Hope this is for real--new 5D

[Ray]

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 ......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like excellent advice to me. I think one might be able to hire a D3 (and other recent models of DSLRs) in New York, but I failed to find one for hire in Bangkok and don't see any prospect of hiring one in Brisbane where I am currently.

This is why I find a good review is so essential and they are becoming more essential as cameras get increasingly higher but similar pixel counts.

Without good reviews, there's no doubt in my mind that people would kid themselves, for example, that the 40D produces significantly higher quality images than a 20D. The presence of a couple of extra megapixels and 14 bit processing is sufficient for the placebo effect to kick in.

It's only as a result of careful and thorough testing that we discover there's virtually no noise advantage, except possibly in jpeg mode with the 40D's chroma NR enabled, and only a very slight resolution advantage, sometimes apparent at 200-400% enlargement, depending on the nature of the target.

Of course, there's more to a camera than bottom-line, fundamental image quality, and these other features might well be sufficiently useful in their own right to justify unpgrading. Auto ISO, fast frame rate, high resolution LiveView screen, better in-camera processing of jpegs etc etc. can all be useful at times.

However, I get a little annoyed when owners of these new DSLR models like to throw in additional claims of image quality superiority when it's really the case that none exists, of any consequence, at the RAW image level. And don't most of us on this forum shoot RAW?

[jeremydillon]

Sounds like excellent advice to me. I think one might be able to hire a D3 (and other recent models of DSLRs) in New York, but I failed to find one for hire in Bangkok and don't see any prospect of hiring one in Brisbane where I am currently.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kayell can rent to you ... they are based in Sydney and Melbourne but they can ship.  Here is their rental list, it includes the D3, D300 1DSiii and 1diii.

[a href=\"http://www.kayellaustralia.com.au/rental/KLARENTALJan2008.pdf]http://www.kayellaustralia.com.au/rental/K...NTALJan2008.pdf[/url]

cheers

Jeremy

[Ray]

Kayell can rent to you ... they are based in Sydney and Melbourne but they can ship.  Here is their rental list, it includes the D3, D300 1DSiii and 1diii.

http://www.kayellaustralia.com.au/rental/K...NTALJan2008.pdf

cheers

Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks! Kayell was the first company I checked when I returned from Bangkok beginning of February. I didn't see any recent models of DSLRs on their list of equipment for hire. In fact, they still had the 1Ds for hire on the list that I saw in early February. This January 2008 list must have been added just recently.

I'm going to try and hire the D3 for a weekend but I notice that Kayell does not include the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 FF lens on their list, which is a lens I'm specifically interested in. What lens would you recommend to ensure my 5D does not outclass the D3?

[NikosR]

Ray,

IMO one needs more than a couple of days to become somewhat familiar with a camera like the D3 even if one is familiar with the Nikon system which, I suppose, you are not.

Additionally, you will need some time to get familiar with the RAW post-processing which, of course, you will be able to do after you return the camera, but it will be always better to attempt while you still have it. Regarding post, you will not be fair to the camera (or to any Nikon camera for that matter IMO) if you quickly process the images with Lightroom or ACR.

Currently best raw converters to use IMO in terms of IQ and getting good results quickly are Nikon Capture NX and Aperture (Mac only). This will add another quite steep learning curve to your testing. Especially with NX you will need to familiarise yourself with manipulating the quite ugly in terms of gamma and saturation camera picture style defaults.

One more thing to bear in mind is that the sharpening required for the D3 seems to be quite different (and more agresive) than on the 5D.

What I'm trying to say is that your lens choice (as long it is a decent pro-calibre lens) is much less significant than getting used to the camera and the post-processing if you want to do justice to the camera.

Reading LLoyd Chambers' blog in an older to newer entry order from Nov 2007 till now with regards to his experience with the D3 can give you an idea how a 'died in the wool' Canon user went through initial frustration and dissatisfaction with the D3 only to become a big fan after some time.

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

[Ray]

Ray,

IMO one needs more than a couple of days to become somewhat familiar with a camera like the D3 even if one is familiar with the Nikon system which, I suppose, you are not.

Additionally, you will need some time to get familiar with the RAW post-processing which, of course, you will be able to do after you return the camera, but it will be always better to attempt while you still have it. Regarding post, you will not be fair to the camera (or to any Nikon camera for that matter IMO) if you quickly process the images with Lightroom or ACR.

Currently best raw converters to use IMO in terms of IQ and getting good results quickly are Nikon Capture NX and Aperture (Mac only). This will add another quite steep learning curve to your testing. Especially with NX you will need to familiarise yourself with manipulating the quite ugly in terms of gamma and saturation camera picture style defaults.

