Most reasonable DSLR for multi-cam face capture setup

[Infinite]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your input.

It gives me some comfort to know that I am not the only one who is seeing this... I was starting to feel as if I was going completely bonkers!

Cheers M8,

Joe

Same here!!

One thing to note is price point. The price was just too good to be true on the D3200's, but it doesn't stop there as the D800's behave the same. Worse yet  ..a client I did a build for overseas shelled out for a D800E... same f*cking thing as the D800 output!

I think the F stop setting is the trick but that's not a good solve. Diffraction is an issue on larger sensors I think.

[meshmaster]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your input.

It gives me some comfort to know that I am not the only one who is seeing this... I was starting to feel as if I was going completely bonkers!

Cheers M8,

Joe

Same here!!

One thing to note is price point. The price was just too good to be true on the D3200's, but it doesn't stop there as the D800's behave the same. Worse yet  ..a client I did a build for overseas shelled out for a D800E... same f*cking thing as the D800 output!

I think the F stop setting is the trick but that's not a good solve. Diffraction is an issue on larger sensors I think.

Hi Lee,

I agree.

Re: F stop -- I've not tried going above F11 myself as I was concerned about the diffraction issue.  Screw it, I'll crank it up and see if it makes any difference :-)

Cheers,

Joe

[Infinite]

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your input.

It gives me some comfort to know that I am not the only one who is seeing this... I was starting to feel as if I was going completely bonkers!

Cheers M8,

Joe

Same here!!

One thing to note is price point. The price was just too good to be true on the D3200's, but it doesn't stop there as the D800's behave the same. Worse yet  ..a client I did a build for overseas shelled out for a D800E... same f*cking thing as the D800 output!

I think the F stop setting is the trick but that's not a good solve. Diffraction is an issue on larger sensors I think.

Hi Lee,

I agree.

Re: F stop -- I've not tried going above F11 myself as I was concerned about the diffraction issue.  Screw it, I'll crank it up and see if it makes any difference :-)

Cheers,

Joe

It's OK and necessary for some shots. Say people lying down or doing dynamic sweeping poses, deep into frame. On the 600D's they can do it. The Nikon's not so much.

Even on head scanning anything lower than f10 will produce DOF blur, especially top down (head to neck) or side cameras (shoulder / ear to nose)

DOF is a pain in the neck!! DOF! BEGONE FOUL DEMON!!!

[meshmaster]

On the surface the D3200 seems like a great buy... however, if the kit lenses are not acceptable that means one has to budget for the additional expense of primes.  Whereas... one can get away with using the kit lenses that come with the Canon's and the image quality seems superior anyway (based on my tests).  So at least as far as I am concerned, overall the Canon's still seem like a far better value for money.

Cheers,

Joe

[meshmaster]

DOF is a pain in the neck!! DOF! BEGONE FOUL DEMON!!!

LMAO -- I'm going to have a T-Shirt with this printed up on it 

Cheers,

Joe

[Andrew]

Not sure if you guys missed my photo samples from D7100 vs 600D vs D3200 - clearly Nikon D7100 captured more detail than Canon... Not just in this comparison but in my everyday use as well.

So either D7100 kit is better than 600D kit, or my Canon gear needs cleaning/fine-tuning focus

Also, too bad you can buy two and a half 600D for the price of one D7100

Andrew

[meshmaster]

Not sure if you guys missed my photo samples from D7100 vs 600D vs D3200 - clearly Nikon D7100 captured more detail than Canon... Not just in this comparison but in my everyday use as well.

So either D7100 kit is better than 600D kit, or my Canon gear needs cleaning/fine-tuning focus

Also, too bad you can buy two and a half 600D for the price of one D7100

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Not at all, I saw your test images.

I didn't comment further for a few reasons...

First, I found it somewhat difficult to make judgements about the data because it was cropped and I could not see the full frame.

Second, as I don't own a D7100 myself and really can't test it so I don't wan't to make any judgements without being able to do so.

Just so you know... my purpose here isn't to bash Nikon.  My only intent is to try and figure out why all the D3200's that I own don't seem capable of producing a sharp, in focus image.

