Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: bart alexander on July 12, 2007, 05:24:24 am
-
Anyone compared these two one on one yet? I mean, who of you switched? Obviously apart from image quality, the live view feature is a big plus. Academically speaking, the larger 10mp sensor should be able to capture the same detail as the smaller 12mp sensor using the same lens quality. And, looking through a 1.3 crop viewfinder wins out over a 1.5 viewfinder, let alone the enlarged view of the 1DIII. If I knew someone myself with a 1DIII or one for rent, I'd do this comparison myself.
Thanks to anyone who has thoughts about this.
-
I'll be getting a MKIII shortly. I use a d2x for theatre photography and hope to up my game with the mkIII, basically by increasing my depth of field on stage. I had thought of selling my Nikon gear but I just use it for too many applications (QTVR(10.5mm), Archmodel pics etc etc) Plus I really think that the 70-200 2.8 is a reason to own a Nikon. So in the luxurious position of having two overlapping systems, I will be doing some comparative tests on the job. I will post as soon as I have images. My delivery date however is constantly being pushed back so I can't guarantee anything very soon!
Ros
www.roskavanagh.com
-
While its a 1.5x crop camera, the D2X has a very nice viewfinder. I wouldn't consider the viewfinder in the D2X a detriment at all...
I had a D2X, but being a Canon guy, I had problems getting used to the system. The D2X certainly takes nice pictures. I sold the D2X to buy a MkIII. The MkIII seems capable of similar image quality - though I haven't compared prints side by side, yet. Judging from my RAW files in Yellowstone, though, the MkIII is just as good at low ISO, and beats the pants off the D2X at ISO 400 and above. That's a totally non-scientific opinion, and is just my "feel", but there it is.... I doubt many folks are using a D2X for its high ISO capabilities, so...
-
I would think that in this range, the quality of the lens would have a larger impact on the image quality than that of the body. You can't really do a direct image-quality comparison of the bodies because they take different lenses. Unless one of them has a feature you can't live without, I'd choose the one with the best lenses in your price range at the focal lengths you need.
And keep in mind that a larger crop factor helps if you primarily use long focal lengths, but hurts if you primarily use short focal lengths.
Lisa
-
You can't really do a direct image-quality comparison of the bodies because they take different lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For the most part, this is true - using the same lens on each would be the only way to do an objective comparison. However - both companies make a superb 70-200/2.8 zoom that seem to be every bit as good as each other. Given that a camera is a system that requires a lens to make an image - images taken with either camera with the equivalent lens should give you a good enough comparison to compare them for your needs...
The 70-200 is the only one I can vouch for being similar, since I've owned both (sold the Nikon version w/ the D2X). There are probably other valid lenses to compare like this, though...
I agree, though, Lisa - pick that one that best suits your needs. I could happily make great images with the D2X, as well, so....
-
It may be true that the D2X finder is very nice, but if I compare it to the finder in my film Nikon and the one I used to own, the Kodak 14n, it's pretty bad, even using the 17M . One way or the other there seems to be missing something. Someway I cannot "feel" focus as I could with the full size finders. The 1.3. crop is supposed to be a lot better.
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?
And by the way, being a people photographer, I wouldn't mind using an adapter to use any Nikon lens on the Canon. Thanks.
While its a 1.5x crop camera, the D2X has a very nice viewfinder. I wouldn't consider the viewfinder in the D2X a detriment at all...
I had a D2X, but being a Canon guy, I had problems getting used to the system. The D2X certainly takes nice pictures. I sold the D2X to buy a MkIII. The MkIII seems capable of similar image quality - though I haven't compared prints side by side, yet. Judging from my RAW files in Yellowstone, though, the MkIII is just as good at low ISO, and beats the pants off the D2X at ISO 400 and above. That's a totally non-scientific opinion, and is just my "feel", but there it is.... I doubt many folks are using a D2X for its high ISO capabilities, so...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
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
-
Thanks for your reply X,
The reason I asked for the non sharpened jpeg (from RAW) is to see how the file looks like, pixel and detailwise. I've seen the 5D 1DIII comparison pics by Outbackphoto, but there seems to be a slight focusproblem in the 1DIII file. Since sharpening before Photoshop ruins the file, to my taste, I asked for the non sharpened file. I'm even more interested in iso 100-400 files than above. The Yellowsone crop seems a bit desaturated and the iso800 doesn't help to judge the pixel detail. Not meaning to pixelpeep, just looking for a camera capable of showing nature as good as possible. The Live View focus should help here for guaranteed sharp focus and using a proper speed should do the rest. The Yellowstone pics seems to suffer from motionblur if I'm not mistaken.
