D2X versus 1DmkIII, what's the verdict?

[X-Re]

Both of you are incorrect... technically speaking.

The larger sensor will yield less DOF for the same effective focal length lens. If I stick a 50mm lens on each camera, they will have the same DOF - but will have a different Field of View (FOV). If I put a 35mm lens on the D2X (roughly 50mm equivalent FOV), I get slightly more DOF than the 1DMkIII/50 combo, assuming the same exposure settings. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with DOF - the lens, focus distance, and aperture determine DOF. I'm sure you guys know this, and I'm just being pedantic, but... too many people get this crap confused...

Higher ISO does not directly mean greater DOF. However, higher quality at high ISO does mean that you can use a smaller aperture for the same shutter speed, which does yield more DOF.

[yrsued]

Good quality high ISO = greater depth of field at a given shutter speed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Excuse me, but that's not the way I learned it at Brooks 25 years go!!


Right now, I'm off to a Video shoot and I can't sit here an explain it, but Better quality High ISO is not equal to more DOF!!

The Less DOF is the sacred Cow of the Full Frame Sensor bodies!!

We have to come to an agreement here, either you get more or less DOF, you can't have both!!

One thing you will not get, no matter how much you argue is more DOF Control with a Full Frame Sensor.

Y

[yrsued]

OK, there you go, Dave had more time than I did and said it better!!


Y

Both of you are incorrect... technically speaking.

The larger sensor will yield less DOF for the same effective focal length lens. If I stick a 50mm lens on each camera, they will have the same DOF - but will have a different Field of View (FOV). If I put a 35mm lens on the D2X (roughly 50mm equivalent FOV), I get slightly more DOF than the 1DMkIII/50 combo, assuming the same exposure settings. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with DOF - the lens, focus distance, and aperture determine DOF. I'm sure you guys know this, and I'm just being pedantic, but... too many people get this crap confused...

Higher ISO does not directly mean greater DOF. However, higher quality at high ISO does mean that you can use a smaller aperture for the same shutter speed, which does yield more DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[roskav]

Higher ISO does not directly mean greater DOF. However, higher quality at high ISO does mean that you can use a smaller aperture for the same shutter speed, which does yield more DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is exactly what I meant .. nothing fancy ...just stopping the lens down, taking advantage of the high iso.

Ros

PS

Ok prehaps I should explain ... I'm in the auditorium with a d2x... I will have to use a 60th of a second shot at f1.4 @400asa to get a good image during a particular lighting situation.  Now with f1.4 you're never guaranteed a perfect focus.. and there is no stopping the show.  

Enter the 1dmkIII (tomorrow I hope)

Same situation.. I can set the shutter at 60th of a second .. the iso at 1600, but get an f-stop of (hang on .. just digging out the old light meter) ... f2.8 ... I so have a better chance of getting the best part of a face in focus.

R

AND ... By the way I really hate using f1.4 in the theatre as  the lenses generally have poor highlight edge detail at that aperture.  Just got a zeiss 50mm for the d2x and it's got the same problem as its nikon counterpart in relation to this.

R

[KAP]

Both of you are incorrect... technically speaking.

The larger sensor will yield less DOF for the same effective focal length lens. If I stick a 50mm lens on each camera, they will have the same DOF - but will have a different Field of View (FOV). If I put a 35mm lens on the D2X (roughly 50mm equivalent FOV), I get slightly more DOF than the 1DMkIII/50 combo, assuming the same exposure settings. Sensor size has absolutely nothing to do with DOF - the lens, focus distance, and aperture determine DOF. I'm sure you guys know this, and I'm just being pedantic, but... too many people get this crap confused...

Higher ISO does not directly mean greater DOF. However, higher quality at high ISO does mean that you can use a smaller aperture for the same shutter speed, which does yield more DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I work on the basis that to get the image you want, we as photographers choose the lens that frames the subject how we want it. So to frame the same does require a change of lens when we change format, unless we can change position, but then we also change perspective. I can see how a sweeter high iso will give you more D of F.
 
Kevin.

[roskav]

Just got the 1dmkIII yesterday ... I'll post some comparisons with the d2x as soon as I can ... just getting used to the camera! (lenses will be 17-55 Nikkor against 24-70 Canon and 70-200 on both.. all f2.

