Will less resolution provide better high iso performance?

DeadJohn · 02-21-2016, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by mattipuh

Stupid question, but its unclear for me so thought asking.
Will setting with less resolution provide better dynamic / better high iso performance.?

As you cannot choose resolution when shooting in RAw guessing answer is no..?

Setting the camera to lower resolution JPG will not reduce noise, but if you zoom 1:1 it might look like less noise because pixels are being combined/averaged.

For the best noise processing options, shoot in raw, apply noise reduction in your preferred processing software, then save at whatever final resolution you need. If your image looks too noisy you can adjust the noise settings.

**RGlasel** · 02-21-2016, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by SteveM

If raw is truly raw, we shouldn't be able to tell the difference in a shot taken by two manufacturers provided the same sensor is used (or possibly the same MP and physically sized sensors.)?

It's not, the data coming from the sensor has been electronically modified by the image sensor's own circuitry and the camera's processor modifies that data before storing it in a particular RAW file format.

Originally posted by SteveM

I would have liked to know why that camera is performing better than the others, as it seems to go against the point of the article.

I'll give Northrup the benefit of doubt and suggest that he doesn't know why that camera performs better, but honestly believes he doesn't have to know why to be able to make his generalizations.

It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant. Frankly, these experts are a bigger source of noise than the camera sensors they review.

fredralphfred · 02-21-2016, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by SteveM

. . . In the section that speaks to ISO scores and the stops relative to the average across cameras, the D4s shows better performance but the only explanation is "well that's a $7,000 camera". . . .

At 11:28 in the video, you mean?

Originally posted by SteveM

. . . I would have liked to know why that camera is performing better than the others, as it seems to go against the point of the article.

The Nikon d4s is only 16 mp for a full frame camera, so it is very close to the Sony in terms of pixel density. I'd imagine he doesn't have one so he can't do the side-by-side comparison questioning the 1/3 stop difference that DXOmark measured, hence his comment that it's "a $7,000 camera." There are a lot of things a camera manufacturer can do with raw in the firmware to make low-light output artificially look good.

Originally posted by rglasel

. . . I'll give Northrup the benefit of doubt and suggest that he doesn't know why that camera performs better, but honestly believes he doesn't have to know why to be able to make his generalizations. . . .

Or he didn't want to drop $7,000 on a one-trick pony. (My opinion, not his.)

Originally posted by rglasel

. . . It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant. Frankly, these experts are a bigger source of noise than the camera sensors they review.

I would rather say that you can't trust all experts, but I've not found a problem with Tony Northrup yet. You do have to be really choosy about anything you find on the Internet, especially in expert sites and forums. It greatly reduces the utility of the Internet if you insist on not believing what anyone says about anything. Common sense and listening to many so-called "experts" will usually glean the truth from the noise, just as combining multiple pixel sites will improve the signal-to-noise ratio of your photo.

SteveM · 02-21-2016, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by fredralphfred

At 11:28 in the video, you mean?

Yes

Originally posted by fredralphfred

The Nikon d4s is only 16 mp for a full frame camera, so it is very close to the Sony in terms of pixel density. I'd imagine he doesn't have one so he can't do the side-by-side comparison questioning the 1/3 stop difference that DXOmark measured, hence his comment that it's "a $7,000 camera." There are a lot of things a camera manufacturer can do with raw in the firmware to make low-light output artificially look good.

