Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: adrianaitken on December 07, 2007, 02:41:44 pm
-
Hi Michael, I didn't see another topic started so here goes...
Why did you compare a PJ camera (Nikon) against a studio camera (Canon) only really at high ISO? Couldn't you have put the lights on and done ISO 100/200 comparison shots or at least done it against the Canon 1D Mark III which is also a PJ camera ?
Obviously I am generically calling them PJ/studio cameras and they could be used for anything but....
Regards
Adrian
-
michael,
is there any in-camera noise reduction utilized in the d3 shots?
-
The reason that I did the comparison is because I could. We had the cameras there, there were about 25 people present who were keenly interested in the results, and others online have told me that they are as well.
They are both Nikon and Canon's flagship cameras. They both shipped within a few days of each other. Seemed like a good idea to me.
If it doesn't jibe with your sense of "rightness", that's OK too. It just is what it is.
Yes, in camera NR was turned on in the Nikon. If I had turned it off people would have asked why I handicapped the Nikon that way. It was a no win choice - trust me).
Michael
-
Yes, in camera NR was turned on in the Nikon. If I had turned it off people would have asked why I handicapped the Nikon that way. It was a no win choice - trust me).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does the camera NR setting have any effect on raw files processed by ACR or LR? I think not, but could be wrong concerning the specifics of the D3. The Nikon Capture program would read the setting and apply NR.
Bill
-
The reason that I did the comparison is because I could. We had the cameras there, there were about 25 people present who were keenly interested in the results, and others online have told me that they are as well.
They are both Nikon and Canon's flagship cameras. They both shipped within a few days of each other. Seemed like a good idea to me.
If it doesn't jibe with your sense of "rightness", that's OK too. It just is what it is.
Yes, in camera NR was turned on in the Nikon. If I had turned it off people would have asked why I handicapped the Nikon that way. It was a no win choice - trust me).
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks michael,
i realized after i posted my question that i should have also asked whether the hi iso speed noise reduction (cfn2-1) on the 1ds3 was on or not.
regards
-
hi Michael, I wasn't trying to wind you (or anyone else up), I was more interested in why you didn't compare it to a 1D Mark 3 which is it's (IMHO) real life competitor.
-
hi Michael, I wasn't trying to wind you (or anyone else up), I was more interested in why you didn't compare it to a 1D Mark 3 which is it's (IMHO) real life competitor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I get the impression that the D3 is supposed to do a bit of both, delivering the speed and high sensitivity of the 1D with the high image quality provided by the full-frame sensor, like the 1Ds. As if the canon's previous-gen competitors, the D2h and D2x, had been combined into one camera at the same price point. High speed is great for sports, but 12mp has been shown quite adequate for landscapes with the 5d's strong performance.
So I think it's a bit muddier as far as which competes with which.
-
hi Michael, I wasn't trying to wind you (or anyone else up), I was more interested in why you didn't compare it to a 1D Mark 3 which is it's (IMHO) real life competitor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought that I made it clear in my article, but I'll say it again.
It's what we had available. The D3 was the property of one of the attendees at my Maisel seminar. I had my 1Ds MKII and D300 at the gallery. We had a chance to do some comparisons. That's it.
Would the comparison have been more appropriate against the 5D or the 1D MKIII. Almost surely. But neither camera of those cameras was available that day. So we did what we did.
Michael
-
John Harrington purchased the Nikon D3 and the 1DsIII bodies.
Here is his NIKON D3 - CANON 1DsIII (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-introduction.html)"review" and conclusions.
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...troduction.html (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-introduction.html)
-
Harrigton's review is excellent.
-
Harrigton's review is excellent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
of course he confuses the Nikon and Canon LCD resolutions...
-
Interesting review, but it leaves some questions. Michael, for example, said that there can really be no comparison between the D3 and the 1Ds3 with larger prints, because the additional resolution of the 1DsIII will win out. Harrington says that when the D3 file is up-rezzed to the same size as the 1DsIII, the D3 file is "more pleasant." On the other hand, he says he'll use his Canon for high resolution work (with the D3 used for high-ISO.) That's all a little confusing.
Like Michael, he seems *very* confident that a D3x will be here in the spring (in time for the Olympics in the summer, in any case.)
