Z-Re, could you please post a flat converted jpeg of a good RAW file of your Yellowstone pics, non sharpened, since it beats the pants off the D2X at ISO 400 and above?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's "X", man
I should probably upload the high res files, but here's a quick and dirty from an ISO800 file. This was Autotoned in Lightroom, and Sharpening was set to 0 - a small crop from the middle of the file (to save some space). This isn't necessarily what I'd call a "good" RAW file, though the subject is relatively sharp, etc - just something I was able to find quickly in between trying to work my day job
[attachment=2809:attachment]
All the higher ISO stuff that I did w/ the D2X is apparently offline, but here's a roughly similar size crop from an ISO 800 JPEG file from that camera (unfortunately, some sharpening applied - so the noise stands out a little bit more than it would in a RAW file...). Of course, if I had a RAW file at 800, and converted it in LR or ACR, someone would come up with the typical beef that those programs don't do the D2X justice, so... whatever This file is also Autotoned in Lightroom, which basically applied only a Brightness increase movement on it. Everything else that I have easily available from the D2X is ISO 100, so doesn't really help in this comparison - and, frankly, I'm not too motivated to go dig back through things and reload off of DVD, so....
[attachment=2810:attachment]
This is all rough and dirty....
And, for giggles... an ISO 3200 RAW file crop from the MkIII - shot by firelight, the EXIF data says it was 1/13 @ f/2.8. This has had all noise reduction turned off, and sharpening set to 0. To my eye, there's definitely some luminance noise - but the noise level is better than the D2X JPEG @ ISO 800. Oh, BTW - high ISO noise reduction was turned off, and so was long exposure noise reduction.
[attachment=2811:attachment]
Again, being extremely rough, I'd say a 3+ stop advantage in noise to the MkIII, as compared between these files - keeping in mind the limitations of the comparison. At low ISO, the D2X is superb, no doubt. You'll find many folks talking about not using it above 400, and it *does* tend to get chunky above that - I can see why they might avoid it. The MkIII appears to do quite well at those higher speeds, which was a large factor in why I bought it in the first place, so....
ETA - you need to keep in mind my disclaimer in the post you quoted, as well... I wholly admit that my opinion is not based on extensive pixel peeping, and I'm not going to get into pixel peeping to satisfy anyone else's needs, either... I don't have the time or motivation. I did the work I needed to in order to select a platform, and I stated my impressions, so.... You can take or leave what I have to say, of course - its an opinion, and I'm sure you know what they say about those
