AJScalzitti wrote:
I love technology as much as the next tech nerd but these threads are getting out of hand.  Will any of this make my images more appealing to potential clients?  Will it make them interesting when I am having an off day?

No it won't.  A boring image at higher resolution is still boring, find me a camera that inspires me on an off day and I will shell out the cash.

Thank you!  Seems some people crave attention sooo much that they have to start "This VS That" threads... 9 out of 10 times it isn't really to exchange honest and objective views, but rather to garner attention.  Sad when you think about it... reminds me of "Snooky" from Jersey Shore.

R_Marquez wrote:
I still don't see enough shadows. Needs more shadows.

Look at Med Format

Moon Pix Photography wrote:

Thank you!  Seems some people crave attention sooo much that they have to start "This VS That" threads... 9 out of 10 times it isn't really to exchange honest and objective views, but rather to garner attention.  Sad when you think about it... reminds me of "Snooky" from Jersey Shore.

It's not about getting attention... it's about choosing the right tool or the best tool.

That said I shoot on all sorts of gear, sometimes Lo-Fi when it's the right look.

The right camera will make the image quality better, the rest depends on the photographer and all sorts of other variables.

Anyway the funny thing is I only said it "looks like" the noise is better with the D800 if you scale the image to match the scale of the 5d III. I also said it's far from definitive..... I have decided to get a d800 for the additional dynamic range and the better shadow detail... a bit closer to film. I was under the impression that the Canon was way better in low light, but it appears to be not that big of a difference.

I'm just weighing the differences.

A few things are making me decide for the Nikon.

Better shadows and dark skin tones.. {shadows on the skin}
Uncompressed video out..
Higher MP count without loss in dynamic range..
Bloody brilliant 85mm 1.4G
Option of AA filter or no AA filter.

RacerXPhoto wrote:

Look at Med Format

The d800 has more dynamic range than MF digital.

MF film... well that's another story

Fred Greissing wrote:

The d800 has more dynamic range than MF digital.

MF film... well that's another story

Heck, even 35mm film is another story

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
Thank you!  Seems some people crave attention sooo much that they have to start "This VS That" threads... 9 out of 10 times it isn't really to exchange honest and objective views, but rather to garner attention.  Sad when you think about it... reminds me of "Snooky" from Jersey Shore.

I love these threads, I want to know every pedantic detail about these cams as I shall soon own one of them and I also don't have a life LOL

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.

Ok, ok. We get the picture your a die hard fan of Nikon or at least
the D800 (over the 5d markIII)

They both don't look good at ISO 12,800.
For me, at least. I'll never shoot at ISO 12,800.
(I never go over 400) So 12,800 for me is reaching and ridiculous desperation on trying to get light, I just don't shoot that way.
(No disrespect to those who shoot high ISO, its just not my thing)

Its like a car with a MPH numbers, it does not mean you should go 160 MPH.
Instead of shooting a high ISO, I would choose the right lens (f1.4 aperture) than go higher on ISO. High ISO is my last resort, when the right lens is not at hand and there is no available light around. Even for a client I would not shoot at a high ISO. Even so, I would put the camera on a tripod and shoot at a low shutter speed.

I'm surprised you made this post and kinda shocked. You made your self clear on a previous post That you prefer the Nikon D800 over the 5d mark III.
Its like your digging your point even deeper like "You see? You see? Here's proof I'm right"

This subject is so over and burnt out, regardless of what camera come out on top.
Nikon is a great camera, I prefer Nikon 35mm over Canon 35mm.
But I will still use Canon DSLR (because I'm loyal? No...). I just prefer Canon.
(I also have a Nikon).

Nikon vs Canon? Who cares? .....
Stuff like this makes me want to dig out my Mamiya AF645.
(and............ I'm sure you'll have your two cents two about my Mamiya)
I can give you my reasons why I still prefer Canon over Nikon.
But thats not the point. I'm not here to argue..

ISO 12,800? I still can't believe you just did that.
Can see maybe a lower ISO comparison.
But why go that high to make a point?
(Its like this one does not look as crappy as the other one up close)

AJScalzitti wrote:
I love technology as much as the next tech nerd but these threads are getting out of hand.  Will any of this make my images more appealing to potential clients?  Will it make them interesting when I am having an off day?

No it won't.  A boring image at higher resolution is still boring, find me a camera that inspires me on an off day and I will shell out the cash.

These threads are discussing cameras, not images.