I know that people say that the D3200 is a great camera, I've done a pile of research, read the reviews and   many, many comments by users... yet, I think the images that I've posted speak for themselves.  Until such time as someone can prove to me that the D3200 can produce a decent, sharp image I am going to say that it can't 

Believe me, I WANT someone to prove me wrong... better yet, I want someone to show me how to create a sharp image with my D3200's -- I would LOVE nothing more   

I challenge anyone to do the following with a Nikon D3200:

Place subject at 1 meter
Evenly Light subject with studio flash/softbox
Put D3200 on tripod
Set quality to RAW
Set camera to use default sharpening setting (don't boost in camera sharpening).
Use the standard 18-55 kit lens
Set focal length to 18mm
Set shutter to 1/125
Set Fstop  to F11
Focus and take picture

Please post image and lets see if any portion of it is actually sharp??

Or does the image look like it's been taken through a diffusion filter? 


As I've demonstrated, when a similar test is done  with the Canon T2i (550D) the result IS acceptable.... so clearly the D3200 image quality is inferior to that of the Canon under these circumstances.


Again... I'm not trying to slag off Nikon or upset anyone... honestly!

All I want to do is to find out why the D3200 seems to produce such crappy images and find a solution.

I openly welcome any help and suggestions in doing so.

Cheers,

Joe

[Infinite]

Not sure if you guys missed my photo samples from D7100 vs 600D vs D3200 - clearly Nikon D7100 captured more detail than Canon... Not just in this comparison but in my everyday use as well.

So either D7100 kit is better than 600D kit, or my Canon gear needs cleaning/fine-tuning focus

Also, too bad you can buy two and a half 600D for the price of one D7100

Andrew

Yes I saw those, thanks for posting. I'm with Joe, I'm not bashing any make just sharing observations. In your D3200 image it's a great example of it's soft yellowish type of output. I didn't notice a dramatic increase in sharpness on the D7200, considering the price difference we would hope to see a difference.

From my D7200 and D3200 tests, they were softer than the Canon 600D output. I had 2x D7200's to test with. Using Kit and Prime lenses.

[Andrew]

I am 100% with you and anyone else on that D3200 is a hot steamy pile of blur. After testing the one unit I had available, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone other than casual photographers who downsample their photos for web-use. Certainly wouldn't recommend it for photogrammetry.

But D7100 is a different story, the proof is in the pics for anyone who will take the time to do some pixel peeping. It does not have the same soft focus issues that D3200 has. It actually produces more detailed photos than 600D.

I am not biased towards Nikon either, I am actually sticking to Canons for my build (2,5x cheaper)

Andrew

[Infinite]

But D7100 is a different story, the proof is in the pics for anyone who will take the time to do some pixel peeping. It does not have the same soft focus issues that D3200 has. It actually produces more detailed photos than 600D.

I've taken the time to do that, and I didn't notice any significant change in detail, most certainly the same with the D800E, which is a beast. Maybe at lower f-stops for general photography (both D800 and D7100) but anything past f10 for multi-cam photogrammetry. Nope.

I prefer Nikon's build without a doubt. 

[aphextwin]

What makes me a little "dizzy" in this discussion is my fear that it's going nowhere ;-)

Try to figure out what major constraings you?ve got:

- shutter speed (should be fixed at the longest possible value)
- DoF

Determine how big EXACTLY your sharp room should be, which means in other words, how small/wide your f-value can be. this automatically constraints your ISO as it is the only value left you can trigger. Another point concerning shutter-speed is: Can you increase your light-level?

If this does not work, your only chance is to get a "quicker" sensor that reduces less noise at higher ISOs (i.e. without bayer-matrix (like Leica Monochrome... haha) and take texture-pictures extra) or get a smaller sensor to physically increase DOF. Imho the noise a smaller sensor introduces is much less than the noise that brings higher ISO / missing sharpness by larger f).

If the Nikons don't to the job, forget about them. A large sensor is not ALLWAYS a good choice as I mentioned some posts above. I did quite decent quality object-reconstructions with a turn-table using a Canon G11 one year ago.

[chadfx]

I have to say that I am still a bit flabbergasted about the poor images coming out of that D3200 and that it hasn't really come up in most general reviews...but the proof is in your examples.