Like the highlight priorty already.


Ros

[X-Re]

Like the highlight priorty already.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     Make sure you look close at the shadows - while gaining highlight detail, you also tend to pick up some noise in the shadows  This won't be an issue for a lot of conditions, but is something to be aware of, anyway

[yrsued]

Make sure you look close at the shadows - while gaining highlight detail, you also tend to pick up some noise in the shadows  This won't be an issue for a lot of conditions, but is something to be aware of, anyway
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dave is right, but at the same time, they are two completely different tools, I don't think Nikon never meant the D2X as a High ISO low noise Body, like Canon designed the MKIII to be.

Y

[DonWeston]

Dave is right, but at the same time, they are two completely different tools, I don't think Nikon never meant the D2X as a High ISO low noise Body, like Canon designed the MKIII to be.

Y
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would say they are similar tools that could be used for similar jobs, it all boils down to what you as a photographer have for image and shooting preferences. Do not feel in general that either is bad or poor, but depending on what your image preferences are or shooting likes and dislikes would push a decision either way. Used a D2x for awhile but my preferences were for less noise, and I was not satisfied with NR in camera or in post. If I shot mostly in good light, or artificial light like a studio, I might still have the camera, but I ended up switching ultimately to a different camp. Like I said a personal decision based on personal style nothing else. Every camera has its pros and cons, no perfect one exists..

[yrsued]

And you are completely right!

That's why i use goth systems!!

I keep the D2X in the studio for catalog work, and I use the 1DMKIIn for Sports/Action/Low Light.

I'm happy with both systems and they both work great complimenting each other.

Y

I would say they are similar tools that could be used for similar jobs, it all boils down to what you as a photographer have for image and shooting preferences. Do not feel in general that either is bad or poor, but depending on what your image preferences are or shooting likes and dislikes would push a decision either way. Used a D2x for awhile but my preferences were for less noise, and I was not satisfied with NR in camera or in post. If I shot mostly in good light, or artificial light like a studio, I might still have the camera, but I ended up switching ultimately to a different camp. Like I said a personal decision based on personal style nothing else. Every camera has its pros and cons, no perfect one exists..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[X-Re]

Dave is right, but at the same time, they are two completely different tools, I don't think Nikon never meant the D2X as a High ISO low noise Body, like Canon designed the MKIII to be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     ?

     I wasn't mentioning anything about the D2X??? Just that when shooting the MkIII in Highlight Tone Priority mode, you tend to pick up a tad extra noise in the shadows?? It mentions that in the manual, too, of course, but... always good to check it out for oneself...

     (and, yes, Yamil, I installed the firmware.... haven't tested it out, yet, though  )

[roskav]

Hello I know that they are designed with different strenghts .. but I have only had a chance to look at the difference this way.. still have to compare on a theatre job..


Left to right .. MkIII at iso 1600, MkIII at iso 800, D2x at iso 800.

Some sharpening applied in acr.. all at f 2.8 at Av

R

[yrsued]

If you're going to shoot at high ISO's, don't even consider the D2X!!

Mind you, I shoot the D2X in the studio, but when I need a High ISO camera, I go for my MKIIn!!


I have rarely even touched the ISO Setting on my D2X, I don't need to, heck, if it did 50 ISA, I would be in heaven, I have 10,800 Watt Seconds worth of Speedotron power packs, I need less ISO    

Hello I know that they are designed with different strenghts .. but I have only had a chance to look at the difference this way.. still have to compare on a theatre job..
Left to right .. MkIII at iso 1600, MkIII at iso 800, D2x at iso 800.

Some sharpening applied in acr.. all at f 2.8 at Av

R
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[X-Re]

Left to right .. MkIII at iso 1600, MkIII at iso 800, D2x at iso 800.

     So, I'd say in your test here, maybe 2 stops advantage in the area of noise for the MkIII?? Maybe three, but that'd be stretching it a bit???

     Have you had a chance to really manipulate a MkIII file yet, to recover a marginal exposure, or compensate for high contrast situations or any of that? I'm curious what you think about how the files hold together, relatively speaking. I didn't try any of that w/ the D2X I had, but seeing how malleable the MkIII files are relative to 30D files, it makes me wonder....

