Ok this is not a scientific comparison. I should have done it diferently but I already spend too much time on this.

I'm sharing my findings and I would welcome you coments.

The test consist on ISO 100 (I know ISO 100 is not the native ISO from D3 but I changed the iso since I was not going change my lighting.) The cameras were on a Tripod Canons were using a 16-35 MKII calibrated by Canon becuase When I first got it was backfocusing. Now the 16-35 center is sharp but the corner are bad. The Nikon D3 was using the 14-24. zoom out. So it shows wider.

The processing is on Lightroom for both canon and the nikon. and 1 more Nikon was processing on Nikon NX and I was surprise. how much better was the nikon nx. All processing was at standard setting of the software.

Anyway here are the files

Holy crap I need a 30" super wide monitor

D3 looks damn good, but the 5d holds its own.

Are you sure there was no camera shake on the 1ds3? It looks the worst out of all of them in my eyes...

Again this is not a perfect test. however I'm trying to show that all 3 cameras were set at

1 ISO 100
2 White balance set to daylight
3 same speed and same F stop (1/25 F14 with with timer so camera shake)
4 all shot raw

5 processed standard on Lightoom for Canon (interesting how 5D and 1dsMKIII color and exposure looks diferent but it's the same setting same lens)

6 Nikon was processed on Lightroom and Nikon NX and interesting finding how Nikon Nx process the image way better at standard settings.

I like the nikon D3 with the 14-24 best processed on Nikon NX. I think this is the best combo.

I just want to share this test with you as this test took a while to do.

The D3 performs better at ISO 200 than 100.

James R wrote:
The D3 performs better at ISO 200 than 100.

Better how? Does the D3 lose DR or anything from dropping to 100? Just curious

RyanFlynn wrote:
James R wrote:
The D3 performs better at ISO 200 than 100.

Better how? Does the D3 lose DR or anything from dropping to 100? Just curious

Loses contrast and dynamic range as far as I've heard. I can't tell the difference to be honest. Only time I'd ever use 100 is if I wanted a longer exposure.

A canon shooter here. Looks to me like the Nikon shots are sharper, alothough from my experience, Nikon ussually seems a bit sharper out of the camera, so not sure if you did any sharpening, but from all I've hear, the 14-24 is a great lens, so it could just be that. What surprises me was the D3 blowing at the highlights a little more on the back wall.

All three are great cameras though, acutally shot with a Buddy's D3 last night with his brand new 24-70. Love the High ISO, as I have a 1dmk2, which is pretty good, but can't compete over 800 with the D3.

I also shot his d300, had a hair trigger, not sure I liked it near as much as the D3.

Since you were not comparing the cameras using the exact same lens, you introduced another variable into the equation. Canon 16-35mm MkII shows quite a bit of a copy-to-copy variation. This my own experience and my first copy was not up to par. The second copy gives the Nikkor 14-24mm a run for the money. Granted, the Nikkor is still a tad better but the difference is not that much anymore as it was with my first copy. I am shooting both formats; as such I am not biased towards a certain brand .

RyanFlynn wrote:
James R wrote:
The D3 performs better at ISO 200 than 100.

Better how? Does the D3 lose DR or anything from dropping to 100? Just curious

Diglloyd's test show clipping of highlights when shooting below ISO 200. Generally, he's reviews are very good. The reduced DR is a trade-off when shooting below ISO 200. As stated above, the difference is not readily perceivable, but, pixel peepers seem to see the difference.

I am not so much interested in your camera comparison as the difference between NX and non-Nikon software.

I discovered this about 4 months ago and am currently reprocessing all my keepers from yesteryear and am being blown away with the power of NX.

The pics are better in every way. Nikon clearly still knows something more about NEF files than third party software. Doesn't do bad on JPEG's either...

James R wrote:
RyanFlynn wrote:
James R wrote:
The D3 performs better at ISO 200 than 100.

Better how? Does the D3 lose DR or anything from dropping to 100? Just curious

Diglloyd's test show clipping of highlights when shooting below ISO 200. Generally, he's reviews are very good. The reduced DR is a trade-off when shooting below ISO 200. As stated above, the difference is not readily perceivable, but, pixel peepers seem to see the difference.


Better to use a ND filter @ ISO 200