Hope this is for real--new 5D

[NikosR]

Hey! You've got both a 5D and D3? You are just the right candidate to compare noise levels at high ISO. I was frustrated a while back, when in Bangkok, because I could only get my hands on a demo D3 in the Nikon store. They wouldn't let me borrow it. However, my rather hasty test shots of a dark corner in the store, using both the  D3 and my 5D in RAW mode, indicated the actual D3 noise advantage was in the order of 1/3 to 2/3rds of a stop at most. Of course, there are lots of other upgraded features of the D3, but I find it curious that there are so few D3/5D comparisons, that is, proper and thorough comparisons that don't cop out by declaring, "the 5D is not capable of ISO 25,600 so we didn't compare cameras at these ISO's".

Ken Rockwell's is one of the few comparisons I came across during an internet search, but he shoots jpeg. He claims the D3 is now king of the castle in the noise department, but interestingly his 5D jpegs, after chroma-only noise reduction, looked just as good as the D3 jpegs, when I tried Noise Ninja. However, the D3 jpegs lost considerable resolution after applying the same degree of chroma noise reduction.

Can we say that the D3 is on honeymoon with regard to the critics, just as our new labour Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I believe he is saying he owns an 1DsIII and a 5D.

Ray, forgive me if I sound too critical but you seem so obsessed in proving whatever point you want to make regarding the high iso noise of D3 that you have started seeing things...

Get over it mate, 1/2 stop, 2/3 stop, 1 stop real difference in RAW it doesn't really matter to most people. The D3 is an excellent package and this is what's making many pro photogs wanting to own one. It is NOT (IMO) the absolute superiotity in High ISO noise, it's the fact that the camera offers AT LEAST as good noise performance as the competition combined with at least as good general  IQ in RAW and absolute best in jpeg and all that in a body that offers the best functionality in its class. And yes, I will include the ability to set extremely high ISO in camera (as opposed to underexposing and overdeveloping) as well as very well behaved NR, in the functionality list if that will make you happier.

I have no doubts that Canon will have an answer to that sooner rather than later, but for now, most people would agree (and they are showing it with their wallets) that the D3 is probably the best all-around pro package out there.

[mcfoto]

Well, I believe he is saying he owns an 1DsIII and a 5D.

Ray, forgive me if I sound too critical but you seem so obsessed in proving whatever point you want to make regarding the high iso noise of D3 that you have started seeing things...

Get over it mate, 1/2 stop, 2/3 stop, 1 stop real difference in RAW it doesn't really matter to most people. The D3 is an excellent package and this is what's making many pro photogs wanting to own one. It is NOT (IMO) the absolute superiotity in High ISO noise, it's the fact that the camera offers AT LEAST as good noise performance as the competition combined with at least as good general  IQ in RAW and absolute best in jpeg and all that in a body that offers the best functionality in its class. And yes, I will include the ability to set extremely high ISO in camera (as opposed to underexposing and overdeveloping) as well as very well behaved NR, in the functionality list if that will make you happier.

I have no doubts that Canon will have an answer to that sooner rather than later, but for now, most people would agree (and they are showing it with their wallets) that the D3 is probably the best all-around pro package out there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
I think the D3 is a good camera but why a 200 iso default? For serious studio work you need iso 100 & even the 5D has that.
Denis

[Ray]

Ray, forgive me if I sound too critical but you seem so obsessed in proving whatever point you want to make regarding the high iso noise of D3 that you have started seeing things...

You are forgiven, and I am seeing things.... photographic images.

You might consider me obsessed, but I believe I am not the only one who considers low noise, high ISO capability as a major attraction of any camera.

I actually prefer to take shots in low light conditions without using flash, if possible. I'm absolutely fascinated that any camera could deliver up to two stops lower noise than my 5D. If I were to believe that, you could be certain I'd have my order in for a D3.

Get over it mate, 1/2 stop, 2/3 stop, 1 stop real difference in RAW it doesn't really matter to most people.

What matters to most people is not my concern here. I'm not a politician trying to keep his seat.  

The D3 is an excellent package and this is what's making many pro photogs wanting to own one. It is NOT (IMO) the absolute superiotity in High ISO noise, it's the fact that the camera offers AT LEAST as good noise performance as the competition combined with at least as good general  IQ in RAW and absolute best in jpeg and all that in a body that offers the best functionality in its class. And yes, I will include the ability to set extremely high ISO in camera (as opposed to underexposing and overdeveloping) as well as very well behaved NR, in the functionality list if that will make you happier.

