Well, I'm glad you find me entertaining.
Hi Ray. I didn't say I found you entertaining - I said I found your assertion that you weren't being biased on this amusing. You seem like a very smart person, and it isn't my intent to demean you in any way. I'm sure I could learn a lot from you.
There's a strong tradition on this site of promoting the benefits of RAW capture. All of us with a bit of experience are aware that RAW capture gives us the potential to get the best results.
Yes, I shoot almost totally RAW myself. I'm not sure what this has to do with any of this, however. The D3's advantages in noise aren't unique to its JPEGs. Many of those commenting on this haven't qualified their statements to being only about JPEGs.
I'm not a fan boy in any respect. If you read my posts, I've praised the capabilities of the D3 in this thread. If you shoot jpegs, the benefits are obvious and clear.
Same comment as above.
Do you not believe your eyes, Mort54? Would you rather believe the opinions of experts unsupported by RAW comparisons?
Of course. I don't go by the comments of others. I'm simply using the comments of others to butress my arguments. You aren't the only person doing comparisons, Ray. To suggest that only yours are valid is an interesting position to take. I've done my own comparisons and I'm content with my position based on those comparisions. All of the comments by others are simply icing on the cake.
I never said that. Why are you misquoting me? I've said that it appears the D3 is applying more in-camera noise reduction than the 5D, especially with regard to chroma noise which can, however, be removed in software without degrading resolution.
I didn't quote you Ray, I paraphrased you :-) Your thesis (as I read it) is that the D3's magical noise properties are due largely to the fact (your assertion, not mine) that Nikon does noise reduction on their RAWs, and that Canon doesn't. I'm simply pointing out the obvious - that you have yet to support your thesis (your Noise Ninja comments don't cut it - I also see noise reduction on my D3 RAWs when I apply NN and other post processed NR techniques). I, on the other hand, did provide a reference to Nikon's D3 manual that stated that NR isn't applied to it's RAWs until ISO 2000 and higher (this isn't totally convincing, I agree, but it's more than you've offered up in support of your assertions). In any event, I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point (probably just to be annoying :-), since all I really care about are the results, regardless of how they are achieved. Maybe we're in violent agreement on this.
....but I have said, and have also demonstrated, that such objectionable chroma noise in the 5D image can be easily removed with Noise Ninja.
Yes, you have.
Nonsense! All camera companies need to be kept in the game. If they are not kept in the game, they're out of the game or taken over by other companies like Minolta was. All these companies have marketing departments and do research on the customers needs and wants.
Your assertion implied (to me, at least) that the hubub over D3 noise advances was mostly marketing hype. I think it goes way beyond that.
It's my experience that most DSLR owners I meet on my travels shoot in jpeg mode. I bet most journalists do too. I think Nikon are appealing to that customer base with the D3. It seems there are only a few fanatics on LL who consistently shoot in RAW mode and are prepared to spend time processing and manipulating their favourite images. Good results out of the box seem the preferred option for most.
I fall into the RAW is better camp as well. Unless I'm shooting family snapshots in good light, I have my D3 set to shoot NEFs. So I am very familiar with examining RAW files, and evaluating RAW files, and processing RAW files. And I know noise, and the lack thereof, from long personal experience with Nikon cameras. I've seen the bad, and now I'm seeing the good. The biggest ding on Nikon bodies has been their higher noise at high ISOs, and that ding was largely deserved (tho highly overrated by the Canon community, in my opinion). But again, you seem to be the only person declaring that the D3's low noise advantages are mostly a JPEG thing. That's certainly not what I'm seeing.
Anyway, hopefully we can get on more positive ground and agree that the D3 is a huge advance for Nikon in the noise department (your comments suggest you agree with this statement), and in fact sets new standards in the noise department (however they achieve this). Is it the be all, end all. Certainly not - in fact, for what I like to shoot, the 1DsIII is certainly a better choice (my P45+ is an even better choice, but that's a whole other subject), but since I'm invested too heavily in Nikon glass, that's not going to happen. I'm patiently awaiting the D3X. Untill then, I'm happily shooting my D3 (and my P45+).
Regards,
Mort.