JC
-
Harrington says that when the D3 file is up-rezzed to the same size as the 1DsIII, the D3 file is "more pleasant." On the other hand, he says he'll use his Canon for high resolution work (with the D3 used for high-ISO.) [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
what I think hes saying is at 3200 the uprezzed D3 is better than the 1ds3 at 3200
one assumes that at 200ish iso the canon is better and he equates high resolution work with low ISOs
It would be quite a claim that the nikon is just more pleasant through the whole range
my initial observations on the D3 is that the AA filter (i assume there is one) and the resolution make for a pretty low quality file in absolute terms (my comparisons being a 22mp back and the Kodak SLRn - no aa filter ??) but a step up from the D200 which I never had a sharp image from at all as far as I could see
The handling (AF accuracy etc) and high ISO make a very acceptable file acheivable in situations where one cannot use a 22mpDB or SLRN however
I shot I reasonbly pressured job on friday lots of presentations/speakers in dark room etc and the D3 was a no stress to use - every didital camera before this that I have owned has caused me stress ie I have not trusted it to 'do what it says on the tin'
A further 'gripe' with the D3 is the buffer is too small for an 9FPS camera although I havnt relied on this feature (FPS) in anger yet
S
-
"my initial observations on the D3 is that the AA filter (i assume there is one) and the resolution make for a pretty low quality file in absolute terms (my comparisons being a 22mp back and the Kodak SLRn - no aa filter ??) but a step up from the D200 which I never had a sharp image from at all as far as I could see. "
Sam, I don't understand why you never got a sharp file with a D200, you must have had a bad camera. With some of my older AIs lenses my D200 is superb....
I still fancy a D3 ( or D3x?) though, because at the moment it all falls apart above ISO 800.
Cheers,
Barrie Watts
-
Sam, I don't understand why you never got a sharp file with a D200
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
D200
When your standard is a 22mpDback or the razor sharp SLRn (flawed in many other ways) there is probably an element of pixel peeping
Both those other cameras are filterless and have higher resolution chips
I think the small chip meant using a 14mm a lot of the time probably not the finest lens and there was no real definition from front to back focus
I reckon the AF was poor - focus hunting - or just miscalibrated so used MF on small dark screen which meant mis focus alot of the time -
(you can sort this out on the D3 with lens 'tuning' I believe - not that I have got that far into the manual)
remember I would only use a D200 at all where conditions were too challenging for an H1 at 100ISO or the SLRN at 200 - so that meant I only used it at 400 or higher or on moving subjects
Not really a bad camera just a stress to use under pressure which the D3 is not
And I want nikon to work for me under pressue (time or light or both) - that where it fits in my box of toys
ease of use and reliable function is why I went D3 not D300 - I dont give a monkeys about build quality - they all break if you drop them
The bottom line is I didnt TRUST my D200 - I dint trust the AF and didnt trust my eye through the widdy litle viewfinder with no defined ping from the depth of field to confirm manual focus
I am sure it is very adequate at Base ISO in good light
S
-
John Harrington purchased the Nikon D3 and the 1DsIII bodies.
Here is his NIKON D3 - CANON 1DsIII (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-introduction.html)"review" and conclusions.
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...troduction.html (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-introduction.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mr Harrington's comments apply only to the world of JPEG, and assume an aesthetic leaning towards noise and detail reduction over honest noise and signal.
He should have shown the doll eyes all at the same size for a fair comparison; a simple and fair way to do this is to upsample both by a factor of at least 2x, with the D3 upsampled more to match the subject size of the 1DSmk3.
The 1DSmk3 does any high ISO it wants to in RAW, as does any camera that shoots RAW. To say that the 1DSmk3 doesn't do 25,600 is a JPEG-centric statement. And even there, Canon's HQ fine JPEGs are somewhat pushable, if not as pushable as RAW.
-
Mr Harrington's comments apply only to the world of JPEG, and assume an aesthetic leaning towards noise and detail reduction over honest noise and signal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why is that so? He shot in raw mode and converted the images with ACR.
-
Why is that so? He shot in raw mode and converted the images with ACR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, I might have missed that, but the images do look like they have different NR parameters, just like out-of-camera JPEGs.
He should have known, then, that he could have shot the 1DSmk3 with the same Av and Tv settings as the D3 at 25,600, but at 6400.
In effect, not much different than shooting JPEG when you use a set of defaults in ACR.