Of course! I wouldn't disagree with that. I'm just trying to get an accurate assessment of what the improvements (over the 5D) actually are, after one has subtracted the bells and whistles. I can live with an underexposed representation on the camera's LCD screen of the shot I've just taken. It's not ideal and it would be hopeless for people who shoot jpeg, but I always shoot RAW.

Well, I believe he is saying he owns an 1DsIII and a 5D.

Are we talking about the same post?

[NikosR]

Are we talking about the same post?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.

[sojournerphoto]

Well, I believe he is saying he owns an 1DsIII and a 5D.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I'm fortunate enough to have a 5D and a 1Ds3. BOth are excellent, but don't allow me to comapre high iso noise to the D3 - though I would if I could.

I can see Ray's point that, in some situations, even better high iso performance would be helpful and certainly there are shots that I have that could be improved by cleaner files and would expect the D3 or 5D replacement (assuming it sticks at less than 21 Mp) to deliver some improvements.

I struggle with the comparison of the 5D with the D3 however as they are only comparable in that both have 12ish Mp full frame sensors. The competitor to the D3 is the 1D3 (not the 1Ds3 which has a different focus). This is where Canon are really being hurt by the D3, I expect, as it appears to offer a package that will suit 1D3 users very well. However, if Canon can introduce a 5D replacement offering the sort of specs suggested and then put the sensor in a 1D3n (or 1D4) then they would probably look competitive again.

It will be interesting to see where the high resolution cameras go over the next couple of years - Nikon and Sony are both expected to release a 24 -25Mp body later this year (available early 09?). In my case I was able to buy the 1Ds3 at a sensible price and took advantage of purchasing a bit earlier than planned. Either way, I didn't want to swap out of the lenses that I own and have to buy a new set of Nikon or Zeiss sony glass.

Sorry for rambling - they are both really good cameras and much more than I could have wished for 10 years ago!!

Mike

[David Anderson]

Like Denis, I think I would rather have 21MP and 100 ISO in the studio.

I'm trying a D3 soon and really looking forward to it - but until Nikon bring out a higher rez camera it's not really on my radar.

[CatOne]

Hi
I think the D3 is a good camera but why a 200 iso default? For serious studio work you need iso 100 & even the 5D has that.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why do you need ISO 100 for studio work?  If ISO 200 and 100 offer the same noise performance, what's the specific *need* for the ISO 100?

Are you seeing that the D3 at ISO 200 is necessarily noisier than the 1Ds Mark III or the 5D at ISO 100?  Or are you just using one spec difference to help justify a decision you've already made?

Note I have a 1Ds Mark III but don't see what you're getting at specifically w.r.t. ISO.

[Ray]

I struggle with the comparison of the 5D with the D3 however as they are only comparable in that both have 12ish Mp full frame sensors. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's not quite true, is it? They are also comparable because they both have the same sensor size; same FoV, same pixel count, same pixel pitch, same resolution. I would have thought that these two cameras are ideal candidates for comparison.

Comparing 5D and D3 images is like comparing apples with apples. Comparing D3 and 1D3 or 1Ds3 images is like comparing apples and oranges, to use a well worn cliche.

However, I can understand if you are comparing camera bodies and their features, rather than the images they produce, and are considering such factors as continuous frame rate, robustness, waterproofing, LiveView capabilities etc, then there would be little point in comparing the D3 with the 5D.

However, when comparing images, the fact that the D3 is a more recent product boasting a whole swag of new features, is not necessarily apparent in the image.

A shot with the 5D at ISO 3200 in RAW mode, using the same aperture and shutter speed as a correctly exposed shot from a D3 at ISO 25,600, is also effectively a shot with the 5D at ISO 25,600. The fact that the D3 has the convenience of an ISO 25,000 setting which brightens the preview so you can clearly see the shot you've just taken, is obviously a useful feature. But this feature is not apparent when comparing the two images after they've both been appropriately adjusted in the RAW converter with respect to EV compensation, temperature and tonality etc.

