this is just making it more murderous waiting for mine to arrive.
and I've got to say, that while the 102'400 iso images are of course impressive for what they are. the 12'800 ISO images are what is really blowing me away
Go4Long wrote:
and I've got to say, that while the 102'400 iso images are of course impressive for what they are. the 12'800 ISO images are what is really blowing me away
Yeah that's my take on it too... I care a little less about the extended hi-ISO settings than the fact that ISO12800 is going to be a legitimate option for sports work.
also worth mentioning in looking at those pics is that in most of them even the in camera noise reduction is turned off or set to low. I told my salesman that when I come in to pick it up we'll pull it out of the box and take a couple shots at ISO 12'000 plus just because we can :P
I can't say I could ever visualize a case where I would have to use the 102'400 ISO, but I recently started getting invited to indoor horse jumping, I can definitely say that I would use 12'800 ISO on a regular basis.
Go4Long wrote:
also worth mentioning in looking at those pics is that in most of them even the in camera noise reduction is turned off or set to low. I told my salesman that when I come in to pick it up we'll pull it out of the box and take a couple shots at ISO 12'000 plus just because we can :P
I can't say I could ever visualize a case where I would have to use the 102'400 ISO, but I recently started getting invited to indoor horse jumping, I can definitely say that I would use 12'800 ISO on a regular basis....Show more →
Ditto!
Should make shooting in arenas much easier, and now with lower cost lenses - slower lenses - could maybe be used. Opens up the arena for more photog opportunities.
Nov 06, 2009 at 02:15 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.
JHerr wrote:
I just wish they would lower the strength of their AA filter though. Lower noise is nice, but I wouldn't mind a sharpness increase on par with what Canon has.
after owning and using a 1Ds 1D2 1Ds2 1D3 40D i need to comment on your statement
with all in camera sharpening settings off between both brands (models i use now are the D3 and D700) i have found and it has been proven that out of camera raw images are considerable sharper from the nikon product then the canon product.
the canon workflow is longer and more tedious to get a good sharp image from.
That high ISO performance is just ridiculous. Check out the ISO 12800 head shot of the "Dancer" in the middle row about half way down. The detail and lack of noise in her right eye is insane. Looks about ISO800 on the D300!
sjms wrote:
after owning and using a 1Ds 1D2 1Ds2 1D3 40D i need to comment on your statement
with all in camera sharpening settings off between both brands (models i use now are the D3 and D700) i have found and it has been proven that out of camera raw images are considerable sharper from the nikon product then the canon product.
My experience, after owning and using the 1Ds II, 50D, 7D, 5D, 5D II, D300 and D700 (I didn't bother with the D3 since everyone has said the IQ of the D3 is exactly the same as the D700), is exactly the opposite of yours... Nikon's full-frame high ISO performance comes at the cost of an overly aggressive low-pass filter, and when the files are interpolated up to 48mb (as is required for stock submission), the Canon images are much sharper - no matter how you process the Nikon images. The only 12mp Nikon that competes with the Canons in sharpness is the D2X, as has been proven by many respected Nikon reviewers.
My money is gone.