One more thing to bear in mind is that the sharpening required for the D3 seems to be quite different (and more agresive) than on the 5D.

What I'm trying to say is that your lens choice (as long it is a decent pro-calibre lens) is much less significant than getting used to the camera and the post-processing if you want to do justice to the camera.

Reading LLoyd Chambers' blog in an older to newer entry order from Nov 2007 till now with regards to his experience with the D3 can give you an idea how a 'died in the wool' Canon user went through initial frustration and dissatisfaction with the D3 only to become a big fan after some time.

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

NikosR,
I wouldn't be attempting a full review were I to hire the D3 for a weekend. I'll mainly be testing the camera for its low noise performance compared with my 5D. I have in mind taking a walk in a nearby rainforest where there are lots of dark shadows. I'll have both cameras around my neck and I'll attempt to duplicate each shot using both cameras at the same aperture, shutter speed and focal length.

Picture styles and jpeg performance will not be a priority. I always shoot RAW because of the obvious advantage that images can be reconverted in as many different ways as one likes with as many different converters as one has time to experiment with. Which converter produces the best results and with what type of image, is something that can be determined later.

The choice of converters is really a separate issue. I don't see any hope of resolving that problem. For example I still use RSP for some images, although I use ACR as my default converter.

If I start using Nikon Capture to convert the Nikon RAW files because you or someone else thinks it's a better converter for Nikon files, then I would also be obliged to use Canon's DPP for the 5D files because some folks also happen to think that that converter is a better choice for Canon files.

Just as a matter of interest, the 100% crops below represent my attempt to get ACR (latest version) to produce the same effect as the discontinued RSP. This is the bottom left foreground of a D60 image taken many years ago which is slightly out of focus (in that part of the scene) and requires a lot of sharpening. The Raw Shooter conversion on the left has more character in my opinion; a better mixture of greens and browns, more variation of hue and a more solid feel to the colors. I prefer it. No matter how hard I try, I can't get the ACR conversion looking the same. But that could simply be due to a lack of skill.

[attachment=5704:attachment]

[sojournerphoto]

NikosR,
I wouldn't be attempting a full review were I to hire the D3 for a weekend. I'll mainly be testing the camera for its low noise performance compared with my 5D. I have in mind taking a walk in a nearby rainforest where there are lots of dark shadows. I'll have both cameras around my neck and I'll attempt to duplicate each shot using both cameras at the same aperture, shutter speed and focal length.

Picture styles and jpeg performance will not be a priority. I always shoot RAW because of the obvious advantage that images can be reconverted in as many different ways as one likes with as many different converters as one has time to experiment with. Which converter produces the best results and with what type of image, is something that can be determined later.

The choice of converters is really a separate issue. I don't see any hope of resolving that problem. For example I still use RSP for some images, although I use ACR as my default converter.

If I start using Nikon Capture to convert the Nikon RAW files because you or someone else thinks it's a better converter for Nikon files, then I would also be obliged to use Canon's DPP for the 5D files because some folks also happen to think that that converter is a better choice for Canon files.

Just as a matter of interest, the 100% crops below represent my attempt to get ACR (latest version) to produce the same effect as the discontinued RSP. This is the bottom left foreground of a D60 image taken many years ago which is slightly out of focus (in that part of the scene) and requires a lot of sharpening. The Raw Shooter conversion on the left has more character in my opinion; a better mixture of greens and browns, more variation of hue and a more solid feel to the colors. I prefer it. No matter how hard I try, I can't get the ACR conversion looking the same. But that could simply be due to a lack of skill.

[attachment=5704:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yikes - what have we started. I can hire a D3, but to hire a D3 for a week (not much more than a weekend) and then process and print at 24 by16 a suitable number of pictures will cost about 500gbp... I may actually have time later next month, but not the spare cash at present. I think Nikos' point on the learning curve is probably right - I might inadvertently not be quite fair, though I could at least use my zeiss zf35 on all three bodies.

On raw conversion I've now reached the point where LR/ACR is my default converter, but I still sometimes use DXo or DPP - both of wwhich render colour differently. A really big step forward for me in my 5D workflow (to be repeated for the 1Ds3 and GX100) was when I calibrated the ACR colour using the Tindeman script. I ran calibrations at 100,400 and 1600 iso and then interpolated for the 200 and 800 values. After some testing I set these up as presets in LR to be applied on input. I also calibrated using both a standard LR type render (i.e.LR defaults for other values) and a neutral render (all LR controls set to zero). These settings have given me much better colour much more easily Skin tones used to take a lot of work in LR and CS3, but now I am usually happy straight of LR.