[NikosR]

That's not quite true, is it? They are also comparable because they both have the same sensor size; same FoV, same pixel count, same pixel pitch, same resolution. I would have thought that these two cameras are ideal candidates for comparison.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the guy said they are both '12mpish full frame sensors' didn't he?. Isn't this a more succint way of saying what you said in a long sentence?

As for the rest you said, you just can't resist repeating the same things, can you?

[Ray]

Well, the guy said they are both '12mpish full frame sensors' didn't he?. Isn't this a more succint way of saying what you said in a long sentence?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is indeed a more succint way of saying what I said in a long sentence. I thought the point needed some amplification because I fail to see where the struggle would be in such a comparison.

The struggle, in my opinion, is in comparing different size sensors with a different pixel count, or even the same size sensor with a different pixel count, such as the 1D3 and D3, or the 1Ds3 and the D3 or the P21 and the 1Ds3.

As for the rest you said, you just can't resist repeating the same things, can you?

Very true, but only when I get a sense a point has not been understood.

[canmiya]

Why do you need ISO 100 for studio work?  If ISO 200 and 100 offer the same noise performance, what's the specific *need* for the ISO 100?

Are you seeing that the D3 at ISO 200 is necessarily noisier than the 1Ds Mark III or the 5D at ISO 100?  Or are you just using one spec difference to help justify a decision you've already made?

Note I have a 1Ds Mark III but don't see what you're getting at specifically w.r.t. ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you hit the nail on the head!  i also have a 1ds3 and don't quite understand the earlier post regarding iso either... and perhaps i have a different perspective since i also shoot with a db:  my aptus model's iso starts at 25, while some of the other aptus models iso starts at 50--but that does not necessarily make my back a better studio tool than the others.

[idenford]

I was in Vistek yesterday and I noticed that Canon has put the 5D on sale again just like in the fall.
They bundle it with lenses for a cheaper discount.
This sale goes to June 30th.
I would think that puts the kibosh on the rumour about a new 5D being released June 1st.
The salesman in the store seemed to think that they would not announce a new 5D until this new sale was done.

[sojournerphoto]

That's not quite true, is it? They are also comparable because they both have the same sensor size; same FoV, same pixel count, same pixel pitch, same resolution. I would have thought that these two cameras are ideal candidates for comparison.

Comparing 5D and D3 images is like comparing apples with apples. Comparing D3 and 1D3 or 1Ds3 images is like comparing apples and oranges, to use a well worn cliche.

However, I can understand if you are comparing camera bodies and their features, rather than the images they produce, and are considering such factors as continuous frame rate, robustness, waterproofing, LiveView capabilities etc, then there would be little point in comparing the D3 with the 5D.

However, when comparing images, the fact that the D3 is a more recent product boasting a whole swag of new features, is not necessarily apparent in the image.

A shot with the 5D at ISO 3200 in RAW mode, using the same aperture and shutter speed as a correctly exposed shot from a D3 at ISO 25,600, is also effectively a shot with the 5D at ISO 25,600. The fact that the D3 has the convenience of an ISO 25,000 setting which brightens the preview so you can clearly see the shot you've just taken, is obviously a useful feature. But this feature is not apparent when comparing the two images after they've both been appropriately adjusted in the RAW converter with respect to EV compensation, temperature and tonality etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point, not personally directed, is that although the sensor layout is the same the target market and use of the two camera's is very different.

Yes, the pure image output by sensor is probably the most comparable on the market at present, and the D3 hasn't the resolution to be compared to a 1Ds3 (apples to oranges!). But, it costs significantly more than the 5D and does a whole load of other stuff as well. In terms of target audience/usage I think the 1D3 is a closer match, and the comparison of images is then relevant despite the differing sensors.

If the 5D gets close in IQ terms and you don't need the rest of the D3's abilities, then (as with the 5D - 1Ds2 choice) the 5D is an absolute bargain, but if you need the rest then the 5D isn't in the field. There are areas where a 40D will be more useful than a 5D, e.g. high frame rates, fast and more reliable focus tracking etc.

Hence my comment - I understand that for your work the main criterion is pure image quality, hence you perhaps find the two bodies more comparable than I see them as being.

Mike

[mcfoto]

Why do you need ISO 100 for studio work?  If ISO 200 and 100 offer the same noise performance, what's the specific *need* for the ISO 100?

