Dave_EP wrote:
I think you meant that the other way around, right? On the release of the D3 lots of Canon shooters changed to Nikon.
Frankly, Canon need to pull their finger out and get the 5D3 launched because that's the only thing I'm waiting for now to make my mind up on which brand to settle on for years to come. The 1D X doesn't cut it for me (features) whereas the D4 looks more promising. If they cripple EITHER the AF or the Video out on the 5D3 then it's bye-bye Canon.
Oops! You are right of course. Fixed.
I think the 1DX looks like an awesome camera. I am skeptical about both AF and high ISO improvements (as well as clean base ISO of course), until I see that the announced specs are real and well implemented, simply due to past problems, but I guess that there will be major improvements there. In fact, when the 1DX was announced, it matched my list of hopes for the D4 very closely. Now the D4 does as well, of course.
dolina wrote:
One of the most tangle difference is the choice of Gigabit Ethernet vs USB 3.0. So which one's a win for you guys?
For Mac users: Gigabit Ethernet. Combined with the wireless device and the built-in web server in the D4 it means that any networkable device will be able to tether the D4. iPad anyone? No more needing to buy a high-end Marshall screen to check focus and composition carefully.
There's definitely something wrong with the USB port specs. Nikon's webpage states the camera has USB 3.0, but the side panel photo on dpreview clearly shows a simple Mini USB 2.0 port on the camera. The USB 3.0 connector is totally different and there appears to be no such socket on the D4.
dolina wrote:
One of the most tangle difference is the choice of Gigabit Ethernet vs USB 3.0. So which one's a win for you guys?
I really doubt that one's decision will rely on the gigabit vs. usb 3.0 thing...
I think there are other features which set them apart and urge photographers to choose one over the other.....
As far as ergonomics go....it depends on what you're used to...
What I trully think is important in a modern high end dslr body is :
cleaner high iso ability (being able to go 6400/12.800 fully usable)
better AF
better dynamic range
I think these make a higher quality photo.
We already have bodies shooting 10 fps .... I mean the people who actually NEED or USE 10 ore more FPS are a niche...and so are the birders needing the f8 AF...
I couldn't care less if Canon or Nikon came up with a 1Dx / D4 and said that it can shoot 30 fps....
I don't care about that, and I'm sure that the vast majority of photographs would appreciate those 3 things which I mentioned earlier....
Of course, there is always room for improvement (ergonomics, storage, display,sealing, etc etc)
I had a D3s and it was an amazing camera but a BRICK. Since I do photography for fun, sold it, went to Leica and now have a 5D2. I love the size and capabilities of the 5D2. I wish (dream) it had the D3s' AF but am happy and actually carry it.
Well, unless the D4 is *worse* than the D3s by about 3 stops in high ISO, you are not right
Btw, I would add the colour fidelity to the list of reasons to upgrade. The typical 5D/5DII Canon reds, for example, are so intense that I can hardly work with them, one reason I switched to a Nikon D3 (which also has room for improvement). The D3x is meant to be better.
alundeb wrote:
Thanks for the link! The ISO 6400 sample looks to be very similar in noise level to a 5DII, maybe a tad better.
That was my first feeling,too. I would love to see an ISO 6.400 & 12.800 raw file, to compare. But anyway. They (Nikon) show sample images. Maybe Canon could start to do so now, too?
alundeb wrote:
Where do you get those 3 stops from? the 5D II is just 1 1/2 stops below the theoretical maximum, with a QE of 33%.
By looking at photos. The D3 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the 5DII, and the D3s is about the same better than the D3, maybe only 1 stop.
Maybe we are talking different things though. When I say 1 stop better, I mean you can get the same pixel-level quality at one ISO level higher. You seem to be talking about something more theoretical. By the way, I am ignoring resolution and looking strictly at pixels. It is much harder to compare when you allow down-rezzing, for example. The D3x is still better than the 5DII though.
carstenw wrote:
By looking at photos. The D3 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the 5DII, and the D3s is about the same better than the D3, maybe only 1 stop.
Maybe we are talking different things though. When I say 1 stop better, I mean you can get the same quality at one ISO level higher. You seem to be talking about something more theoretical.
I have also looked at photos, and seen that the 5DII and D3 are about equal, when processed for the same output size, and the D3s about one stop better than the D3. What I see in photos matches closely with theory.
And we started with what I see in the D4 sample image
alundeb wrote:
Where do you get those 3 stops from? the 5D II is just 1 1/2 stops below the theoretical maximum, with a QE of 33%.
I'm not taking issue with your stance regarding 5d2 vs D4 I haven't shot with a 5D2 enough to say with confidence.
But as current technology stands, IQ isn't bound by QE, not by a long way. QE + shot noise bound only limits SNR at full well capacity, and yes, there read noise means much less. At every other luma value and especially in shadow areas, all the other sources of noise become more significant as they comprise a greater portion of the reading, until they become the same magnitude. There is absolutely a long way to go there.
This is the reason why you'd find it hard to tell a D3 from a D3s from a typical ISO 200 image, but wouldn't find it hard at all at 12800.
carstenw wrote:
By looking at photos. The D3 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the 5DII, and the D3s is about the same better than the D3, maybe only 1 stop.
Maybe we are talking different things though. When I say 1 stop better, I mean you can get the same pixel-level quality at one ISO level higher. You seem to be talking about something more theoretical. By the way, I am ignoring resolution and looking strictly at pixels. It is much harder to compare when you allow down-rezzing, for example. The D3x is still better than the 5DII though.
Yes Carsten we are talking about different things. I know, you are shooting Nikon. And you like it.
And that is fine.
But D3 offers the same IQ D700 does. And this is just a fast breath better in ISO 3.200 & 6.400 compared to what 5D MK II gives a shooter. And only at 100%. If you downsize 5D MK II files to 3Ds/700s resolution, the images quality of both Nikons are beaten. That is why Nikon brought the D3s. D3s is the only body I know that beats 5D MK II in IQ at ISO 3200/6400.
Of course still at 12MP instead of 21MP. Iven D3X does not over ISO 1600.
This are just the facts.
And Yes again. The given ice runner example does look great. But its noise does not really look better, than an 5D MK II ISO 6400 picture. Take one and shoot it. I did with D700.
At ISO 6400, mid gray level, the 5DII sensels capture on average about 150 photons. The QE related noise (photon shot noise) is the square root of that, about 12 photons. In comparison, the read noise is equivalent to ~ 3 photons.
4 Ev below mid gray at ISO 6400, the read noise will be about as large as the photon shot noise, and an improvement will be visible. Still, if the read noise is reduced to ~1 photon, the total noise will only be reduced from ~4.2 (sqrt(3*3 + 3*3)) to ~3.2 (sqrt(3*3 + 1*1))
