My understanding is that Canon produces more lens types than Nikon because they spend more on R&D -- more than Nikon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron and Olympus combined (second hand info, but is reasonable given scale). Also I wonder why people compare the 5DMII with the D3s -- the 5DMII is less than half the price. And finally I really wonder why people have such a hard time with higher resolution. Given the ability to crop, it is like having a teleconverter. My PC has no trouble with the file sizes, if you are upgrade (cheap relative to your gear) and enjoy a new world. Or here is an easy solution: shoot sRAW!!!
Finally, and ultimately, higher pixel resolution is not incompatible with higher ISO sensitivity -- for a given amount of light falling over a given area there is a calculatable limit to the amount of noise it should produce. More pixels means less senstivity per pixel, but theoretically the same overall result, although more pixels means, well, more pixels to chose from.
Nikon is right not making higher resolutions the highest priority, but saying it does not matter is wrong. Canon knows that ISO is important, and I'm confident shooting the 5DMII at 3200, as well as resolution and pro video options. I will be very interested to see what Canon's response to the 3Ds is, because folks the 5DII isn't intended to be that. (Having said that, I usually need only ISO 400 or so, and really don't do much with the video capture -- it's the lenses that matter most to me).
akilah wrote:
Finally, and ultimately, higher pixel resolution is not incompatible with higher ISO sensitivity [...]
Incompatible, no. Both can be improved, and clearly both have been improved simultaneously if you compare today's cameras to cameras of a few years ago. But they do work against each other: in a classic ceteris paribus comparison where all other factors are held or made to be equal, and only one allowed to vary, then the camera with the higher pixel density will have reduced ability high-ISO performance and the camera with bigger pixels will get superior noise performance at the expense of resolution.
Making sensors with higher resolution and simultaneously providing better high-ISO performance is possible because the manufacturers are improving many parts of the image-capture data path at the same time. But there are limits to that, which is why the D3x has such a significantly lower ISO range than the D3.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Incompatible, no. Both can be improved, and clearly both have been improved simultaneously if you compare today's cameras to cameras of a few years ago. But they do work against each other: in a classic ceteris paribus comparison where all other factors are held or made to be equal, and only one allowed to vary, then the camera with the higher pixel density will have reduced ability high-ISO performance and the camera with bigger pixels will get superior noise performance at the expense of resolution.
Making sensors with higher resolution and simultaneously providing better high-ISO performance is possible because the manufacturers are improving many parts of the image-capture data path at the same time. But there are limits to that, which is why the D3x has such a significantly lower ISO range than the D3....Show more →
Only if you compare at 100% crops
The higher res camera shows much more "magnification" so it appears nosier at first glance. I can tell you from testing that if you uprez a D3 file and compare it to a D3x file, the D3x file will be either better or equal to at any given ISO noise -wise. That's why I ended up selling my D3 when I got the D3x - no need for it.
Now, if the D3s is better than the D3, might be something there. Won't know till I rent one to test
Steve Perry wrote:
Only if you compare at 100% crops
The higher res camera shows much more "magnification" so it appears nosier at first glance. I can tell you from testing that if you uprez a D3 file and compare it to a D3x file, the D3x file will be either better or equal to at any given ISO noise -wise. That's why I ended up selling my D3 when I got the D3x - no need for it.
Now, if the D3s is better than the D3, might be something there. Won't know till I rent one to test
jmcfadden wrote:
make a print say 20x30 from each just letting the file resolution fall where it may without resampling of ISO 6400 shots and get back to me
J
Print size for print size, the D3x will show equal or less noise than the D3. Probably not real noticeable in a small print, but 20x30 would make a huge difference. When a D3 goes to that size enlargement it's like you are trying to blow it up to the same size as what a D3x can do without upsizing.
There's surprisingly little difference between the D3 and D3X at high ISO, but the D3 does have a small advantage, particularly in terms of chroma noise/colour accuracy. At ISO 400 they're nearly identical in all respects except resolution. Dropping from ISO 400 to ISO 100 the D3X pulls away: the shadow noise continues to fall strongly while the D3's shadow noise doesn't improve much. The D3X offers unprecedented image quality at ISO 100, without sacrificing much elsewhere. That's worth something substantial, though not 2500 dollars for most people!