Are you seeing that the D3 at ISO 200 is necessarily noisier than the 1Ds Mark III or the 5D at ISO 100?  Or are you just using one spec difference to help justify a decision you've already made?

Note I have a 1Ds Mark III but don't see what you're getting at specifically w.r.t. ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
When you are working with large floor packs that are 2400 ws I need iso 100 & many times I work with iso 50 with the ZD & Aptus backs. For example on a recent shoot I was a f 16 @ iso 100 using 5 heads. Now with iso 200 I am at f 22 but my 85 1.2 lens only goes down to f 16. When I shot film in the studio i used iso 100. Lets say I was in the market for a new camera the default of the iso 200 would be a deal breaker for me with the D3. Even my light meter is set on iso 100. That is how we work.
Thanks Denis

[Jonathan Wienke]

Hi
When you are working with large floor packs that are 2400 ws I need iso 100 & many times I work with iso 50 with the ZD & Aptus backs. For example on a recent shoot I was a f 16 @ iso 100 using 5 heads. Now with iso 200 I am at f 22 but my 85 1.2 lens only goes down to f 16.

Why can't you use lower flash power, either by using less powerful pack or using ND gels?

[Ray]

I understand that for your work the main criterion is pure image quality, hence you perhaps find the two bodies more comparable than I see them as being.

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hhmm! I didn't realise I was in such a minority. It wasn't so long ago, on the old Rob Galbraith forum, there were long threads debating the image quality differences between the 5D and the 1Ds2, two cameras that would seem to appeal to different segments of the market in a similar respect to the D3 and 5D.

However, I can see from your perspective there might be a complete disincentive to do a comparison since it is almost certainly the case that the D3 will produce either equal or slightly better images than the 5D, assuming equal quality lenses are used.

The question for me is, how much better and in what circumstances?

Is there any reason now for you to use your 5D?

BTW, it seems I can pick up a D3 in Australia, shopping around for the best price, at the the same price I paid for my 5D 2 1/2 years ago. But that's partly because of a rising Australian dollar. The main obstacle for me is the fact I don't have any Nikkor lenses.

[NikosR]

Expecting serious reviewers to perform exhaustive time consuming tests on just a single parameter of their performance - very high ISO in RAW without any NR applied- (with, as we all know by now, the risk of many a smart guy on the net pointing out that this or that parameter was not fixed / equalised and as such the test was not scientific enough) of cameras as dissimilar as the 5D and the D3 is totally unrealistic.

Would you expect to see reviews of the  Canon 450D/Xsi against the Nikon D300? Based on your criteria they are as similar as the 5D is to the D3 and even more so since they are both new products on the market.

If you are interested in my personal subjective opinion, not owning either of the cameras but having scrutinised images from both, the D3 appears to produce a better file (in the sense of pixel integrity) not only at higher but at lower ISOs as well. On top of this, the noise apparent when you take a D3 file and stretch it in the way you would if you would be significantly underexposing and overdeveloping a RAW in post, has a much more acceptable (and processable) quality than the 5D with none (or very little) of the ugly banding you can readily see on the 5D files when you do the same. I would say the same if I was comparing the 1DIII against the 5D, only with the D3 the difference is apparently greater.

The differences are there if you really look for them but are significant only for a minority of photographers.

[Ray]

Expecting serious reviewers to perform exhaustive time consuming tests on just a single parameter of their performance - very high ISO in RAW without any NR applied- (with, as we all know by now, the risk of many a smart guy on the net pointing out that this or that parameter was not fixed / equalised and as such the test was not scientific enough) of cameras as dissimilar as the 5D and the D3 is totally unrealistic.

Would you expect to see reviews of the  Canon 450D/Xsi against the Nikon D300? Based on your criteria they are as similar as the 5D is to the D3 and even more so since they are both new products on the market.

If you are interested in my personal subjective opinion, not owning either of the cameras but having scrutinised images from both, the D3 appears to produce a better file (in the sense of pixel integrity) not only at higher but at lower ISOs as well. On top of this, the noise apparent when you take a D3 file and stretch it in the way you would if you would be significantly underexposing and overdeveloping a RAW in post, has a much more acceptable (and processable) quality than the 5D with none (or very little) of the ugly banding you can readily see on the 5D files when you do the same. I would say the same if I was comparing the 1DIII against the 5D, only with the D3 the difference is apparently greater.