I just can't see how those cameras can deliver such mediocre results and most general reviews haven't noted it.

At least there are alternatives out there, I suppose.

[meshmaster]

I have to say that I am still a bit flabbergasted about the poor images coming out of that D3200 and that it hasn't really come up in most general reviews...but the proof is in your examples.

I just can't see how those cameras can deliver such mediocre results and most general reviews haven't noted it.

At least there are alternatives out there, I suppose.

Hi Chadfx,

Me too!

I don't understand it either 

I've taken the matter up with some of my hardcore Nikon shooter colleagues here in New York to see if anyone can get to the bottom of this.

I'll be the first to post any solutions that I might find here... so stay tuned!

Cheers,

Joe

[Infinite]

What makes me a little "dizzy" in this discussion is my fear that it's going nowhere ;-)

Try to figure out what major constraings you?ve got:

- shutter speed (should be fixed at the longest possible value)
- DoF

Determine how big EXACTLY your sharp room should be, which means in other words, how small/wide your f-value can be. this automatically constraints your ISO as it is the only value left you can trigger. Another point concerning shutter-speed is: Can you increase your light-level?

If this does not work, your only chance is to get a "quicker" sensor that reduces less noise at higher ISOs (i.e. without bayer-matrix (like Leica Monochrome... haha) and take texture-pictures extra) or get a smaller sensor to physically increase DOF. Imho the noise a smaller sensor introduces is much less than the noise that brings higher ISO / missing sharpness by larger f).

If the Nikons don't to the job, forget about them. A large sensor is not ALLWAYS a good choice as I mentioned some posts above. I did quite decent quality object-reconstructions with a turn-table using a Canon G11 one year ago.

";-)" these contribute to going no where

I think the examples point out that the D3200's aren't the best type of camera for photogrammetry.

F-stop is pretty much already locked out at f10-f14 anything below or above is unacceptable.

ISO is fixed, it must be for noise constraints.

Exposure is also fixed between 1/4 to 1/10th because of syncing. The lighting exposure will always be the same because ISO is fixed and the main flash lights and ambient light determine exposure. This leaves f stop which you only have a small window to play with due to DOF issues.

I still think the outcome is Canon perform better, at least that's what I've observed from my own experiments, similar to Joe.

Multi-cam photogrammetry is a whole different ball game, than compared to regular photography. ALLOT harder to manage and control, especially to try and achieve similar results that you would normally get with regular photography. Honestly, "photographers" don't know how easy they've got it!

[Andrew]

My summary of this thread (feel free to add/correct if I missed something or if I got anything

wrong):

Canon 600D: (from my own experience)

+ excellent image quality
+ reasonable price
+ standard USB connection with decent cable lenght
+ wide range of lenses, including good but affordable ones

- syncs slower than Nikon, occasional lag inconsistencies
- can't fully open battery bay while mounted

Nikon 7100D: (from my own experience)

+ excellent image quality (virtually same res as 600D, slightly better dynamic range)
+ battery bay fully accessible when mounted
+ fast shutter, syncs better, more consistent

- 2,5 times the price of 600D
- larger filesize=Photoscan needs more memory and time to produce results identical to 600D
- silly proprietary USB cable (at least decent lenght, compared to D3200)
- occasional build quality issues (faulty USB port, oil spills on sensor, defective focus)
- somewhat more expensive lenses

Nikon D3200 (from my own experience)

+ significantly cheaper than 600D
+ syncs faster than 600D
+battery bay fully accessible when mounted

- produces very soft images unsuitable for serious photogrammetry
- silly proprietary USB cable, absurdly short

Nikon D800/E

+ super speedy and syncs fast
+ good image quality (although supposedly does not edge 600D despite 36mp vs 18mp)
+ excellent build quality

- extremely expensive
- full frame means DOF issues
- full frame means expensive and less flexible lenses
- oil spills soil the sensor

Here goes another crop comparing D3200 vs 600D vs D7100, full images available upon request:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w2lfk5re1sopcgx/D3200vs600DvsD7100.jpg


Conclusion is obvious: Considering price, quality and performance, Canon 600D remains as the

most reasonable and most widely recommended DSLR for multicam photogrammetry. A camera that is 2 and a half years old...

Cheers,
Andrew