a very good comparison of D3, D300, D2x, 5D, 40D

[Marsupilami]

This is the first real good comparison of these cameras. As the spanish article is translated well with google language tools I post the link here.

http://www.hugorodriguez.com/articulos/batalla_12_mp_01.htm

A very helpful article !

Christian

[mahleu]

THanks, the link is in spanish, the english translation is

Englaleesh

[Conner999]

Pixel peepers will ALWAYS tear apart anyone's attempt at doing a comp test if their body of the week comes up short, but the test in question was well done.

Measuring MTF charts, etc is all well and good,  but this is more akin to what one of us might do (but better and more methodical) when we get a new body. The layout also makes comparisions easier.

The translation isn't perfect (CA in Spanish..;>), but more than adequate to understand exactly what is being stated

My take:
---------
D300 and 40D nice and about on par until 800. From what I've seen and played with, I'd agree, especially if you try and recover shadows from the 40D at 800.

If you shoot under 800 and don't mind 800 with a touch of NR (they are 12Mp on a 1.5-1.6 crop sensor afterall) and like a crop -  you really couldn't go wrong (IQ wise) with either. Some firmware weirdness at 'simulated' low ISO settings, but such is life. Hell of a step up for the D200 IMHO. Feature-set wise (not in the review) - the D300- wins easily.

D2X we all know about - tests just confirmed where it sat noise-wise.

D3 will be /is a barn burner - the illegitimate child of a 5D and 1D3 as it were . Hell of an achievement and long overdue from Nikon. It is the white glove across Canon's face. Lets see the response.

This one camera could do more for ALL shooters in terms of prices and bang for the buck than any in recent history.  Canon has to seriously "get on the stick" - it can no longer rest on it's low-noise gold standard laurels.

Of the bodies tested, 5D, IQ-wise, is hand in hand with the D3, maybe a tad better (on screen anyway)  until you get into the ultra-high settings allowed by the D3.

Makes sense in that as much as Nikon is playing catch-up on sensor tech to Canon, they have the benefit vs. the 5D of having a sensor that is 2 yrs more advanced.

Personally I cam from Nikon to Canon and shoot Leica lenses and couldn't give a rat's tuckus what name is on my camera - only what comes out of it's sesnor and the glass in front of it.

As such, if the D3 stays out of trouble during the next 12 mos or so, I'd consider a move for the ergos, CLS, in-camera manual lens EXIF database, AF micro-adjust and IMHO the nicer glass Nikon has recently delivered as well as  the ability to use Zeiss ZF without step-down.  

  THE most important thing from the D3/D300? We have FINALLY have the two biggest competitors on levelish footing IQ wise at real worlds ISO usage levels (ISO 25,600? Buy NV googles for @#$ sake...) so we can now start focusing more on handling, features and glass.

Ah, just like the old days ;>

Nicely done.

[bob mccarthy]

Biggest problem I saw was he shot everything at f11, certainly deep in defraction territory for the small pixel camera's.

Also I see small amounts flair in some of the watch images at different ISO's (same camera).

Interesting test, but in someways flawed and not overly conclusive.


Bob

[Ray]

Of the bodies tested, 5D, IQ-wise, is hand in hand with the D3, maybe a tad better (on screen anyway)  until you get into the ultra-high settings allowed by the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The ultra-high D3 settings (ISO 12800 & 25600) all seem worse to me than the D5 at ISO 3200. The D3 at ISO 6400 seems to be mostly on a par with the Canon at ISO 3200 although there seems to be some variation in exposures. The D3 ISO 6400 wood shot seems to be noisier to me than the 5D ISO 3200 wood shot, but also appears to have had less exposure as though the D3 was given half the exposure at ISO 6400 as the 5D at ISO 3200, which would be correct if the Canon really were ISO 3200. But it's not. It's ISO 4000.

Also the wax colors in the D3 ISO 6400 shot have less highlight detail than the 5D 3200 shot.

These results comparing the D3 with the 5D are not conclusive. It's not clear if real ISO sensitivities were correctly matched and, whether or not they were matched, the 2 highest D3 ISO settings should have been compared with the 5D set at ISO 3200 using exactly the same exposure as the D3 at those 2 highest ISO settings.

[Rob C]

As far as I can see, the final face-to-face results are still to be posted, so this article is currently incomplete.

Rob C