That's my workflow 'tip of the week', though I keep meaning to post a thread on a couple of things I've learned lately.

Anyway, I'm happy to do a D3, 1Ds3 5D cmparison, but it will have to wait until I've some cash!

Mike

[NikosR]

Picture styles and jpeg performance will not be a priority. I always shoot RAW because of the obvious advantage that images can be reconverted in as many different ways as one likes with as many different converters as one has time to experiment with. Which converter produces the best results and with what type of image, is something that can be determined later.

The choice of converters is really a separate issue. I don't see any hope of resolving that problem. For example I still use RSP for some images, although I use ACR as my default converter.

If I start using Nikon Capture to convert the Nikon RAW files because you or someone else thinks it's a better converter for Nikon files, then I would also be obliged to use Canon's DPP for the 5D files because some folks also happen to think that that converter is a better choice for Canon files.

I referred to picture styles only because NX honours the camera defaults during RAW conversion. Thus, picture styles are the starting point when doing an NX raw conversion. One cannot escape that.

Even if you will only judge noise performance, the raw converter choice influences that. Different raw converters produce different looking noise even if their particular controls for noise reduction are set to zero. This is one of the perils of testing. Adobe converters do not behave very well on Nikon files in my personal opinion. The same can be said for default colour presentation.

The logic of equalising the field by selecting to use a common raw converter is faulted if ones is looking at the problem from an IQ priority point of view, since the only thing one's doing is using the raw converter's author best judgement about how raw files from a particular camera should be handled. Of course, this logic is perfectly valid from a workflow priority point of view.

In my view one can do one of two things when trying to compare two cameras. Either decide that one's workflow is fixed, for example raw converter choice, and see what each camera can produce within that fixed workflow, or try to choose the best workflow for the particular camera.

Either of these approaches is valid but one has to be aware of the limitations of each.

[Ray]

Even if you will only judge noise performance, the raw converter choice influences that. Different raw converters produce different looking noise even if their particular controls for noise reduction are set to zero. This is one of the perils of testing. Adobe converters do not behave very well on Nikon files in my personal opinion. The same can be said for default colour presentation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would not think that the differences in noise levels and noise appearance from different converters, with noise reduction set to zero, would be significant.

There has to be some cut-off point whereby one decides that, although one can see differences at high magnification on the monitor, or with a loupe on a print, such differences are simply not important or of practical significance.

When noise is a preoccupation, I think the fairest approach, as well as the approach which is likely to produce the best results with both images, is to use a dedicated noise reduction program like Noise Ninja.

I'm particularly impressed with Noise Ninja because one can separate the application of chroma noise reduction from luminance noise reduction. One can also selectively remove the resolution-destroying effects of luminance noise reduction, with a brush, in any part of the image where retaining resolution might be considered to be more important than reducing noise.

The impression I have so far, from the tests I did in Bangkok, is that the D3 images come out of the camera with a certain amount of chroma noise reduction already applied, at high ISO. The 5D images lend themselves to chroma noise reduction in Noise Ninja, without losss of resolution. The D3 images seem to be much more difficult to improve (in Noise Ninja) without further loss of resolution.

If I hire a D3, I'll be looking at this issue more carefully.

[NikosR]

The impression I have so far, from the tests I did in Bangkok, is that the D3 images come out of the camera with a certain amount of chroma noise reduction already applied, at high ISO. The 5D images lend themselves to chroma noise reduction in Noise Ninja, without losss of resolution. The D3 images seem to be much more difficult to improve (in Noise Ninja) without further loss of resolution.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If Nikon have managed to separate colour (chroma) noise avoidance from luminance noise avoidance at the pre-raw conversion stage then they must be congratulated because this would be a first AFAIK. Remember , the difference between the two is really nothing more than a 'noise imbalance' in the raw data. If noise manifests itself uniformly distributed in all raw data then no chroma noise would be apparent. The distinction between luminance and chroma noise is only possible post-debayering. This is the way I understand it. If you know otherwise please explain.

I would suggest, alternatively, that what you perceive is simply Nikon's 'better' noise quality (in terms of noise patterns and distribution across the image). This does not suggest noise reduction (in the traditional image processing sense) but effective noise 'avoidance' or noise 'pre-conditioning' if one can use this unscientific term.

Of course, your impressions could just stem from different raw conversion characteristics, which just brings us back to the issue of raw converter choice.