-
D200
When your standard is a 22mpDback or the razor sharp SLRn (flawed in many other ways) there is probably an element of pixel peeping
Both those other cameras are filterless and have higher resolution chips
I think the small chip meant using a 14mm a lot of the time probably not the finest lens and there was no real definition from front to back focus
I reckon the AF was poor - focus hunting - or just miscalibrated so used MF on small dark screen which meant mis focus alot of the time -
(you can sort this out on the D3 with lens 'tuning' I believe - not that I have got that far into the manual)
remember I would only use a D200 at all where conditions were too challenging for an H1 at 100ISO or the SLRN at 200 - so that meant I only used it at 400 or higher or on moving subjects
Not really a bad camera just a stress to use under pressure which the D3 is not
And I want nikon to work for me under pressue (time or light or both) - that where it fits in my box of toys
ease of use and reliable function is why I went D3 not D300 - I dont give a monkeys about build quality - they all break if you drop them
The bottom line is I didnt TRUST my D200 - I dint trust the AF and didnt trust my eye through the widdy litle viewfinder with no defined ping from the depth of field to confirm manual focus
I am sure it is very adequate at Base ISO in good light
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sam,
I agree with all those things. The viewfinder is small compared to my film Nikon bodies. The AF does hunt a bit too but for most of my work I don't always need it. It's bad for example on plain areas of a subject where there's no texture, but for close up of faces it is spot on, or has been for me.
The problem I find is too much depth of field from the small sensor and also the DX sensor is very unforgiving of sloppy technique i.e it seems to magnify camera shake compared to a full format film body so this degrades the quality quite a bit. I don't know how the new D3 is better in this respect because I've yet to handle one. It's taken quite a while for me to overcome the shaky camera syndrome but I think after about a year I've just about mastered it !
The auto white balance is a miracle, as is the colour, always but always spot on. For years I've used Kodachrome 25 and the quality out of the D200 using some of the AIs lenses easily surpasses this, so what more can I want? A D3 most definitely.
Cheers,
Barrie Watts
-
D200 V D3
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well this is Off Topic anyway but without getting too longwinded I can say that the D3 and its results just feel good to me whereas the D200 didnt IMO
My main gripe was the D200 AF with wide lenses,
My theory is that the DOF of a 20mm is so much less than the 14mm that the AF on the D3 with the 20 has a lot more contrast to 'grab' compared to the D200 with a 14
Maybe its about the af sensor area as a % of the total image is so much less on the D3
Whatever . The D3 is a real winner versus the D200 to ME for MY uses
In good light the differences are probably more marginal
S
-
Michael,
A question that I am currious about? What rumors do you know about that make you say that a D3(X) is coming in the early part of 2008, as I have seen a few other rumors to this effect and just want to know where they are coming from. I have a D2X and can only afford to upgrade once in the next year and as much as I like the look of the D3 really need more mega-pixels hence my question what leads you to make the statement, that there is a new camera on its way that is the direct competition for the 1Ds Mk3.
Regards
Michael Wayne Plant
-
I can't really comment without divulging sources.
I also can't say when a D3(?) will be here, only that there is no question that it will.
If I had to guess I'd say well before summer.
Michael
-
What I would like to know is when will a D300FX body be available??? That way I can spend money on more lenses, maybe first, rather than saving my pennies for a D3. ......any comments?
-
What I would like to know is when will a D300FX body be available??? That way I can spend money on more lenses, maybe first, rather than saving my pennies for a D3. ......any comments?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=159883\")
If you cant afford it, you dont need it.
For quality get a Canon 5D with a 17-40 L and 70-200 4/ Is and you are done.
A cheap Nikon FX wont happen fast and for cameras like that you need the best lenses, so mainly the new Zooms which are excellent. With old lenses you wont be very happy on such demanding cameras. I dont know what optics you have, but it could easily be that you have to purchase new lenses also for your nikon system if you go for FX. For what nikon lenses can and cannot do look at this site:
[a href=\"http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html]http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html[/url]
Christian
-
If you cant afford it, you dont need it.
For quality get a Canon 5D with a 17-40 L and 70-200 4/ Is and you are done.
