Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

is that a gif?

Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.



The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

OH no, don't say that.  The Canon fanboys will jump on you...


I am still waiting for my D800..  Damn..  From the look of it, I won't be getting it until May..

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
OH no, don't say that.  The Canon fanboys will jump on you...

I am still waiting for my D800..  Damn..  From the look of it, I won't be getting it until May..

That sucks, I may be in the same boat

David Poata wrote:
Fred do you have a D800? any sample Beauty/fashion/portrait pics at all?

No not yet, but I have seen some nice files sent to me by a friend in Europe.
Con't put them online though.

David Poata wrote:

That sucks, I may be in the same boat

Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Just found a link http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/27/nikon … sues.aspx/

Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Suggestions for affected LCD's are the green cast could be fixed by adjusting the LCD monitor hue - see page 52 of the D800 manual

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

OH no, don't say that.  The Canon fanboys will jump on you...


I am still waiting for my D800..  Damn..  From the look of it, I won't be getting it until May..

I use Canon but Im not a fanboy, it's just a tool. Buy whatever fits for your needs...

Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.

The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

LMAO.. and to think I thought you knew something about camera's... LOL... now I KNOW your just a .

The fact that the OP is suggesting that the D800 is better at ISO 12,800 than the 5DIII reveals what little and limited knowledge he has despite his assertions.  I have not seen a single reputable review (or any review for that matter) or comparison between the two that would suggest that the D800 is better at ISO 12,800.  This should be a red flag for anyone reading the OP's "analysis" of this or any equipment in the future.

Next we will be hearing that the D800 has faster FPS... lol..

They are both excellent camera's that offer their own advantages.  Do your homework by educating yourself with reputable reviewers and take absurd claims such as this, as nothing more than an attempt to garner attention.

ISO 12,800

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
LMAO.. and to think I thought you knew something about camera's... LOL... now I KNOW your just a fanboy.

huh?

Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.



The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

Can you explain the scaling process? For whatever reason, I don't totally get it.

My real question is, doesn't scaling always make for a better image?

If you have two identical sensors, but one is a crop, won't the appropriate scaling method make the FF look better?

In that case, it's kind of hard to say which is the better sensor - no problem to sy which is the better results.

David Poata wrote:

Just found a link http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/27/nikon … sues.aspx/

I don't think my has a greenish hue but I do swear my focus point is moving by itself or the selector is more sensitive and I'm inadvertently moving it by accident...

ACPhotography wrote:

I don't think my has a greenish hue but I do swear my focus point is moving by itself or the selector is more sensitive and I'm inadvertently moving it by accident...

LOL

MC Grain wrote:
Can you explain the scaling process? For whatever reason, I don't totally get it.

My real question is, doesn't scaling always make for a better image?

If you have two identical sensors, but one is a crop, won't the appropriate scaling method make the FF look better?

In that case, it's kind of hard to say which is the better sensor - no problem to sy which is the better results.

What I did is quite simple. I took the sample of the Nikon D800 on the dpreview page and scaled it down so that the scale matched the scale of the watch in the canon sample. I then made a gif that animates between the two to shot the difference.

So far all ISO comparisons I have seen are looking at the image scaled to 100%, but the true difference should be show with both images reproducing the subject at the same size. the Nikon is 36MP and the Canon is 22MP. So to compare the two in the real world so to speak you need to scale down the Nikon.

That said they are both pretty darn good, but from what I have seen the Nikon does a better job especially in the shadows and above all skin tones in and approaching the shadows.

I'm also referring to high ISO, not ultra high ISO.
I don't need anything above 12,800.

Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

I don't know that there is a screen issue.  The only site talking about it as an issue is Nikon Rumors.  As far as I can tell, those who are complaining have their LCD screens set wrong.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.



The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

You think the inset looks better? Really?

It took me a while to figure out which one was which, and I assumed you meant the mushy, low-contrast inset was the Mk III. Only after looking at the animated GIF in another browser (I keep all animations turned off in my primary browser) did I come back to see which one you said was which.

This is an April Fool's joke, right?

London Fog wrote:
Good luck with this one Fred, even though you are 100% right!

These Canon boyz are so touchy, so easily offended and end up getting you brigged over nothing - beware!

I'm a bit of a Canon fan... about 8 years with digital canons. Only one repair required.
That was done nice and quickly, been just fine since. I also have a slew of Canon lenses. I was ready to snap up a 5D mark III, but I was disapointed to see no improvement in the shadows. One of the main differences image quality wise that I see in my Phase One cameras and my Canon's is the dynamic range and shadow quality. From what I am seeing the Nikon appears to be significantly better in that area. Good detail into the blacks is like the foundation of good image quality.

London Fog wrote:
Good luck with this one Fred, even though you are 100% right!

These Canon boyz are so touchy, so easily offended and end up getting you brigged over nothing - beware!

When you get brigged it is for good reason!   

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

When you get brigged it is for good reason!   

The last time was totally unjustified, that won't happen again!