[Ray]

If Nikon have managed to separate colour (chroma) noise avoidance from luminance noise avoidance at the pre-raw conversion stage then they must be congratulated because this would be a first AFAIK. Remember , the difference between the two is really nothing more than a 'noise imbalance' in the raw data. If noise manifests itself uniformly distributed in all raw data then no chroma noise would be apparent. The distinction between luminance and chroma noise is only possible post-debayering. This is the way I understand it. If you know otherwise please explain.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is why I feel compelled to hire a D3 in order to do more thorough testing. I cannot draw any firm conclusions from my previous tests. Having RAW images in my possession from both cameras, which are exactly comparable with regard to focussing, FoV, shutter speed, aperture, tripod stability, and of course enabled 14 bit mode for the D3, will allow me to do as many comparisons, after I've returned the camera, as I have time to make using whatever converters and noise reduction programs I can get my hands on.

[Ray]

I would suggest, alternatively, that what you perceive is simply Nikon's 'better' noise quality (in terms of noise patterns and distribution across the image). This does not suggest noise reduction (in the traditional image processing sense) but effective noise 'avoidance' or noise 'pre-conditioning' if one can use this unscientific term.

Of course, your impressions could just stem from different raw conversion characteristics, which just brings us back to the issue of raw converter choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It might well be the case that any impression I have of chroma noise reduction  already having been applied, one way or another, might be from in-camera jpegs or tiff images processed in Nikon Capture NX, that I've come across.

Nevertheless, comparing 5D RAWs with 12 bit D3 RAWs, both converted in ACR with no noise reduction or sharpening applied, it seems clear to me that any noise advantage of the D3 at high ISO is very marginal.

I'll be interested to see how much difference 14 bit A/D conversion makes as well as conversion in Nikon Capture NX.

Below is an example comparing a 5D shot with one stop more exposure than the D3 shot of the same scene, ie. the 5D at f8 and 1/40th compared with the D3 at f11 and 1/40th. The D3 is a full ETTR at ISO 25,600. The 5D is about 1 1/2 stops underexposed at ISO 3200 (actually ISO 4000).

You might expect that the 5D shot, with one stop more exposure, would exhibit less noise. And it certainly does, thus demonstrating that any noise advantage of the D3 is certainly considerably less than one stop.

Comparisons of other RAW images lead me to believe the D3 noise advantage, in 12 bit mode at least, is in the order of 1/4 of a stop.

A word of explanation about the file sizes

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

This is why I feel compelled to hire a D3 in order to do more thorough testing. I cannot draw any firm conclusions from my previous tests. Having RAW images in my possession from both cameras, which are exactly comparable with regard to focussing, FoV, shutter speed, aperture, tripod stability, and of course enabled 14 bit mode for the D3, will allow me to do as many comparisons, after I've returned the camera, as I have time to make using whatever converters and noise reduction programs I can get my hands on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

I think it's time for you to stop discussing this and do the tests correctly. Just go and buy three sets each of a D3 plus your preferred lens, and three sets of the 5D with the closest matching lens (or just two more sets, since I guess you already have one 5D). Do the tests exhaustively with all six camera-plus-lens pairs (or better yet, each camera matched with each of its maker's lenses, for eighteen combinations in all). Then you can write us a definitive, thirty-page report on the high ISO noise characteristics of each.

Since you will own and have paid for all six sets, you will remove any hidden bias for or against rental equipment.

And, when you are finished, of course, I'll be happy to take the second best pair from each maker off your hands for free. I'll even pay shipping. How's that for an offer you can't refuse?  

Eric

[Ray]

I think it's time for you to stop discussing this and do the tests correctly. Just go and buy three sets each of a D3 plus your preferred lens, and three sets of the 5D with the closest matching lens (or just two more sets, since I guess you already have one 5D). Do the tests exhaustively with all six camera-plus-lens pairs (or better yet, each camera matched with each of its maker's lenses, for eighteen combinations in all). Then you can write us a definitive, thirty-page report on the high ISO noise characteristics of each.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
You're probably right. There's not only variation amongst different converters and variation amongst different lenses but also variation amongst camera bodies of the same model. All three working additively could produce too much variation to be sure of anything.

It's probably not worth the trouble. After all, the camera doesn't really matter, does it!  

ps. I thought I'd cancelled the previous post. The images were taking too much time to upload on my dial-up connection.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

It's probably not worth the trouble. After all, the camera doesn't really matter, does it!   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah, but you haven't quoted KR quite correctly. It's "Your camera doesn't matter." And, as I said in another thread, "but my camera does matter."    

Ah, the good old days when some people often claimed to like grain. You don't hear many folks these days saying, "I was going to buy a D3, but I settled for a Canon S60 because I was afraid the Nikon couldn't provide the noise I need."  

