Comparing the D3 and the Canon 1Ds MKIII at high ISOs

Harryb

Lumminous Landscape has an article comparing the D3 and the Canon 1Ds MKIII at high ISOs

chuckice

Harryb wrote:

Lumminous Landscape has an article comparing the D3 and the Canon 1Ds MKIII at high ISOs

Saw that...semi interesting results. Really hard to gauge anything scientific other than they're both damn good. And the D3 is better at iso25k.

Zanotti

Harry:

I think that's Pathfinder in that pic!

Z

Joves

chuckice wrote:

Saw that...semi interesting results. Really hard to gauge anything scientific other than they're both damn good. And the D3 is better at iso25k.

Yeah pretty much. The best thing is Nikon has gone full frame and, gone whole hog into it. With the 25K ISO Canon will have to one up that, then Nikon will have to do the same. Which is a benefit to all of us.

ian408

I really think that Nikon hit a home run with the D3.

Everything I've read and all the shots I've seen lead me to this conclusion.
I might have to get one.

wxwax

Harryb wrote:

Lumminous Landscape has an article comparing the D3 and the Canon 1Ds MKIII at high ISOs

Dang. Very, very impressive.

pathfinder

I was there when Michael was doing the shooting comparing the D300, the D3, and the 1DsMkll during Jay Maisel's workshop.

I saw images shot at 12,000 ISO and 25,000 ISO in 16x24 inch size prints that looked superb under Michael's print examining lights. Very little grain at 12,000 and less than you would expect at 25,000. This was all done in a darkened room with mixed tungsten lighting, sunlight, and an LCD projector beam illuminating the room. Opened via Adobe RAW converter and white balanced with an eye dropper on the gallery wall in the image ( His gallery walls are off white of course) The color balance looked very good, but then my 5D images treated the same way were balanced pretty good also.

As much as it pains me to say it, the D3 had the lowest noise of the bunch. I was almost ready to go out and buy one myself.:D I have always admired Nikon's 200-400 VR lens.

The real take away message is that Nikon is now back in the game full time, and it will be interesting to see what Canon does on its return on the ball. Maybe the 5D II will give us a hint of things to come.

This is one of my shots from the same time period when Michael was shooting - I was using a 5D

Harryb

pathfinder wrote:

I was there when Michael was doing the shooting comparing the D300, the D3, and the 1DsMkll during Jay Maisel's workshop.

I saw images shot at 12,000 ISO and 25,000 ISO in 16x24 inch size prints that looked superb under Michael's print examining lights. Very little grain at 12,000 and less than you would expect at 25,000. This was all done in a darkened room with mixed tungsten lighting, sunlight, and an LCD projector beam illuminating the room. Opened via Adobe RAW converter and white balanced with an eye dropper on the gallery wall in the image ( His gallery walls are off white of course) The color balance looked very good, but then my 5D images treated the same way were balanced pretty good also.

As much as it pains me to say it, the D3 had the lowest noise of the bunch. I was almost ready to go out and buy one myself.:D I have always admired Nikon's 200-400 VR lens.

The real take away message is that Nikon is now back in the game full time, and it will be interesting to see what Canon does on its return on the ball. Maybe the 5D II will give us a hint of things to come.

This is one of my shots from the same time period when Michael was shooting - I was using a 5D

Golly PF, that shot is so good I would have sworn it was taken with a D3. :ivar

Seriously, I think the D3 will be trumped by Canon in the next year which would be great because Nikon will come back later and trump Canon and so on and so on.

Its good times for shooters because all the available options are excellent. The IQ differences between the various choices are getting smaller and smaller. When viewed at normal viewing distances its just about impossible to say which camera took which picture.

pathfinder

My feelings exactly.

kygarden

Maybe it's just a personal preference, but...Wow...someone get the trimmers out Maybe they could have zoomed in on something other than those eyebrows

wxwax

Agree wrt the ISO race.

Now, can someone get them to invest the same money and energy into expanding dynamic range?

Andy

Nikon included a tag-along 20x30 print on heavy paper in the current issue of Pop Photo. The shot was of a motorcycle rounding a curve, at extremely high speed, at dusk, low light. ISO 6400, 1/5000th sec, f/4 and it was amazingly low noise. :jawdrop

Congrats to Nikon!