I have 10,800 Watt Seconds worth of Speedotron power packs, I need less ISO  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     I can solve that problem for you....  Ship about half that power to your good buddy in Austin...  heh heh.... The wiring in your house can't take all that juice anyway, man

[John Sheehy]

I have rarely even touched the ISO Setting on my D2X, I don't need to, heck, if it did 50 ISA, I would be in heaven,[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Low lowest ISOs on digital cameras are not necessarily good things.  Low lowest ISOs mean that the cameras are inefficient in capturing electrons, and they have similar noise characteristics to higher lowest ISOs with more efficient capture.  An ideal digital camera would be about ISO 250 minimum, with the standard amount of headroom for RAW data (3.5 stops in the green channel).

The only way that you can have low ISOs with digital cameras without compromise is to have systems that can capture more photons per unit of area than current cameras, and this would require very different technology than what is used for current sensors.

[jani]

The only way that you can have low ISOs with digital cameras without compromise is to have systems that can capture more photons per unit of area than current cameras, and this would require very different technology than what is used for current sensors.

Not necessarily.

You can still improve the spacing between sensor sites (Canon have already done so, several times), their efficiency and the light transmission efficiency of the microlenses.

[John Sheehy]

Not necessarily.

You can still improve the spacing between sensor sites (Canon have already done so, several times), their efficiency and the light transmission efficiency of the microlenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some 2-micron compact sensors have as good or better efficiency than Canon DSLRs.

The 1Dmk2 and 5D are among the most inefficient cameras of recent times.

Better microlenses do not create the potential for lower ISOs.  They raise the lowest ISO possible, because they allow the sensor to saturate with less real-world exposure.  Efficiency does not decrease the base ISO.  Only inefficiency, and deeper capture can.  The former makes the cameras noisier at the same ISO, and reduces the IQ to what a more efficient camera might have at a higher ISO.  The latter would allow the low shot noise of an efficient ISO 50 exposure to be had without reducing the photons captured at other ISOs.

[roskav]

First day out and about with the MkIII

Hmm.. I'm doing a commission involving a lot of candid outdoor work with landscape etc and I've just looked at a couple of mkIII files .. now bearing in mind that I'm also new to the lenses.. (24-70 and 70-200 2. I can say that the results are quite different from the d2x.

The higher bit depth really helps with landscape .. you can really bring up some shadows nicely ... no problem .. and the d2x wasn't bad at that either ... but this is a big improvement.

The file texture is different .... more .... .... hate to use the word.... digital!... The raw files have something of the jpeg about them... but very well behaved of course.

It reminds me a bit of using the old fuji 800 press film for the first time ... the grain was always there but it was great for picking out the glints in the shadows... no direct comparison of course but it's just that feeling.

One other thing about the bit depth ... it's also really helped with the transition to blow out highlights.... you know the odd time you overexpose the edge of a cloud ... well it's really hard to see the transition to the blow out areas .. that's nice!.. The d2x has a rather abrubpt transition and my aptus 75 back needs very careful attention to curves to counter this especially with flourescent light.

I think it will take me a little while to get the best out of these files .. but I'm encouraged so far...

Ros

[roskav]

Funny how topics slide off the first page quickly when there is new gear to talk about!.. So this is a bit previous in light of recent announcements ... but I'm pretty glad I've switched to Canon for my theatre photography in the short term at least ... attached is a grab of the d2x and 1dmkIII files proccessed with ACR exactly the same ... shots are iso 800 at f2.8 1/100 shutter speed.  Canon file 70mm from 24-70 lens. Nikon file 52mm from 17-55 lens. (Both at 100% screen view)

[urbanpicasso]

Roskav,
Since it seems you have the ability to do so, could you please do the same compairison at very low ISO, something with micro fine detail like distant trees or the like.  I have no need to shoot action in caves and i'm interested
in the base ISO image quality aspect.
It looks to me that shots done with the canon at the high ISO settings are much better than nothing yet  they still tend to smooth (flatten) the very fine detail I find essential in my kind of photography.

Thanks

davidbogdan