Daan B wrote:
The 1Ds3 goes to ISO3200... do you agree that a possible explanation for Canon not having included ISO6400-12800 in the 1Ds3, is because of the amp noise "issue" and DIGIC3 limitations?
Yes, although as a 1Ds3 owner I wished the 6400 and 12800 settings were there, because I was quite happy with the results that I got at those speeds.
And maybe also to make the 1D3 stand out more from the 1Ds3. Probably the same reason why Canon didn't include a 10MP sRAW function in the 1Ds3.
I don't get this point. Why would Canon rather sell a $4000 1D3 over an $8000 1Ds3?
The D3x goes to ISO6400 and was released later than the 1Ds3.
But its predecessors, the D700 and D3 both went up to iso 25600. The performance is no different but the settings aren't there. The salient difference between D3/D700 and D3x is the number of pixels.
Still, you speak of the D3x and 1Ds3 as similair type of cameras that have been deprived of higher ISO's.
Yes - both have over 20 Mpixels, and I believe that is the real reason why both Canon and Nikon shied away from giving them settings that would have produced usable results.
I also think a clear distinction should be made here. So, am I correct to assume you want to narrow this discussion down to the D3x?
No, I think the cameras have much in common, and I think it may not be a coincidence that each lacks higher iso settings.
Now to your question, I do believe that the Nikon engineers are aware that the D3x is comparable to the D700 at ISO6400. But I fail to see how this "proves" that the reason why the D3x didn't get >ISO6400, is because Nikon "can't be bothered to explain anybody that printing or downrezzing the files makes them competitive with everyone's high iso favourite, the D700".
OK - let me put that in less charged language: it seems possible to me that Canon and Nikon shied away from providing those settings in these high resolution cameras because they understood that the results would not be fairly compared to lower resolution competitors, even competitors from the same manufacturer.
No, I think it has more to do with Nikon engineers (and probably mostly marketeers) keeping a close eye on their direct competition... and concluding that ISO6400 is enough since the 1Ds3 "only" goes to ISO3200. Engineers only make cameras that Marketing wants them to make.
I think the marketers want the highest iso limits possible without a backlash of reviewers and users slamming the performance. That's the problem with the 100% view and the widespread failure to compare fairly.
The 1Ds3 goes to ISO3200... do you agree that a possible explanation for Canon not having included ISO6400-12800 in the 1Ds3, is because of the amp noise "issue" and DIGIC3 limitations?
Yes, although as a 1Ds3 owner I wished the 6400 and 12800 settings were there, because I was quite happy with the results that I got at those speeds.
Ditto
And maybe also to make the 1D3 stand out more from the 1Ds3. Probably the same reason why Canon didn't include a 10MP sRAW function in the 1Ds3.
I don't get this point. Why would Canon rather sell a $4000 1D3 over an $8000 1Ds3?
It's more like... If you own a 1Ds3 there is less need to buy a 1D3 if the 1Ds3 could produce 10MP sRAW files... If you happen to need 10MP files that is (for weddings/events).
The D3x goes to ISO6400 and was released later than the 1Ds3.
But its predecessors, the D700 and D3 both went up to iso 25600. The performance is no different but the settings aren't there. The salient difference between D3/D700 and D3x is the number of pixels.
As I said before, I think Nikon looked more to the 1Ds3 when designing the D3x than at their own D700/D3's.
Still, you speak of the D3x and 1Ds3 as similair type of cameras that have been deprived of higher ISO's.
Yes - both have over 20 Mpixels, and I believe that is the real reason why both Canon and Nikon shied away from giving them settings that would have produced usable results.
If so, why would Canon include 21MP's in their 5D2 and gave it ISO12800? I think it is just marketing... with every new release we get a little bit more of this and that... in order to keep us hungry
I also think a clear distinction should be made here. So, am I correct to assume you want to narrow this discussion down to the D3x?
No, I think the cameras have much in common, and I think it may not be a coincidence that each lacks higher iso settings.
There is still a big difference between ISO3200 and ISO6400. Most will consider ISO6400 a very high ISO and ISO3200 not. At least I do.
Now to your question, I do believe that the Nikon engineers are aware that the D3x is comparable to the D700 at ISO6400. But I fail to see how this "proves" that the reason why the D3x didn't get >ISO6400, is because Nikon "can't be bothered to explain anybody that printing or downrezzing the files makes them competitive with everyone's high iso favourite, the D700".
OK - let me put that in less charged language: it seems possible to me that Canon and Nikon shied away from providing those settings in these high resolution cameras because they understood that the results would not be fairly compared to lower resolution competitors....Show more →
How do you explain the 5D vs 5D2... increase in MP's and ISO values at the same time
No, I think it has more to do with Nikon engineers (and probably mostly marketeers) keeping a close eye on their direct competition... and concluding that ISO6400 is enough since the 1Ds3 "only" goes to ISO3200. Engineers only make cameras that Marketing wants them to make.
I think the marketers want the highest iso limits possible without a backlash of reviewers and users slamming the performance. That's the problem with the 100% view.
Having used 5D, 1Ds3 and 5D2 extensively for real work in a wide range of conditions, I am curious why you think the 5D sensor is 'great' while the 1Ds3/5D2 sensor is only 'pretty-good/OK'. My experience is that the 1Ds3/5D2 sensor is waaay better than the 5D sensor. Perhaps you have been comparing 100% crops, in which case, please read this: http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth
I can understand how that might be confusing. What i should have said was "great for the time" and "OK, for it's time". The 5d provided some exceptional IQ capabilities (improved noise response, etc. for a late 2004 or early 2005 sensor) and stood alone in the market. The 5d2 provided more MP and better (compared to the 5d and a few others) noise response in RAW (as far as I know, jpeg IQ is still pretty bad, but you're more qualified to comment on that), but the 5d2 has some serious competition that knocks it from the "great" standing.
Personally, from what I've seen, I'd take both the 1Ds3 and D3X IQ (and even the a900 at low/base ISO) over a 5d2, so I said it was "OK". I know you have/had the 1Ds3 before the 5d2, and though Canon says the 5d2's sensor is better, I've never heard anyone else say that, nor would I agree with it from my experience. Would like to know your thoughts on the IQ comparison.
