Nikon D3 vs. Canon 1Ds Mark III

[adrianaitken]

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

[canmiya]

michael,
is there any in-camera noise reduction utilized in the d3 shots?

[michael]

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

[bjanes]

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

[canmiya]

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

[adrianaitken]

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.

[Er1kksen]

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.

[michael]

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

[Camdavidson]

John Harrington purchased the Nikon D3 and the 1DsIII bodies.

Here is his NIKON D3 - CANON 1DsIII  "review" and conclusions.

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...troduction.html

[macgyver]

Harrigton's review is excellent.

[NikosR]

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...

[John Camp]

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

[Morgan_Moore]

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

[bwpuk]

"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

[Morgan_Moore]

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 Sheehy]

John Harrington purchased the Nikon D3 and the 1DsIII bodies.

Here is his NIKON D3 - CANON 1DsIII  "review" and conclusions.

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...troduction.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.

[bjanes]

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.

[John Sheehy]

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.

[bwpuk]

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

[Morgan_Moore]

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