their child's exercise book. This happened many years before home computers and wikipedia. The school was in rural Northamptonshire and so I did not expect that the idea of castrating young male sheep to be upsetting. The child, now in late middle age, I guess still remembers the difference in meaning of wether, weather, and whether.
Of course, you are right and I stand corrected. Sadly 30 years living in France has dulled my personal auto-correct mechanism.
I am delighted to see that neither of us is over generous with silly emoticans, so here is one missing from my earlier post
Following the end of Nikon's trade in bonus, the D850 seems to have dropped in price by a smidgeon. It doesn't change the qualtiy of the technology but does change the comparative value for money.
Fortunately you cannot see the look on my face at the moment - and I don't think you can imagine how "good" I'm feeling....
I'm pretty sure the word is "emoticons"....!!
But far be it from me to mention it
With regard to the D850 - my local (well, 80 klms away in Toulouse) Nikon dealer 'offered' me a particularly interesting deal for this model - interest free credit, a discount due to the fact that I'm a NPS member and a further discount as I purchased the camera body during a week of Nikon presentations at the shop.
So naturally I had to say yes - in fact it took me much longer to explain why I 'needed' it to my better half...
As I mentioned in my previous post, Richard Butler shows comparison test shots to illustrate his article.
I’ve no reason to question your experience with your own cameras. But your posts appeared to claim definitively that cameras with high pixel counts perform less well in low light, invoking physics. So I think it’s appropriate, for others reading this thread, particularly any who might be considering a camera with a high pixel count, to point out that there is expert opinion that such cameras can perform equally well.
Yes, its wonderful how sensors have improved since digital camera first became popular. The better performance of the D850 compared to the D800 is an example. However, modern sensors already detect about half of the photons passing through the Bayer filter, and have very low read noise, so there might not be much room for further improvement without a more efficient technology for determining colour. But improvements in processing power and noise reduction algorithms might continue to reduce apparent noise in our images.
It seems to me it's more about having the last word than anything else.
I'm not asking anyone to believe me, however, unlike a large number of forum members, I actually USE my cameras and have a fair amount of experience in very low light shooting situations.
Based upon my own experience, I never use the D850 when I know that my old 12MP D3s will produce better results - and at the end of the day, it's that which counts for me.
As someone entirely neutral on this debate, pot, kettle and black spring to mind...
Could you please supply the objective evidence to prove that assertion? I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see it...
New tech is coming.
Last year there were patents for light-wells and multiple micro-lens design which will reduce cross-talk (noise). Don't know when it will be here, but I doubt it will more than a couple of years.
Strictly "cross-talk", a term borrowed from the audio industry, isn't noise it is a wanted signal where it shouldn't be. I may be considered noise but sometimes it isn't. In audio the cure is to reduce the resistance between the signal ground and earth, whether that works on an image sensor I don't know, but I would expect so.
Separate names with a comma.