Matthew Saville

Andy wrote:

Nikon included a tag-along 20x30 print on heavy paper in the current issue of Pop Photo. The shot was of a motorcycle rounding a curve, at extremely high speed, at dusk, low light. ISO 6400, 1/5000th sec, f/4 and it was amazingly low noise. :jawdrop

Congrats to Nikon!

Andy, can you tell me which issue of Pop Photo this is in? I'd buy one just for the poster, just to hang on my wall so all my Canon buddies quiet down about how bad Nikon was at high ISO.

Of course I can't afford the D3 any time soon, but my D300 is ALSO pretty darn impressive at 6400, and I'd expect a D300 with a D3 sensor to be announced just after Canon's 5D mk2.

=Matt=

chuckice

Matthew Saville wrote:

Andy, can you tell me which issue of Pop Photo this is in? I'd buy one just for the poster, just to hang on my wall so all my Canon buddies quiet down about how bad Nikon was at high ISO.

Of course I can't afford the D3 any time soon, but my D300 is ALSO pretty darn impressive at 6400, and I'd expect a D300 with a D3 sensor to be announced just after Canon's 5D mk2.

=Matt=

It's on newsstands now...Jan 08 issue. The mag should be in a plastic bag carrying the poster. If you want to see the shot then check here...mouse over and click on the "Nikon Pro Challenge" and then "Sandro". The shot is the biker dragging the knee and kicking up sparks.
http://www.stunningnikon.com/challenge/
The "On Location Gallery" is pretty cool as well...

ian408

Matthew Saville wrote:

Andy, can you tell me which issue of Pop Photo this is in? I'd buy one just for the poster, just to hang on my wall so all my Canon buddies quiet down about how bad Nikon was at high ISO.

Of course I can't afford the D3 any time soon, but my D300 is ALSO pretty darn impressive at 6400, and I'd expect a D300 with a D3 sensor to be announced just after Canon's 5D mk2.

=Matt=

Print this thread. There are a LOT of impressed Canon owners. Myself included

Andy

Canon 1Ds Mark III example, here.

Pindy

Saw that poster yesterday. I ogled it for 20 minutes. As a guy with a Canon investment, I'm weirdly delighted the D3 is so good. For competition, nothing bad can come of significant advances like this, especially from the company I wrote off when getting into the DSLR game as being stubborn, complacent and deaf to its customer base. Nice one, guys!

Now if Canon could see their way clear to giving us usable 12,800 ISO on the 5D mkII...

charred_water

Question.

Doesn't the advent of cameras which take good photos down to ISO 25,000 change the game for those taking of us taking indoor sports photos and other activities which require big fast glass?

I've been thinking about upgrading from a Canon Rebel to a Canon 40D and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, but the D3 changes the playing field. Once this technology percolates down to the masses, why would I need an f/2.8 70-200 lens as opposed to a slower and less expensive f/4 70-200 or my existing Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS. It seems like most folks will be able to make do without big expensive lenses for the most part.

The only advantage I see to the f/2.8 once high ISO is common is the depth of field. Balanced against the cost and weight of big fast glass, I think ISO DSLRs will dramatically reduce the sales of this class of lens to everyone but professionals.

I was thinking the 40D would buy me one-two stops and the f/2.8 70-200 another two stops. But the D3 would buy me FOUR stops compared to the Rebel's ISO 1600 without expensive glass.

Does Nikon make or buy their image sensors? Just wondering how long before this technology appears in less expensive cameras from Canon or Nikon...

claudermilk

Very interesting article. Nikon is definitely back in the game. No longer can we just say "you want high ISO, low light performance? Go Canon." Now it's either Nikon or Canon depending on lenses and preferred ergonomics. That's a good thing for us--the next couple of years ought to be quite exciting for photographers again. Now that the MP war is over, we are seeing the new war is high ISO noise. Hopefully the one following that is dynamic range.

AFAIK Nikon has bought it's sensors from Sony--as has Canon for their P&S. Canon makes their own chips for the EOS line. I'm not certain about Nikon's new chips, but suspect the same arrngement. Which means Sony ought to be releasing some impressive new sensors for their own cameras. But that's pure speculation.