Kind regards,
Bart
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
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....
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.
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The Yellowsone crop seems a bit desaturated and the iso800 doesn't help to judge the pixel detail.
Well, realize its unretouched - just auto-adjusted by Lightroom, which is to say the file is not optimized. It was taken under overcast conditions in the morning, so the file is a little flat in terms of contrast (and saturation) - the white balance hasn't been adjusted, either, so...
But - you've got the pixel level detail, there... Overall, the MkIII impresses me with being very smooth at the pixel level. That crop was real pixel size - if you view it at 100%, you're seeing actual pixels in the original file. So... judge it for what its worth
Not meaning to pixelpeep, just looking for a camera capable of showing nature as good as possible. The Live View focus should help here for guaranteed sharp focus and using a proper speed should do the rest. The Yellowstone pics seems to suffer from motionblur if I'm not mistaken.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On the ISO 3200 shot, yes, there is almost certainly motion blur in that shot. It was taken at 1/13th w/ a 50mm lens, so... I don't think I'm that solid that I wouldn't get any blur in the shot
On the marmot shot at ISO 800, from the rest of the file, there may be just a taste of motion blur - it was at 1/500 and taken at an effective 280mm (70-200 w/ 1.4x) and f/4. So, it may be a little of just plain old unsharpness in the lens combo. Also, I was handheld and standing in an awkward position, so it wouldn't surprise me if I wasn't a rock Capture sharpening helps it out quite a bit, though.
These were both cases of grabbing shots as they happened - they were reasonable examples of higher ISO performance, and weren't intended to show off anything else but that (either the capabilities of the camera as a landscape tool, or my abilities as a photographer ).
Files from the camera seem very nice at ISO 100. PM me your email address, and I'll send you an example or two to look at...
Dave
-
Bart, I would refer you to the initial Rob Galbraith article. It's not "scientific" pixel peeping, but it gives a good idea of high ISO differences between the two cameras.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...cid=7-8738-8908 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8738-8908)
-
When i first read this thread, I thought, troll. Go back to dpreview.
It's common knowledge that Nikon and Canon sought out opposing parameters during the design of their cameras. Canon is master of high ISO situations, Nikon has a bias towards low ISO file quality.
They both succeed.
Bob
-
You know, I prefer untouched for judging files, since the camera should be able to produce image quality by itself 1/500s for the marmot is pretty slow. A marmot moves very fast, even if you cannot see it with your eyes. That and handholding a 70-200 with converter from a distance, is really pushing it. But maybe, I'm pushing things now, wanting to see image detail that goes beyond we have seen. The image quality I could capture with the Kodak 14n with a cheap lens is only reached with a D2X with a very sharp lens. Must say the Rob Galbraith files come very close to perfection (Thanks Macgyver!).
X, I'll send you my email address. Thanks!
Well, realize its unretouched - just auto-adjusted by Lightroom, which is to say the file is not optimized. It was taken under overcast conditions in the morning, so the file is a little flat in terms of contrast (and saturation) - the white balance hasn't been adjusted, either, so...
But - you've got the pixel level detail, there... Overall, the MkIII impresses me with being very smooth at the pixel level. That crop was real pixel size - if you view it at 100%, you're seeing actual pixels in the original file. So... judge it for what its worth
On the ISO 3200 shot, yes, there is almost certainly motion blur in that shot. It was taken at 1/13th w/ a 50mm lens, so... I don't think I'm that solid that I wouldn't get any blur in the shot
On the marmot shot at ISO 800, from the rest of the file, there may be just a taste of motion blur - it was at 1/500 and taken at an effective 280mm (70-200 w/ 1.4x) and f/4. So, it may be a little of just plain old unsharpness in the lens combo. Also, I was handheld and standing in an awkward position, so it wouldn't surprise me if I wasn't a rock Capture sharpening helps it out quite a bit, though.
These were both cases of grabbing shots as they happened - they were reasonable examples of higher ISO performance, and weren't intended to show off anything else but that (either the capabilities of the camera as a landscape tool, or my abilities as a photographer ).
