CKrueger
Offline
Image Upload: On
|
 p.2 #4 · D3 vs. 1DMarkIII comparison images | |
nikt wrote:
Yeah, the focus does look a bit off on the MK III, doesn't it. Manual focus would have been better here.
However, can't possibly understand the next comment about noise reduction. Might be a bit presumptions about the Canons being clearly turned off. And really don't know how the conclusion came about with surely Nikon having some internal NR going on.
I agree, the focus on the Canon image is off. The 24-105 isn't the sharpest lens ever, but it's a heck of a lot better than that sample indicates. Of course, this is a noise test, not a sharpness test. 
Like you said, we can't really say who did what kind of noise reduction. But looking at the images I will say this:
* Both cameras are spectacular at ISO3200. I wouldn't hesitate to print a 16x20 from either camera. Take a step back and think about THAT accomplishment for a minute! 
* At ISO6400 the Nikon seems to show a tad less noise. Neither camera looks like it's applying noise reduction like you might get from software like Lightroom or NoiseWare/NoiseNinja.
* At ISO12800 the Nikon shows MUCH less noise, although one might expect that given the "push processing" done to the Canon. The Nikon image certainly shows artifacts consistent with noise reduction. Look at the speckled false detail in the shadow of the toy and compare to the ISO800 picture. It's clear Nikon is doing more noise reduction than any Canon or Nikon camera we've seen in the past. There is definitely detail lost from this noise reduction... look at the "Egypt" text on the globe compared to the ISO800 sample, for example. But despite the loss of detail, image quality is still very usable. You should be able to make excellent out-of-camera 8x10's at ISO12800, and with a little attention from noise reduction software it should be usable even larger.
* ISO25600 ain't too pretty! It looks a bit like my wife's Fuji F30 at ISO3200, or my 5D pushed a couple stops from ISO3200. Even still, you could definitely get usable 4x6's from this setting, or even an 8x10 if your audience isn't too particular. I could definitely find use for this ISO25600 for direct-to-print 4x6's at certain nighttime events, where response time is more important than image quality.
All told I'd say I'm a bit surprised that the 1DMk3 is pretty comparable to the D3 at ISO6400, but the fact that the D3 "unlocks" such high ISOs is a significant feature, and one I'd love to have, even at the expense of noise... much like ISO800 is invaluable to me for shooting the occasional wildlife grab shot when shooting landscapes on a tripod.
Canon would do well to follow Sigma's suit and give 1DMk3 owners an ISO12800. Looks like they might have to recall the cameras, anyway, so give people a present when they get the camera back!
j.curtis wrote:
Max Penson wrote:
It is funny how people think that once you use RAW you'll always get better results than the camera JPEG. This is simply not true for today's modern cameras.
Do you have a lot to learn.
First of all, jpeg is compresses the image. How can one say there is no loss in image quality? You can't.
Secondly this is getting way off topic.
Thing is, you aren't looking at a RAW file here. You're looking at a JPEG conversion of a RAW file. So by your own assertion, you've just lost image quality as you would have if you had shot RAW. Also, with a high enough JPEG quality setting, the compression is VERY near lossless. You won't be able to see a difference without zooming in to 2:1 or more, and even then the difference from a lossless format is so minute that you would not be able to notice it without a gigantic print viewed inches away.
Bottom line, high quality JPEGs have so little lose in image quality beyond lossless files that they might as well be lossless for our purposes.
Edited on Oct 10, 2007 at 09:50 PM
|
Yea, laughable at best. Other factors like color, noise and dynamic range become important LONG before resolution does, at least for cameras with 12MP or more.