A cheap Nikon FX wont happen fast and for cameras like that you need the best lenses, so mainly the new Zooms which are excellent. With old lenses you wont be very happy on such demanding cameras. I dont know what optics you have, but it could easily be that you have to purchase new lenses also for your nikon system if you go for FX. For what nikon lenses can and cannot do look at this site:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Christian- actually I have been there and didn't like it that much. I have owned several Canon cameras over the last 7 yrs from D30 through and including 5D. I have also owned Nikon, Fuji and Leica. While they all have their plusses they also have less then ideal qualities.The 5D was NOT the camera for me, either in operation and the fact that I really gave it a chance, bought and sold three before I got one that at least worked correctly for its design. That said I am not bitter, just it was NOT the camera or panacea that folk make it out to be. Different shooters have different needs. If it does what you need, GREAT. I am also familiar with Bjorn site and use it often as a great reference, as is Thom Hogan, Photozone etc. Besides travel, which the 5D is good for, it is not a good choice for sports, poor focusing and framing rate left me frustrated. I had just as many keepers with my 20D, albeit with more noise. When you got a good image, it was good, but many misses with the 5D. The one plus was the low noise and that is why I would like to see a D300FX. BTW, do you work for Nikon, do you know their intentions or production schedule for new models? Just kidding, just a rhetorical question, no mas... Just my wishful thinking for a D300FX camera that has the shooting capability in a size package I am comfortable shooting with and a desire for low noise. [I know I could buy a D3 but it is too big to carry and use for all aspects of photography that I want it for...]
Also, I have a few great old NIkon, Voigtlander MF prime lenses that I used both on the 5D and on the D300 which are very sharp, in direst opposition to the lousy Canon samples I had, like the 2-3 17-40Ls which were OK on the 20D but not on the 5D, and forced me to buy adapters to get a decent wide angle on the 5D, using the Nikkors and Voigtlander. ...e.g. the 40mm Ultron is even sharper then my 35L....fwiw in the corners. Canon had nothing like this or my 28/2 Nikkor AIS.
All in all, I am sorry for the rant, but throwing out a simple answer like go buy a 5D is just so much jive for this early in the a.m. It is important to find out what one's needs are before another diatribe....now to take my Prozac and caffeine....uhhmmm, make that decaf..:-)....DW
Have a good day with great light, Don
-
A cheap Nikon FX wont happen fast and for cameras like that you need the best lenses, so mainly the new Zooms which are excellent. With old lenses you wont be very happy on such demanding cameras. I dont know what optics you have, but it could easily be that you have to purchase new lenses also for your nikon system if you go for FX. For what nikon lenses can and cannot do look at this site:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
Christian
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=160051\")
Full frame digital and film impose some different demands on lenses, especially wide-angle lenses, but in general a lens that performs well with Kodachrome or Velvia should perform well with a D3. The D3 requires less resolution in the central area of the image than does the D2x or D200, whereas edge performance becomes more important with full frame.
People on this forum like to knock Ken Rockwell, but he does make some good points in his essay [a href=\"http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm]the full-frame advantage.[/url] .
Depending on the application, I would expect that many will be satisfied with results from their older high quality Nikkors with the D3, especially under field conditions for sports or event photography with high ISO where ultimate sharpness is not attainable. As the Lieca expert Erwin Putts is fond of saying, it is difficult to get 40 lp/mm on the film under these conditions and 20 lp/mm may be more realistic.
Bill
-
Indeed Bill. There are quite a few over at Nikonians falling in love all over again with their manual and AI-S primes. This is of course anecdotal but over time I'm sure we will see the popular sources updated with in-depth reviews.
-
Christian- actually I have been there and didn't like it that much. I have owned several Canon cameras over the last 7 yrs from D30 through and including 5D. I have also owned Nikon, Fuji and Leica. While they all have their plusses they also have less then ideal qualities.The 5D was NOT the camera for me, either in operation and the fact that I really gave it a chance, bought and sold three before I got one that at least worked correctly for its design. That said I am not bitter, just it was NOT the camera or panacea that folk make it out to be. Different shooters have different needs. If it does what you need, GREAT. I am also familiar with Bjorn site and use it often as a great reference, as is Thom Hogan, Photozone etc. Besides travel, which the 5D is good for, it is not a good choice for sports, poor focusing and framing rate left me frustrated. I had just as many keepers with my 20D, albeit with more noise. When you got a good image, it was good, but many misses with the 5D. The one plus was the low noise and that is why I would like to see a D300FX. BTW, do you work for Nikon, do you know their intentions or production schedule for new models? Just kidding, just a rhetorical question, no mas... Just my wishful thinking for a D300FX camera that has the shooting capability in a size package I am comfortable shooting with and a desire for low noise. [I know I could buy a D3 but it is too big to carry and use for all aspects of photography that I want it for...]