The differences are there if you really look for them but are significant only for a minority of photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't make an informed comment because I've never seen any such careful comparisons. My own comparisons are all I have to go by, and they were flawed because (1) the salesman had the D3 set on 12 bit mode without my realising it, and (2) what I assumed was the central focussing point on the D3 was not central, so all D3 images were tilted up. For these reasons, I never made my RAW images of these tests freely available. Nevertheless, it seemed clear to me that the differences in noise levels were very marginal. The problem was, how much to factor in for the 14 bit process which I inadvertantly didn't use.

Actually, I have seen another comparison, by the much maligned Ken Rockwell. His 5D jpegs, when cleaned up in Noise Ninja with purely chroma noise reduction, are at least the equal of the D3 images.

I found his D3 jpegs were unable to be improved (noise-wise) without destruction of fine detail, which caused them to look worse than the 5D images.

This entire issue has been neatly side-stepped by those who insist on struggling to compare apples with oranges, the D3 with the 1Ds3.

There's no reliable and detailed information out there on the internet at all, that I can find, comparing the 5D with the D3. In my books, that's really weird.

[sojournerphoto]

Hhmm! I didn't realise I was in such a minority. It wasn't so long ago, on the old Rob Galbraith forum, there were long threads debating the image quality differences between the 5D and the 1Ds2, two cameras that would seem to appeal to different segments of the market in a similar respect to the D3 and 5D.

However, I can see from your perspective there might be a complete disincentive to do a comparison since it is almost certainly the case that the D3 will produce either equal or slightly better images than the 5D, assuming equal quality lenses are used.

The question for me is, how much better and in what circumstances?

Is there any reason now for you to use your 5D?

BTW, it seems I can pick up a D3 in Australia, shopping around for the best price, at the the same price I paid for my 5D 2 1/2 years ago. But that's partly because of a rising Australian dollar. The main obstacle for me is the fact I don't have any Nikkor lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray,

Actually I am interest in the IQ obtainable, and I'm sure that you're right and that the D3 would probably provide equal or slightly better files than my 5D. I don't know how it would compare to the 1Ds3, but at the sort of iso values I normally work with and on a tripod, I expect (hope?) that the Ds3's resolution advantage will count for something in prints at about 15 by 10 up. In that respect the D3 would have been a very expensive sideways move.

 My comment was really about the perspective of reviewers and the market in general - if you don't need 10fps but want the best 12Mp full frame dslr then the D3 is probably it. Is it worth 2 or 3 times the price of a 5D - depends on the magnitude of the improvement (which we haven't really understood yet) and how you value that - but you are getting mighty close to a 1Ds3 when you buy a D3 and no need to change your lenses.  That's just my perspective.

Oh, you're right. there's not much use for the 5D at present except as a back up body. I occasionally shoot weddings, so it will come in handy to avoid swapping lenses there as well. I will keep it though as when we go off for 2 or 3 week trips it's nice having a spare. - and I still have some nice 24 by 16s from it:)

Mike

[DonWeston]

I am worried about jumping into this fray, but here goes. Mike simply, is there any way to borrow, rent a D3 for a couple of days or so or week? I did just this. I didn't take Rockwell or anyones advice for this big a purchase and would never do that. Nor anyone in this group alone or collectively, NO OFFENSE. But that is silly and risky. Everyone uses and post processes stuff differently, each camera feels different in ones' hands. Only you can decide what works best for you. I have done just that, and until a couple of weeks ago, I had three systems, Nikon, Canon and Leica. One down, keeping two for now. My decision is MY decision. Won't get into that. These are all great cameras and one can be the best or worst for a particular user. My decision surprised me and my friends at the time. I was surprised by the results of both my images and the decision. Don't listen to hype by manufacturers or other users claiming to have found the holy grail. YMMV and will....In a two week period I borrowed both a  D3, 1DIII. Could not get ahold of a 1DS III, I shot about 1-2000 images with each camera in varying uses and spent hours doing PP. Lastly, do not judge anything by images posted on the web by anyone. It is not an issue of trust , it is an issue of LOOKING at a monitor, even if it is calibrated perfectly[??] Make prints the size you intend to use or sell and judge for yourself. Artifacts you see on a screen may never bother you in print, things you think you don't see on a monitor may show up viewing the print.  Hope this does not open a hornets nest ......