I was deliberately treading carefully in my previous posts as I know that it's become a contentious issue in some other threads. I shoot mainly with Pentax (K7, K5 and K3) but also have a Df (which has the older D4 sensor) that I use for low light work. I'll be very interested to see how the sensor in the K1 performs...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's the deal with K-3 poor high ISO performance	Stavri	Pentax DSLR Discussion	49	08-21-2014 03:02 PM
f/2.8 zooms and new sensors with good high-ISO performance	cyberjunkie	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	06-09-2014 08:51 AM
Does lowering mp in k3 help to equal k5iis high iso performance?	lightbulb	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	18	06-09-2014 02:03 AM
High ISO, noise and better lenses	fgaudet	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	02-23-2014 09:29 PM
Better high ISO performance on "K20D"?	switters	Pentax News and Rumors	39	12-02-2007 01:06 PM

02-21-2016, 01:35 PM	#16
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	Originally posted by mattipuh Stupid question, but its unclear for me so thought asking. Will setting with less resolution provide better dynamic / better high iso performance.? As you cannot choose resolution when shooting in RAw guessing answer is no..? Setting the camera to lower resolution JPG will not reduce noise, but if you zoom 1:1 it might look like less noise because pixels are being combined/averaged. For the best noise processing options, shoot in raw, apply noise reduction in your preferred processing software, then save at whatever final resolution you need. If your image looks too noisy you can adjust the noise settings.

02-21-2016, 01:39 PM	#17
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by SteveM If raw is truly raw, we shouldn't be able to tell the difference in a shot taken by two manufacturers provided the same sensor is used (or possibly the same MP and physically sized sensors.)? It's not, the data coming from the sensor has been electronically modified by the image sensor's own circuitry and the camera's processor modifies that data before storing it in a particular RAW file format. Originally posted by SteveM I would have liked to know why that camera is performing better than the others, as it seems to go against the point of the article. I'll give Northrup the benefit of doubt and suggest that he doesn't know why that camera performs better, but honestly believes he doesn't have to know why to be able to make his generalizations. It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant. Frankly, these experts are a bigger source of noise than the camera sensors they review.

02-21-2016, 02:39 PM	#18
fredralphfred Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Orting, WA Posts: 252	Originally posted by SteveM . . . In the section that speaks to ISO scores and the stops relative to the average across cameras, the D4s shows better performance but the only explanation is "well that's a $7,000 camera". . . . At 11:28 in the video, you mean? Originally posted by SteveM . . . I would have liked to know why that camera is performing better than the others, as it seems to go against the point of the article. The Nikon d4s is only 16 mp for a full frame camera, so it is very close to the Sony in terms of pixel density. I'd imagine he doesn't have one so he can't do the side-by-side comparison questioning the 1/3 stop difference that DXOmark measured, hence his comment that it's "a $7,000 camera." There are a lot of things a camera manufacturer can do with raw in the firmware to make low-light output artificially look good. Originally posted by rglasel . . . I'll give Northrup the benefit of doubt and suggest that he doesn't know why that camera performs better, but honestly believes he doesn't have to know why to be able to make his generalizations. . . . Or he didn't want to drop $7,000 on a one-trick pony. (My opinion, not his.) Originally posted by rglasel . . . It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant. Frankly, these experts are a bigger source of noise than the camera sensors they review. I would rather say that you can't trust all experts, but I've not found a problem with Tony Northrup yet. You do have to be really choosy about anything you find on the Internet, especially in expert sites and forums. It greatly reduces the utility of the Internet if you insist on not believing what anyone says about anything. Common sense and listening to many so-called "experts" will usually glean the truth from the noise, just as combining multiple pixel sites will improve the signal-to-noise ratio of your photo.

02-21-2016, 06:44 PM	#19
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by fredralphfred At 11:28 in the video, you mean? Yes Originally posted by fredralphfred The Nikon d4s is only 16 mp for a full frame camera, so it is very close to the Sony in terms of pixel density. I'd imagine he doesn't have one so he can't do the side-by-side comparison questioning the 1/3 stop difference that DXOmark measured, hence his comment that it's "a $7,000 camera." There are a lot of things a camera manufacturer can do with raw in the firmware to make low-light output artificially look good. I was deliberately treading carefully in my previous posts as I know that it's become a contentious issue in some other threads. I shoot mainly with Pentax (K7, K5 and K3) but also have a Df (which has the older D4 sensor) that I use for low light work. I'll be very interested to see how the sensor in the K1 performs...