Files from the camera seem very nice at ISO 100. PM me your email address, and I'll send you an example or two to look at...
Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127911\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Looking forward to your comparison Ros!
I'll be getting a MKIII shortly. I use a d2x for theatre photography and hope to up my game with the mkIII, basically by increasing my depth of field on stage. I had thought of selling my Nikon gear but I just use it for too many applications (QTVR(10.5mm), Archmodel pics etc etc) Plus I really think that the 70-200 2.8 is a reason to own a Nikon. So in the luxurious position of having two overlapping systems, I will be doing some comparative tests on the job. I will post as soon as I have images. My delivery date however is constantly being pushed back so I can't guarantee anything very soon!
Ros
www.roskavanagh.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Looking forward to your comparison Ros!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In order to not pre-occupy who will be using such cameras, I think it is equally important to compare the file of different cameras as original raw, un-retouched jpeg as well as the file ability to be retouched - after all, there are many art form that is extended from the digital capture and many commercial output does need such ability. I think people will be very interested to find out cameras compare in these perspectives.
-
For the most part, this is true - using the same lens on each would be the only way to do an objective comparison. However - both companies make a superb 70-200/2.8 zoom that seem to be every bit as good as each other. Given that a camera is a system that requires a lens to make an image - images taken with either camera with the equivalent lens should give you a good enough comparison to compare them for your needs...
The 70-200 is the only one I can vouch for being similar, since I've owned both (sold the Nikon version w/ the D2X). There are probably other valid lenses to compare like this, though...
I agree, though, Lisa - pick that one that best suits your needs. I could happily make great images with the D2X, as well, so....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with Dave 100%, Dave knows I love my D2X, but...... I shoot Canon too. Maybe Dave & I can get together soon. Maybe in Tulsa and we can compare bodies!! Remember man, I'll have the loaner 1DsMKII there too!!
Y
-
Maybe in Tulsa and we can compare bodies!! Remember man, I'll have the loaner 1DsMKII there too!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey, buddy!!!
Here he goes w/ the Tulsa thing again
At least you dropped by the forum over here...
-
Hey, buddy!!!
Here he goes w/ the Tulsa thing again
At least you dropped by the forum over here...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dude, I want my shooting buddy at this event!! At least someone wants you around
Y
-
I'll be getting a MKIII shortly. I use a d2x for theatre photography and hope to up my game with the mkIII, basically by increasing my depth of field on stage.
How will a MkIII have more depth of field? If anything a little less.
Kevin.
-
How will a MkIII have more depth of field? If anything a little less.
Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right you are !!
The Slightly larger Sensor will yield less DOF with the same Focal Length Lens
Y
-
Good quality high ISO = greater depth of field at a given shutter speed.
-
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.
-
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
-
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]
-
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
-
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.
-
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 f2.8)
Like the highlight priorty already.
Ros
-
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
-
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
-
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..
-
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]
-
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 )
-
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
-
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]
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 2.8) 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
-
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)
-
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
-
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).
We used to shoot the Cabelas catalog with ISO 25 Megavision 3 Pass LF Backs!! They were not more or less efficient, they were just different tools for different uses.
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It all depends what systems you are talking about. You want to make a blanket statement about ALL digital systems. Megavision was making effective Digital systems since the mid 90's. What I was referring to was for Studio use, you rarely need high ISO's for that, at least I never did back int eh Cabelas Studio, and I don't need them at my Home studio now.
-
We used to shoot the Cabelas catalog with ISO 25 Megavision 3 Pass LF Backs!! They were not more or less efficient, they were just different tools for different uses. It all depends what systems you are talking about. You want to make a blanket statement about ALL digital systems.
Well, if we're talking about an exposure without a literal neutral density filter, and a single exposure, with current technology, then really, what a low minimum ISO is (assuming that it does not have compromised headroom) is the camera failing to capture photons striking its surface. It is not a quality feature, except that on the same camera, relative to the higher ISOs, you capture more photons. A camera with a lower minimum ISO does not have less noise than one with a higher minimum ISO; AOTBE, they have the same noise at their lowest ISO, whatever it is, and the one with the higher minimum ISO has less noise at the same ISOs, where the ISOs overlap.
A pixel that captures X number of photons at a certain level of illumination, and has Y read noise, in electrons, has the same DR, same noise, as any other pixel with X and Y, regardless of the ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can save electricity with a more sensitive camera, though.