Eric

P.S. Seriously (well, a little more seriously anyway), I will be curious to see your results if you ever do rent a D3 and do careful comparisons with the 5D. I haven't done definitive tests, but I'm  convince my 5D has much better (i.e., less) noise at every ISO than my S60 P&S.

[Ray]

P.S. Seriously (well, a little more seriously anyway), I will be curious to see your results if you ever do rent a D3 and do careful comparisons with the 5D. I haven't done definitive tests, but I'm  convince my 5D has much better (i.e., less) noise at every ISO than my S60 P&S.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
I have some reservations about this project because I think it's unlikely I'll ever buy a D3, not because it's not a superb camera; it is, no doubt about it.

But because the 5D upgrade must be on its way and when it arrives, it's almost inconceivable that it will not match or exceed the D3 with regard to all essential image quality parameters.

There's also the future Sony 24mp sensor which will soon appear in a body with a Minolta mount. I've got a few Minolta lenses.

If I do this comparison, it will be purely for the fun, the interest and the curiosity.

I'm beginning to wonder if the same amount of money I might spend on hiring a D3 and Nikkor lens would be better spent on converting my now redundant 20D (because I now have a 40D) to an IR camera.

In fact, it seems that replacing the IR filter with a clear glass filter, would not only remove the AA filter, but might improve low light performance to a degree that would knock the socks off the D3   .

For what they're worth, here are the images which I intended to upload in my earlier post. The FoVs have been precisely matched with cropping. The full images before cropping (in 16 bit) are 72.8mb for the 5D and 69.0mb for the D3. Any slight discrepancy in FoV is immaterial, in my opinion.

A major motivation in my redoing these tests would be to find out what difference 14 bit mode makes with the D3. It seems to make little difference in the 40D.

[attachment=5724:attachment]  [attachment=5725:attachment]

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Base sensivity is a property of the sensor. There is no way you can go below, except for overexposure. You can overexpose and compensate in "raw-development" but this may lead clipping of highlights.

Check here for some insight:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...rmance.summary/

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]

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I just checked at: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...rmance.summary/

and R. N. Clark found that  Low Light Sensitivity Factor is about 420 for 5D and 670 for the D3. That figure is quite close to your observation. (Should not be discussed out of context, but still interesting.)

Best regards

Erik

Eric,
I have some reservations about this project because I think it's unlikely I'll ever buy a D3, not because it's not a superb camera; it is, no doubt about it.

But because the 5D upgrade must be on its way and when it arrives, it's almost inconceivable that it will not match or exceed the D3 with regard to all essential image quality parameters.

There's also the future Sony 24mp sensor which will soon appear in a body with a Minolta mount. I've got a few Minolta lenses.

If I do this comparison, it will be purely for the fun, the interest and the curiosity.

I'm beginning to wonder if the same amount of money I might spend on hiring a D3 and Nikkor lens would be better spent on converting my now redundant 20D (because I now have a 40D) to an IR camera.

In fact, it seems that replacing the IR filter with a clear glass filter, would not only remove the AA filter, but might improve low light performance to a degree that would knock the socks off the D3   .

For what they're worth, here are the images which I intended to upload in my earlier post. The FoVs have been precisely matched with cropping. The full images before cropping (in 16 bit) are 72.8mb for the 5D and 69.0mb for the D3. Any slight discrepancy in FoV is immaterial, in my opinion.

A major motivation in my redoing these tests would be to find out what difference 14 bit mode makes with the D3. It seems to make little difference in the 40D.

[attachment=5724:attachment]  [attachment=5725:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

Hi,

I just checked at: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...rmance.summary/

and R. N. Clark found that  Low Light Sensitivity Factor is about 420 for 5D and 670 for the D3. That figure is quite close to your observation. (Should not be discussed out of context, but still interesting.)

Best regards

Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We should also bear in mind that low light sensitivity might vary amongst different copies of the same camera model. Perhaps my 5D is above average in that respect. I returned my first 5D because of excessive banding in shadows.

[jjj]

Ah, the good old days when some people often claimed to like grain. You don't hear many folks these days saying, "I was going to buy a D3, but I settled for a Canon S60 because I was afraid the Nikon couldn't provide the noise I need."   [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I still like grain. And I am not that keen on the plastic look that skin often has with so many grain free digital images. Having said that, I still buy a decent camera and then add grain back in if I need/want it.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I still like grain. And I am not that keen on the plastic look that skin often has with so many grain free digital images. Having said that, I still buy a decent camera and then add grain back in if I need/want it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My impression is that the techniques for adding simulated grain are much more attractive than simply having excess digital noise. But it is nice that we can choose to have grain or not (or noise or not) to a great extent now.