This is just getting rediculous. NIkon made some great cameras - what appears to be a little better equipped than what Canon makes.
Who cares - I hope it drives the prices down for all companies involved and that we as consumers benefit by paying what a camera actually is worth. I'm happy for what is going on.
How can I have bias when I apparently haven't seen an image from either camera that's fair to evaluate? How do you evaluate noise correction in a blurred image? I didn't see one person mention the smudging in the D3 photos.
Most of the threads on the dpreview forum have very good discussions concerning the new cameras. Things like, oh, critical thinking without emotional outbursts. I guess you guys who don't want to discuss specifics but wet your pants over any suggestion of concern are moving over here. Woo Hoo.
I guess you missed these comments on the first page eh?
'the focus point of D3 is not in the image man... that was cut from the corner'
'If they are d3 samples, it's a shame they're out of focus.'
'Looks out of focus...
Canon's supposed to be the one with the auto focus problems...
Is it just me or does the black lens in the canon pics look a little red? '
"Bigger sensor and less pixels equal to better acutance (read: sharpness), at least in theory. The reason the alleged D3 image is soft is really that it's out of focus and shot with a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 consumer lens at 85mm and f/4.5, if I remember correctly.
The comparison is hardly valid, though, as the colour of the light was most probably not of the same."
I think i'll do what most here seem to be doing and just ignore you from here on. All the best on your crusade.
Stan Otokpa wrote:
I guess you missed these comments on the first page eh?
'the focus point of D3 is not in the image man... that was cut from the corner'
'If they are d3 samples, it's a shame they're out of focus.'
'Looks out of focus...
Canon's supposed to be the one with the auto focus problems...
Is it just me or does the black lens in the canon pics look a little red? '
"Bigger sensor and less pixels equal to better acutance (read: sharpness), at least in theory. The reason the alleged D3 image is soft is really that it's out of focus and shot with a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 consumer lens at 85mm and f/4.5, if I remember correctly.
The comparison is hardly valid, though, as the colour of the light was most probably not of the same."
I think i'll do what most here seem to be doing and just ignore you from here on. All the best on your crusade....Show more →
Um Stan,
Nice quotes, but I'm making fun of my 1DIII and it's focus problems.
You're right Jeff, the ISO 25,600 photos are not what you'd call quality shots. My understanding is that Nikon included it for the users who needed the shot regardless, like law enforcement. We... as in the majority of photographers, wouldn't use it.... probably.
I have a friend who works in security surveillance who is salivating at the prospect. He also uses a Fuji UVIR for his work also, so this setup is the bees knees for him.
I can't even imagine a situation where I would go to ISO 25,600 on any camera. But I went ahead and applied my crude "30-sec event shooter" work flow to the ISO 25,600 file.
Like John, I applied noise reduction (a pass through Noise Ninja using the auto profile settings). I then resized, adjusted levels a bit to knock the exposure back a hair and resized before finally applying some unsharp mask to just the areas in focus.
No crop this time. It looks pretty good to me, given that this would be a shot taken under duress or very desperate measures!
Are we pretending there are no concerns with those photos? I can do that. But I hear the sound track from Jaws as someone shoots comparison shots with a 1DIII.............
dcmiller wrote:
Are we pretending there are no concerns with those photos? I can do that. But I hear the sound track from Jaws as someone shoots comparison shots with a 1DIII.............
Nah we knew you would show up with more words of wisdom to set us all straight
whatever you think of the image it is 2 stops More than offered by any other camera. I know that i would never likely ever shoot in a situation that called for that but there are some who do and many of them reside in the canon camp and have been telling nikon users for years they Had to have canon beacuse of the ability to shoot more than a stop higher than nikon users ever dared for fear of noise. Please do us a favor and tell us you are not saying it doesn't matter now
dcmiller wrote:
Are we pretending there are no concerns with those photos? I can do that. But I hear the sound track from Jaws as someone shoots comparison shots with a 1DIII.............
The issue that gets missed dcm is; when people say it looks great, we keep it in context to what is happening. We are not comparing an ISO 25 gazzilion shot to a Canon 5D at ISO 100. The shot at ISO 25,600 looks great for a shot at... well, 25,600 no matter what language you speak!
I didn't know the only thing to talk about cameras were its ISO performance at 100%. Shooting at 25,600 is so unlikely to be printed at 20x30" , its laughable.
Isn't the D3's ISO 25600 is just the same as underexposing by two stops at 6400 and pushing it in post-processing? Would be interesting to see examples of 1Dmk3 images pushed that far.
Not to be annoying John, but seeing that 25k shot makes me wonder what the MkIII would produce two stops underexposed at 6400, and then corrected in post. Might have to try that for the 'fun' of it...
-Jeff
that would be a neat thing Jeff, but really pi$$ing contests are not what I am really into , i only care to keep the detractors at least honest. I am happy that as incredible as it seems to an old school low ISO shooter that the triad of ISO, Shutter and Aperture is really more flexable than i could have ever imagined