Regarding the question on lenses: recall that lenses are set to be wide open for focusing, so the fast lenses will still have a brighter viewfinder and better AF performance. You also have the narrower DOF available with faster apertures. IMHO there will always be a place for fast lenses. Also keep in mind that they allow a lower ISO to be set--and those will always be cleaner than the max settings. One final thought: those fast lenses are typically in the professional line with superior optics all around, so the fast aperture is just part of the equation.

charred_water

claudermilk wrote:

AFAIK Nikon has bought it's sensors from Sony--as has Canon for their P&S. Canon makes their own chips for the EOS line. I'm not certain about Nikon's new chips, but suspect the same arrngement. Which means Sony ought to be releasing some impressive new sensors for their own cameras. But that's pure speculation.

Regarding the question on lenses: recall that lenses are set to be wide open for focusing, so the fast lenses will still have a brighter viewfinder and better AF performance. You also have the narrower DOF available with faster apertures. IMHO there will always be a place for fast lenses. Also keep in mind that they allow a lower ISO to be set--and those will always be cleaner than the max settings. One final thought: those fast lenses are typically in the professional line with superior optics all around, so the fast aperture is just part of the equation.

Thanks for the very useful information about the other advantages of fast lenses!

I hope you are right about the Nikon using the Sony sensors. The D3 has such a large competitive advantage I'm hoping Canon responds quickly to prevent defections to the D3.

Jetranger

I can afford a D3, but I chose and prefer the D300. I am a long lens shooter, and as such the D300 has so much more to offer. I can get 50% longer range on my lenses and because of that - the lenses are smaller, lighter, and less expensive than if I had a D3. The D300 even has a higher resolution than the D3.

One of my lenses is a 300mm f/2.8 ($5,000). If I upgraded to the D3 - in order to get the same shot - from the same position - I would need to replace my lens with a 500mm f/4 ($8,000) and I can no longer shoot at 2.8. I have lost speed - gained weight - and at a huge cost.

I could shoot the D3 in DX mode - but that turns the $6,000 body into a 5MP camera.

So to go with a D3 I would need to spend 3 times the price for the body - and tens of thousands replacing my lenses - only to lose the speed I have - and be forced to carry larger, heavier glass.

I not only don't have a use for a FF camera, I don't want one. I hope that Nikon keeps the DX for many generations to come ... if not this D300 will be going in my will.

The D300 shoots great at high ISO (though not important to me), is very fast, has liveview (haven't used it yet), writes the buffer in blinding speed, has the same fast 51 point focus as the D3 including colour tracking, and the large LCD is amazingly clear. This body is pure joy to use.

DX rocks!

Matthew Saville wrote:

Of course I can't afford the D3 any time soon, but my D300 is ALSO pretty darn impressive at 6400, and I'd expect a D300 with a D3 sensor to be announced ...=Matt=

mercphoto

charred_water wrote:

Question.

Doesn't the advent of cameras which take good photos down to ISO 25,000 change the game for those taking of us taking indoor sports photos and other activities which require big fast glass?

I've been thinking about upgrading from a Canon Rebel to a Canon 40D and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, but the D3 changes the playing field. Once this technology percolates down to the masses, why would I need an f/2.8 70-200 lens as opposed to a slower and less expensive f/4 70-200 or my existing Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS. It seems like most folks will be able to make do without big expensive lenses for the most part.

The only advantage I see to the f/2.8 once high ISO is common is the depth of field. Balanced against the cost and weight of big fast glass, I think ISO DSLRs will dramatically reduce the sales of this class of lens to everyone but professionals.

For one, the shallower depth of field is a big deal no matter what ISO you are shooting at. Especially in those indoor sports you mentioned where those backgrounds tend to be very unattractive. Better to throw them out of focus.

For two, and probably more importantly, that 2.8 lens lets in four times the light of that 5.6. That is important because no matter what ISO you have set the camera at, the auto-focus sensor and the exposure metering sensors do not change. Simply stated, you need light to auto-focus with, and a 2.8 lens is a big advantage in dim light over a 5.6.

Lastly, fast glass auto focuses more accurately than slow glass. Its a law of optics.