Fred Greissing wrote:
Looks like the D800 is better than the 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 when comparing scaled RAW files.



The inset is the d800 sample scaled to match the 5D sample.

until I see some samples from someone who has both cameras, why should this be believed?

Doobie the destroyer wrote:
36mp is for photo quality A2 prints. That's commercial advertising sizes. I highly doubt most people, including pros, will utilize that.

I will

David Poata wrote:

I will

Than it's probably a good choice for you.

Although, why not go medium format? I imagine for prints of those sizes you want the best editing versatility you can extract, which the 16-bit files are a godsend for.

I definitely think the D800 would be better for field work, but I still don't think the D800 is an alternative for MF, more so a supplement. Like how a compact can be a supplement for a DSLR.

David Poata wrote:
I will

Doobie the destroyer wrote:
Than it's probably a good choice for you.

Although, why not go medium format? I imagine for prints of those sizes you want the best editing versatility you can extract, which the 16-bit files are a godsend for.

I definitely think the D800 would be better for field work, but I still don't think the D800 is an alternative for MF, more so a supplement. Like how a compact can be a supplement for a DSLR.

Just because the files are 16 bit doesn't mean they have more information. The D800 almost certainly has more dynamic range.

Doobie the destroyer wrote:

Than it's probably a good choice for you.

Although, why not go medium format? I imagine for prints of those sizes you want the best editing versatility you can extract, which the 16-bit files are a godsend for.

I definitely think the D800 would be better for field work, but I still don't think the D800 is an alternative for MF, more so a supplement. Like how a compact can be a supplement for a DSLR.

MF entreats a concise shooting technique, slower work flow and at times chained to a tethered station. Not my ideal choice but I will concede to MF depending on client requirements.

I much prefer the faster AF, higher ISO, smaller form factor/portability of the D800. So for me the extra resolution is a God send.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Here is what I did:



Keep in mind that 22 is only 61% of 36.

Looking at those source images, the Nikon's noise is more bothersome to me.

You made a JPEG from posted JPEGs, right?


People used to compare two tracks on a CD, one was an analog recording and one was digital. They comments were always "This one sounds digital, this one sounds analog." What never made sense to me is once they're on a CD, shouldn't they both sound digital?


In photography terms, don't we really need to compare the RAWs side by side? And even then, do you compare them in the same RAW converter or the manufacturer's RAW converter?

And, if you're going to scale to have a results based comparison, shouldn't you be applying NR? I don't know if there's such thing as one taking NR better, but if the idea is to compare likely results shouldn't they be converted images with contrast and color adjustments too?

No one besides the photographer is ever going to see a straight RAW image.

David Poata wrote:

Mike Haftel wrote:
Me, too. But I'm actually waiting to see if Nikon fixes the LCD screen issue.

Suggestions for affected LCD's are the green cast could be fixed by adjusting the LCD monitor hue - see page 52 of the D800 manual

ei Total Productions wrote:

I don't know that there is a screen issue.  The only site talking about it as an issue is Nikon Rumors.  As far as I can tell, those who are complaining have their LCD screens set wrong.

Nope. I've done my research. The LCD issue is very real and has nothing to do with the Live View Screen Hue adjustment, and there are people reporting about it all over the place, not just on NR. Resetting LCD Hue also resets every time you turn the camera off.

Either way, I'm waiting a month or so (by then the camera is hopefully available in stores).

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Just because the files are 16 bit doesn't mean they have more information. The D800 almost certainly has more dynamic range.

The difference from a 14-bit file to 16-bit is pretty is pretty big. It's 16,384 units of information vs 65,536. Also, I don't think Nefs are true 14 bit files. You have a much bigger margin of error for shooting and a much better file to work with in post. A 3fr can recover like 2-3 stops either way with no visible quality loss.

A retoucher, designer, and graphic artist would have much better file to play with from something like a 3fr rather than a Nef.

Also, a MF cameras will still render better clarity and bokeh as well, just based on the size of the sensor and lenses.

I definitely agree with that the D800 will be faster and easier to shoot with, though. However, I also imagine shooting speed isn't so much of a factor when your doing commercial work that requires A2s, and it is more about the highest quality output at every step of the workflow.

Doobie the destroyer wrote:
MF cameras will still render better clarity and bokeh as well, just based on the size of the sensor and lenses.

I definitely agree with that the D800 will be faster and easier to shoot with, though. However, I also imagine shooting speed isn't so much of a factor when your doing commercial work that requires A2s, and it is more about the highest quality output at every step of the workflow.

As an ergonomic compromise the Leica S2 looks to be the best of both worlds in terms of MF quality in a 35mm form factor

Doobie the destroyer wrote:
The difference from a 14-bit file to 16-bit is pretty is pretty big. It's 16,384 units of information vs 65,536.

14 bit or 16 bit ... that is the "container". It does not mean that it is filled using all the 16,384 steps per channel.

From my experience with both 14 bit and 16 bit files the difference is not huge, but it is there. However a very good film scan at 16 bit better than the best 16 bit file from a camera CCD.