Whether the D3S offers much in the way of improvement remains to be seen. I suspect the "new sensor" business is related to video and will have little effect on still image quality. I could be wrong. The increased maximum ISO might be a reaction to Canon's forthcoming 1D Mark IV, which will probably have legitimate sensor improvements.
Specularist wrote:
Whether the D3S offers much in the way of improvement remains to be seen. I suspect the "new sensor" business is related to video and will have little effect on still image quality. I could be wrong. The increased maximum ISO might be a reaction to Canon's forthcoming 1D Mark IV, which will probably have legitimate sensor improvements.
Sheesh please go Now to the nikon site and grab the high iso images from the D3s. As a very happy D3 owner i can tell you the camera is much better than the D3 which is i assure you an Incredible low light camera
Oh, I have an idea for the ultimate high ISO, low light camera -- 1 pixel! That's right! with 1 pixel there will be almost no noise under even the most severe conditions. And that 1 pixel will look perfectly smooth when you blow it up to 20x30.
Wonder how a post like that could affect someone's credibility in this thread...
At any rate, KUDOS to Nikon for not upping the MP count on this new body and instead focussing on exactly what I'm after, and I'm sure most sports and PJ shooters, not to mention wedding shooters, are after right now... the ultimate low-light performance. Looks impressive.
dj dunzie wrote:
Wonder how a post like that could affect someone's credibility in this thread...
At any rate, KUDOS to Nikon for not upping the MP count on this new body and instead focussing on exactly what I'm after, and I'm sure most sports and PJ shooters, not to mention wedding shooters, are after right now... the ultimate low-light performance. Looks impressive.
It's just hard to believe that due some magic they decreased the noise by a factor of two. It just doesn't happen this way. The development in the CMSO field is very incremental and improvement from the previous step is very little. Given that it's probably just a rehash of the D3 sensor it's even more doubtful. I'm afraid that the this x2 hype is nothing but a clever NR. Nothing that you can't do in PP.
It's not just the CMOS improvements, but the micro-lenses that they have upgraded. Can it give you one stop improvement? Not by itself maybe, but the base data is better than it used to be. And I think a lot of people are missing the point of the camera, which is to get images out FAST, to let you shoot in JPEG for QUICK turnaround times. Note the various crop modes? That's to help facilitate that.
Now I'm having second thoughs on the D3s. I think it is the perfect camera, but I somehow missed the fact that from now on my personal shooting, which is what I want this for, will be on a tripod most of the time. I wonder if that way I would not be served better by the ol' D700 and put the money into some nice glass?
Man, I want this D3s ... but I wonder if I don't NEED it at all compared to say a 24 PC-E lens?
gfiksel wrote:
Given that it's probably just a rehash of the D3 sensor it's even more doubtful. I'm afraid that the this x2 hype is nothing but a clever NR. Nothing that you can't do in PP.
Hmm... let's make a very general assumption that it's a "rehash" of the D3 sensor. Then, let's take that assumption as a "given" and combine it with the idea that CMOS development is directly proportional to overall noise performance and that said development "just doesn't happen this way", and we can confidently conclude that Nikon is lying and the camera is really no better than its predecessor.
Pavel wrote:
Now I'm having second thoughs on the D3s. I think it is the perfect camera, but I somehow missed the fact that from now on my personal shooting, which is what I want this for, will be on a tripod most of the time. I wonder if that way I would not be served better by the ol' D700 and put the money into some nice glass?
Man, I want this D3s ... but I wonder if I don't NEED it at all compared to say a 24 PC-E lens?
Get the lens Especially if you'll be tripoding it up.
Yeah. I don't want to shoot action stuff for my personal things anymore. So .... I'm off the D3s list. But what a Body! I respect Nikon for not pandering to those that keep saying that the megapixel race is crazy ... and then ipso facto regard every higher megapixel body as better.
Could be hype to SOME extent I suppose, although I tend to believe the many comments from people who have had their hands on the pre-production models and the sample images I've seen vs. the "liar liar pants on fire" routine.
When Thom Hogan figures this will be a worthwhile upgrade for sports shooters due to its high ISO gains vs. the D3, and others with D3 experience are claiming it's a significant improvement, I'm thinking it can't be just a rehash.
Has anyone looked at the sample images in the D3s brochure yet? ISO12,800 anyone?
