I could not do else. Given the full size samples (in jpg) I loaded them down, viewed and compared them to some jpg high ISO shots I did myself for test.
This is just JPG (and I guess with some in camera NR in both cases. And of course its just a felt comparisment by view in 100%.
I was always happy with it. But I did not know, how good my 5D MK II is! Maybe I got a special release?
ISO 6.400 seems to be no difference. Neither ISO 12.800 (compared to High 1). In ISO 25.600 (compared to High II) there is no difference in "electronic grain", too (of course all feelings based on jpg samples). The 5D MK II file shows just a couple more of white "dropouts" here. What will have gone by developing yourself or remain undetected in any print, smaller than 12 inches.
It does not seem to me, that the D4 is better in ISO performance than the D3/D700 where: Still just equal to 5D MK II at 5MP less resolution.
Based on IQ I now would not fear any longer an ISO 12.800 images to my customers (I never did before). Concerning quality the additional 25.600 and higher of D4 are just worth to get an image done instead of not. Or it might be interesting for a net publication in 600x400.
This is my personal first feeling. And it is not mentioned to bash any nikonians or Nikon gear. But based on that, I am really impressed again, how good the three years old 5D MK II already was/still is. And that of course lets me feel big expectation to itīs follow up. And of course to high ISO noise behavior of the 1D X.
CANON: YOU saw the competing body. Now let US see, what you have created!
fraga wrote:
I wouldn't call it minor.
Yes, comparatevily, the 1DX is completely new from the ground up while the D4 is not, but still, going down to ev-2, official support for AF down to f8 and claimed faster performance, including initial acquisition (which is were canon has always been superior to nikon), don't seem like minor improvments, at least IMHO.
I agree, I think the D4's AF improvements are being overlooked. In particular it's new 91K pixel metering sensor and how it will be used for face acquisition and AF tracking. Have such a dense metering sensor will allow much smaller objects to be tracked across the AF points.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I could not do else. Given the full size samples (in jpg) I loaded them down, viewed and compared them to some jpg high ISO shots I did myself for test.
This is just JPG (and I guess with some in camera NR in both cases. And of course its just a felt comparisment by view in 100%.
I was always happy with it. But I did not know, how good my 5D MK II is! Maybe I got a special release?
ISO 6.400 seems to be no difference. Neither ISO 12.800 (compared to High 1). In ISO 25.600 (compared to High II) there is no difference in "electronic grain", too (of course all feelings based on jpg samples). The 5D MK II file shows just a couple more of white "dropouts" here. What will have gone by developing yourself or remain undetected in any print, smaller than 12 inches.
It does not seem to me, that the D4 is better in ISO performance than the D3/D700 where: Still just equal to 5D MK II at 5MP less resolution.
Based on IQ I now would not fear any longer an ISO 12.800 images to my customers (I never did before). Concerning quality the additional 25.600 and higher of D4 are just worth to get an image done instead of not. Or it might be interesting for a net publication in 600x400.
This is my personal first feeling. And it is not mentioned to bash any nikonians or Nikon gear. But based on that, I am really impressed again, how good the three years old 5D MK II already was/still is. And that of course lets me feel big expectation to itīs follow up. And of course to high ISO noise behavior of the 1D X.
CANON: YOU saw the competing body. Now let US see, what you have created!
I rode the hi ISO wagon right up the first release hill from the D70 to 5D to MK III to 1Ds MK III to D3 to D3s. I have tetabytes of low light dance images and 6 years of intensive photoshopping experience.
Yes Virgina there are differences in hi ISO regardless of comments. The Canon 1Dx is the camera that I had hoped for, for years, but close reading of the specs means to me that Nikon's best will (still and for some years) have at least a 1 stop advantage over Canon best as well reliable AF and a huge buffer. So I have a D4 on order .
Present plans are to cull my large Canon inventory to what Canon does best-5D MKII, 15FE, TSEs and maybe a 85L. Yes I would love to have a 1Dx and 70-200 MK II but that will have to wait until Canon proves their AF and hi ISO in actual use.
