Need advice or an opinion?
Reach out to the CNET Asia community by posting your queries here. Do keep your comments clean and relevant to this product.
To post comments, you need to become a member. It's FREE.
Leornard Goh's First Take
Dec 16, 2008 11:43 AM
"The pixel pitch for the A900 is 5.9 microns, whereas for the D3x it is smaller at 5.49 microns. Smaller pixel pitch means better image quality. We will see if that holds when we put the Nikon camera through our tests."I think smaller pixel pitch means less surface area per pixel to gather light, resulting in higher noise. How can this be better image quality?
I also read at www.robgalbraith.com... that Nikon revised the pixel pitch specification to be exactly the same as A900 now.
Smaller pixel pitch
Dec 17, 2008 12:03 AM
Hi Drone,You may wish to refer to this story ( asia.cnet.com... ) as to why we incline towards the idea that smaller pixels pitch produces less noise.
As for the revision, we will contact Nikon for verification and update the First Take accordingly.
RE: Smaller pixel pitch
Dec 18, 2008 12:09 PM
gohleonard said:
"Hi Drone, You may wish to refer to this story ( http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/11/28/conventions-shattered-higher-resolution-lower-noise-levels/ ) as to why we incline towards the idea that smaller pixels pitch produces less noise. As for the revision, we will contact Nikon for verification and update the First Take accordingly."
Hi Leornard,"Hi Drone, You may wish to refer to this story ( http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/11/28/conventions-shattered-higher-resolution-lower-noise-levels/ ) as to why we incline towards the idea that smaller pixels pitch produces less noise. As for the revision, we will contact Nikon for verification and update the First Take accordingly."
Thanks for pointing out the DxO report. I read Their mathematical formula saying that higher pixel count improves noise performance.
There are two issues to this.
1) Correct me if I am wrong but the pixel count for the D3x seems to be identical to the A900. For the D3 pixel pitch to be almost 10% less, that would mean the Mpx count should be much higher than the A900 (at least 10-15%) or the sensor size to be much larger, don't you think?
2) The DxO theory is from a mathematical perspective. DPReview did a lab test on that theory and found that, for it to have a significant impact on the visual noise pattern, the pixel differences should be about 1:4, i.e 4x more pixels. That means the D3x needs to be 100mpx vs 25mpx of A900 to have a very significant noise advantage.
blog.dpreview.com...
Ofcourse Nikon superior NR and iamge processing technology may give the D3x an image quality advantage over Sony. However, this is not due to pixel pitch. It is due to Expeed or other circuitry.
Dec 18, 2008 04:08 PM
Hi Drone,Like you have mentioned, there are many more factors contributing to image quality, such as the image processor, the optics used and like you said, the circuitry.
There will inevitably be different schools of thoughts regarding which idea is more accurate, but at the end of the day, i'll have to say that the entire shooting experience with a camera depends not only on the final pictures produced (though it constitutes to most of it), but the overall features and usability of it, too.
Personally, i try not to be too bogged down by technical specifications. But when companies like DxO says something so controversial, we will definitely look into it.
When possible, we will run our own tests to see of DxO's theory stands, and then, can we finally conclude this issue.
RE:
Dec 18, 2008 04:57 PM
gohleonard said:
"Hi Drone, Like you have mentioned, there are many more factors contributing to image quality, such as the image processor, the optics used and like you said, the circuitry. There will inevitably be different schools of thoughts regarding which idea is more accurate, but at the end of the day, i'll have to say that the entire shooting experience with a camera depends not only on the final pictures produced (though it constitutes to most of it), but the overall features and usability of it, too. Personally, i try not to be too bogged down by technical specifications. But when companies like DxO says something so controversial, we will definitely look into it. When possible, we will run our own tests to see of DxO's theory stands, and then, can we finally conclude this issue."
Hi Leonard,"Hi Drone, Like you have mentioned, there are many more factors contributing to image quality, such as the image processor, the optics used and like you said, the circuitry. There will inevitably be different schools of thoughts regarding which idea is more accurate, but at the end of the day, i'll have to say that the entire shooting experience with a camera depends not only on the final pictures produced (though it constitutes to most of it), but the overall features and usability of it, too. Personally, i try not to be too bogged down by technical specifications. But when companies like DxO says something so controversial, we will definitely look into it. When possible, we will run our own tests to see of DxO's theory stands, and then, can we finally conclude this issue."
That would definitely be interesting test to watch out for.
If DxO's theory has any truth in real life tests, that would be one of the most interesting findings in this and the next decade. Since the real Mpx war is probably only beginning....
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Regards.
Jump to page: [1]
