Andre Labonte wrote:
Chris,

@ 12MP an 8x10 has ~ 355 dpi
@ 22MP an 8x10 has ~ 468 dpi

That a difference of 15 microns! The human eye cannot resolve that. The improvment in noise due to the larger pixels will be much more significant that the effect of the dpi in an 8x10. Nice try!

Best Regards,
Andre


Considering nobody has gotten their hands on a 1DsMk3 yet, let alone shot one side-by-side with a D3, I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one, eh? I'm certainly not going to declare a winner before both cameras are released!

Get the focus right and retest, still think the Nikon will be better, but on one of the images you can see the Canon is focused way back on the pillow not on the action figure. I think the Canon deserves a fair chance with proper focus.

Tom

The white balance seems much better on the Canon.

CKrueger wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Chris,

@ 12MP an 8x10 has ~ 355 dpi
@ 22MP an 8x10 has ~ 468 dpi

That a difference of 15 microns! The human eye cannot resolve that. The improvment in noise due to the larger pixels will be much more significant that the effect of the dpi in an 8x10. Nice try!

Best Regards,
Andre


Considering nobody has gotten their hands on a 1DsMk3 yet, let alone shot one side-by-side with a D3, I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one, eh? I'm certainly not going to declare a winner before both cameras are released!

Chris,

On that we can agree ... I would like to see side-by-side comparisons in a valid test by independend, professional 3rd parties. And only then will we have a full picture of IQ (pun intended ).

But please, if you are going to make statements, make sure they don't defy the laws of physics and are substantiated. Saying the the 1Ds MK III will have better IQ than the D3 because 1Ds MK III has more MP is ludicrous as there are many factors to IQ aside from MP. Also, due to the laws of physics, image sensors with smaller photo detectors (i.e. more MP for a given sensor size) have always had more noise issues despite the smaller grain. Detector induced noise due to small photo detectors dominates over grain size and my little math exercise above explains part of the reason why. This may change when going to the 4MP or smaller sensors however.

Regards,
Andre

Andre Labonte wrote:But please, if you are going to make statements, make sure they don't defy the laws of physics and are substantiated. Saying the the 1Ds MK III will have better IQ than the D3 because 1Ds MK III has more MP is ludicrous as there are many factors to IQ aside from MP.

I never said the 1DsMk3 will have better IQ than the D3. Are you perhaps thinking of another poster?

However, I can't contrive a situation where the D3 will have more RESOLUTION than the 1DsMk3. At the absolute worst (ie: a Coke bottle lens) they should be the same.

To put some proof behind my words, I have a Canon 350D and 5D. The 350D has a pixel pitch of 6.4. The 5D is 8.2. Even with my least-sharp lens (a Sigma 70-300APO shot wide open at 300mm) my 350D resolves more detail than my 5D.

Now extend that experiment to the D3 (pixel pitch 8.4) and 1DsMk3 (pixel pitch 6.4)... it's virtually the same situation. Clearly you would need an absolutely AWFUL lens to see equal resolving power between the these two cameras. I doubt even a cheap 28-XXmm kit lens would be soft enough. And I doubt even more that anyone using either of these bodies would use anything but the best lenses with them.


Andre Labonte wrote:Also, due to the laws of physics, image sensors with smaller photo detectors (i.e. more MP for a given sensor size) have always had more noise issues despite the smaller grain.

That is completely untrue. Compare the Canon 1D to the Canon 1DMk3. The 1D has much larger photosites, but has more noise. There are plenty of other examples of the same. Noise is not determined by photosite size alone. There are hardware/software processing and components differences at play as well.

Intrinsic noise IS related to sensor size (larger photosites => better) and the initial gain circuits. However, with the appropriate signal conditioning and software-based noise-reduction techniques, the noise can be controlled and images made to look nicer!

Oh you're most certainly right, Avi! Smaller photosites tend to be more noisy. But that's only a tendency, and a small part of the total picture. (No pun intended!)

Avi B wrote:
Intrinsic noise IS related to sensor size (larger photosites => better) and the initial gain circuits. However, with the appropriate signal conditioning and software-based noise-reduction techniques, the noise can be controlled and images made to look nicer!


Please...........go look at any of the medium format backs, you will not find one outperforming a 35mm sized sensor wrt high iso imaging


J

CKrueger wrote:

Andre Labonte wrote:Also, due to the laws of physics, image sensors with smaller photo detectors (i.e. more MP for a given sensor size) have always had more noise issues despite the smaller grain.

That is completely untrue. Compare the Canon 1D to the Canon 1DMk3. The 1D has much larger photosites, but has more noise. There are plenty of other examples of the same. Noise is not determined by photosite size alone. There are hardware/software processing and components differences at play as well.


Hey, you finally got me on something! You are correct, my statement should have said, "all else being equal, ...." However, aside from noise reducing software, photo detector size and leakage current are the two largest physical factors in image noise; trust me as I worked on the Foveon chip and had to deal with some of the leakage issues through improved isolation. Given that the D3 and 1Ds MK III are of a contemporary timeframe in the evolution of the technology, it is likely that most all else is the same and that the photo-detector size will dominate.

CKrueger wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:But please, if you are going to make statements, make sure they don't defy the laws of physics and are substantiated. Saying the the 1Ds MK III will have better IQ than the D3 because 1Ds MK III has more MP is ludicrous as there are many factors to IQ aside from MP.

I never said the 1DsMk3 will have better IQ than the D3. Are you perhaps thinking of another poster?



You did not say so directly, White, Jack did and I responded that more MP does not = better IQ to which you then gave an erroneous explenation of how the smaller grain of a 22MP image could lead to less noise than a 12MP image on an 8x10 print. The basic jist was that you were supporting Jack's statement with an erroneous one. (see page 5 of this thread)

But whatever, it is clear from your other posts that we both agree that MP and/or resolution is one aspect of IQ and that there are many factors involved, including mitigation of high-ISO noise.

At the end of the day both systems will be excellent performers and I would consider myself lucky to have either (and quite happy too! )

lol everybody's an expert

My Flickr Gallery
My Nikonians gallery


»»»» ®eyGay uses a Nikon D1 ««««

James R wrote:
I'll take the noise level of either camera; but, I won't trade the focus and ergonomic of Nikon. I was real glad to see that Nikon didn't scrap the D2Xs body and controls in creating the D3. It should be a pretty easy transition from the D2's to the D3. The Canon Mark II owners were not too happy that the Mark III didn't adopt the Mark II controls/menus.


I really doubt that, who could love those controls? Most were glad the changes were made.

rjk55425.

It is not a matter of loving or hating the controls. Obviouly, there will be changes with a new camera. The controls on the D series are very good and I'm glad that Nikon didn't make wholesale changes. When I get the D3 in hand, I want to concentrate on taking pictures, not changing muscle memory.

BTW, I revised my statement on page 3 or 4 to "some owners."

I haven't had to study a Nikon manual since the F100 and F5. Even the D70 made sense and had similarities (to my pleasant surprise). Go into the manual to read up on certain specifics absolutely but I have been able to pick up the camera and go to work.

Qranc,

Exactly my point, but better stated. I have had the same experience for the past 30 years.