And Canon promises an 2 stop enhancement (to 1D MK IV I guess), too. That would make still an 1 - 1.5 stop enhancement compared to D4 to me. But again:
Ok, after RG overview of the D4, the AF looks very good. I love how now with f/8 lenses you not only still x-type sensor in centre, but have 10 other normal AF sensors that will works as well. Also since Nikon have a 1.7x TC, they have tuned the AF so that for lenses between f/5.6 and f/8 still have available 9 x-type sensors clustered around the middle as well as 6 other normal sensors. This is a big advantage over the 1D X and even 1D IV which only has a single AF sensor for f/8 lenses, and it's line-type.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ok, after RG overview of the D4, the AF looks very good. I love how now with f/8 lenses you not only still x-type sensor in centre, but have 10 other normal AF sensors that will works as well. Also since Nikon have a 1.7x TC, they have tuned the AF so that for lenses between f/5.6 and f/8 still have available 9 x-type sensors clustered around the middle as well as 6 other normal sensors. This is a big advantage over the 1D X and even 1D IV which only has a single AF sensor for f/8 lenses, and it's line-type....Show more →
The d4 has more than one af point when it comes to f/8 lenses? Wow!
Pixel Perfect wrote: Ok, after RG overview of the D4, the AF looks very good. I love how now with f/8 lenses you not only still x-type sensor in centre, but have 10 other normal AF sensors that will works as well. Also since Nikon have a 1.7x TC, they have tuned the AF so that for lenses between f/5.6 and f/8 still have available 9 x-type sensors clustered around the middle as well as 6 other normal sensors. This is a big advantage over the 1D X and even 1D IV which only has a single AF sensor for f/8 lenses, and it's line-type....Show more →
Yeah, they all look good on paper.
It is a good thing when an extremely expensive top-of-the line 2012 camera model can AF with f/8 lens combos.
Yet, if I had to choose, I'd rather have a camera that can AF better at larger nominal aperture values at the expense of f/8 AF. However, both 1DX and D4 are still phantom cameras, so who knows how their performance comparison will turn out.
It is a good thing when an extremely expensive top-of-the line 2012 camera model can AF with f/8 lens combos.
Yet, if I had to choose, I'd rather have a camera that can AF better at larger nominal aperture values at the expense of f/8 AF. However, both 1DX and D4 are still phantom cameras, so who knows how their performance comparison will turn out.
Why would Nikon's apparently superior approach to slower than f/5.6 lenses mean with faster than f/5.6 lenses they would be worse? At least the Nikon is shipping next month.
Ralph Conway wrote:
And Canon promises an 2 stop enhancement (to 1D MK IV I guess), too. That would make still an 1 - 1.5 stop enhancement compared to D4 to me. But again:
CAAAAAANON! Where are your samples?
Canon promised an improvement over the 1DIV's Jpegs. Considering the move from APS-H to FF is worth literally a stop by itself simply in terms of photons collected, and the fact that the 1DIV's jpegs look terrible compared to RAW files (implying the Jpeg engine has a lot of improvements to be made), I'd wager a 1.2ish stop increase in performance over the 1DIV.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Why would Nikon's apparently superior approach to slower than f/5.6 lenses mean with faster than f/5.6 lenses they would be worse? At least the Nikon is shipping next month.
I just threw that on the table as a possibility.
Indeed, it is also possible that Nikon know something that Canon dSLR people do not, so they can do f/8 AF without compromising the AF performance at larger nominal apertures.
If so, then Canon dSLR folks will strengthen their position as Nikon's bitches.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Why would Nikon's apparently superior approach to slower than f/5.6 lenses mean with faster than f/5.6 lenses they would be worse?
For the same reason that Canon includes sensors for both f/2.8 and f/5.6 lenses: the f/2.8 ones work better with faster lenses, due to the fundamental way phase-detection autofocus works.
Canon didn't eliminate f/8 support for fun.
As everyone keeps saying though, the implementation is as important as the theory. If there's one truth about phase-detection autofocus in the last ten years, it's that it has under-performed and disappointed on a very regular basis, whether with flexibility (D2X), accuracy (1D Mark III especially, but all cameras, really), acquisition speed (D3), tracking (1D series), low-light sensitivity (1D Mark IV), etc. The web is full of complaints about SLR autofocus performance, and only half of them are user error!
Bruce Sawle wrote:
Hope your not referring to me as a troll. I own gear from both camps.
Na, I was making a troll post just to stir the pot. It didn't get people as riled up as expected. Good to see the brand loyalty thing isn't quite as bad as it use to be. Least till the things come out... then I am sure it will be back to 10 pages of "why my camera is superior" in both forums.
The D4 may prove to be a real shocker for Nikon's target audience (soccer moms and gym dads) - they'll finally have a camera with enough resolution to be able to tell if their images are actually in focus or if their lenses are sharp...