Also, I have a few great old NIkon, Voigtlander MF prime lenses that I used both on the 5D and on the D300 which are very sharp, in direst opposition to the lousy Canon samples I had, like the 2-3 17-40Ls which were OK on the 20D but not on the 5D, and forced me to buy adapters to get a decent wide angle on the 5D, using the Nikkors and Voigtlander. ...e.g. the 40mm Ultron is even sharper then my 35L....fwiw in the corners. Canon had nothing like this or my 28/2 Nikkor AIS.
All in all, I am sorry for the rant, but throwing out a simple answer like go buy a 5D is just so much jive for this early in the a.m. It is important to find out what one's needs are before another diatribe....now to take my Prozac and caffeine....uhhmmm, make that decaf..:-)....DW
Have a good day with great light, Don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello Don !
Hope I sounded not rude, what I wanted to say is that it is too easily to forget about photography when you think about all the options with different systems you have. Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Medium format, what is the best without burning money for quality differences maybe only you will see and in print will be gone. I am the first one to be accused to have gear lust from time to time but try to get away from it as often as possible. I would switch to any other camera if it would bring me better operation, same resolution in a lightweight package. So the D3 is a heavy piece of gear, because it just makes sense with good optics and if you want to go to 600 mm it starts to get almost impossible if you plan to fly. So my 5d with the 40D and lenses like the 17-40 (my first copy was bad too, the second is Ok) 24-70 (good, but also far from perfect) and the 100-400 give me a versatile camera equipment for travelling and also hiking (withe the 70-200/4 instead of the 100-400). This combo do have flaws and I am not very happy about them, but I dont see an option which gives me real advantages. Nikon has damn good new optics (14-24, 24-70) and some others are excellent, but something like the L/4 line with Canon is missing. these optics are not perfect but at least very good and not too heavy. Sadly I think that new gear just might be not the solution to become a better photographer, maybe some corner sharpness is better with lens X, but are people looking in the corners like we do ?
Quality control with Canon lenses is really not perfect, far away from that, but how is it with nikon on a FX sensor - future will tell if their optics can keep up better in Full frame.
And dont forget Canon 5D is on the market for two years now, lets see if there is an update and what that brings and if it is good again for two years.
I hope that Nikon is bringing out cameras in FX, the more, the better. The more competition, the more and better products for us.
Greetings !
Christian
-
Hi All,
I haven't yet found a review that describes the quality of the D3 at low ISO compared to the D2X at low ISO. I use my D2X mostly for landscape at 100 ISO, and it would be great to know how much I would benefit from changing it for a D3. The larger viewfinder sounds good, but low noise high ISO is only of interest if it also equates to improved quality at low ISO too.
Anyone seen any info about this?
Andy.
-
Andy - I don't remember where exactly, but I know I have seen something like this online in one of the forums either here, or DPReview etc, in the last day or two. It compared the D2x, D3 and D300 at ISOs of 100 and 200. My take on results were basically, they were all quite close in sharpness and detail. This was kind of expected due to similar Mp ratings. The D2x has a slightly warmer cast to the image compared to the newer cameras, some might argue the D3 had more tonal range, but for my money the D300 seemed to be the equal or better. You cannot judge too much by these jpegs on a monitor for sure, but it was an apples to apples test and given the testing was done by a regular forum member, should be above reproach. THe end result I had no regrets going for the D300 for me, it gives similar image quality or better in a small package. Combined also with the improvements in on board image processing etc, and this was a good thing. Do not know if I would upgrade to a newer camera unless I really needed better high ISO quality. Also for much of what I do I do not need FF at the moment, also I have been considering the D3 for the other reasons, namely, high ISO and high frame rates for shooting high school basketball, without flash, but my D300 is doing better then any camera I have owned before. ....Keep looking the thread is out there, if I find it will post the link.....Good luck and good shooting..Don
-
I very much enjoyed your article. I really do not know why people do not lighten up on comments about camera type. I have a D200 and have on order a D300, I am just an advanced amature but enjoy photography. In the "old days" with a minolta 101/102, then a Nikon FE, I could not have dreamed of the type of photography possible now. Keep up with your opinions, which I do respect and enjoy, but just because individuals do not always agree, does not indicate that one is wrong or correct. Cameras are tools not unlike an artists brush. they have to work, understood, and most of all used.
Enjoy and, hopefully I an not too politically incorrect, Merry Christmas