Philipe wrote:

Ok, ok. We get the picture your a die hard fan of Nikon or at least
the D800 (over the 5d markIII)

They both don't look good at ISO 12,800.
For me, at least. I'll never shoot at ISO 12,800.
(I never go over 400) So 12,800 for me is reaching and ridiculous desperation on trying to get light, I just don't shoot that way.
(No disrespect to those who shoot high ISO, its just not my thing)

Its like a car with a MPH numbers, it does not mean you should go 160 MPH.
Instead of shooting a high ISO, I would choose the right lens (f1.4 aperture) than go higher on ISO. High ISO is my last resort, when the right lens is not at hand and there is no available light around. Even for a client I would not shoot at a high ISO. Even so, I would put the camera on a tripod and shoot at a low shutter speed.

I'm surprised you made this post and kinda shocked. You made your self clear on a previous post That you prefer the Nikon D800 over the 5d mark III.
Its like your digging your point even deeper like "You see? You see? Here's proof I'm right"

This subject is so over and burnt out, regardless of what camera come out on top.
Nikon is a great camera, I prefer Nikon 35mm over Canon 35mm.
But I will still use Canon DSLR (because I'm loyal? No...). I just prefer Canon.
(I also have a Nikon).

Nikon vs Canon? Who cares? .....
Stuff like this makes me want to dig out my Mamiya AF645.
(and............ I'm sure you'll have your two cents two about my Mamiya)
I can give you my reasons why I still prefer Canon over Nikon.
But thats not the point. I'm not here to argue..

ISO 12,800? I still can't believe you just did that.
Can see maybe a lower ISO comparison.
But why go that high to make a point?
(Its like this one does not look as crappy as the other one up close)

Actually what's knocking around in my head... is do I want to buy both....

It seemed from what was being thrown around that the Canon was significantly better at high ISO.  Looks like they are close enough....

as far as iso 12,800 the noise is more evident so easier to compare.

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.

Going back to the original post, the thread started out about high ISO results. Given that I normally shoot at the native ISO 200 with my D300, and occasionally up to 800, I'm a bit bumfuzzled about why I might shoot at 12,800. Yes, I have a D800 on order, but I just don't think I'll ever be in a situation where I'll need eight stops more sensitivity than the standard 100 ISO for the D800 (or seven more on my D300).

Should I ever be in that situation, it will be nice that it's good at that ISO, but probably for most of us it won't be a real-world issue.

Fred Greissing wrote:
It's not about getting attention... it's about choosing the right tool or the best tool.

That said I shoot on all sorts of gear, sometimes Lo-Fi when it's the right look.

The right camera will make the image quality better, the rest depends on the photographer and all sorts of other variables.

Anyway the funny thing is I only said it "looks like" the noise is better with the D800 if you scale the image to match the scale of the 5d III. I also said it's far from definitive..... I have decided to get a d800 for the additional dynamic range and the better shadow detail... a bit closer to film. I was under the impression that the Canon was way better in low light, but it appears to be not that big of a difference.

I'm just weighing the differences.

A few things are making me decide for the Nikon.

Better shadows and dark skin tones.. {shadows on the skin}
Uncompressed video out..
Higher MP count without loss in dynamic range..
Bloody brilliant 85mm 1.4G
Option of AA filter or no AA filter.

Are you shooting video as well?

WCR3 wrote:

Going back to the original post, the thread started out about high ISO results. Given that I normally shoot at the native ISO 200 with my D300, and occasionally up to 800, I'm a bit bumfuzzled about why I might shoot at 12,800. Yes, I have a D800 on order, but I just don't think I'll ever be in a situation where I'll need eight stops more sensitivity than the standard 100 ISO for the D800 (or seven more on my D300).

Should I ever be in that situation, it will be nice that it's good at that ISO, but probably for most of us it won't be a real-world issue.

Sometimes I shoot photoshoots that are a story of sorts. There are times when I want to trow in a couple of shots in some dark hallway or something ... just to get from one place to the other. having high iso comes in handy for that.

Also with a portrait series. I remember one time I shot Iggy Pop. He was peering at a cell phone screen in a dark hallway. The light from the screen looked un canny on his face. Unfortunatly ISO 1250 did not cut it.

Generally I stay away from high iso due to the lack of dynamic range at higher ISO.
Also I generally need high ISO when most of the photo is going to be deep shadows. Good blacks while in high ISO mode is important to me.

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.

Philipe wrote:
Ok, ok. We get the picture your a die hard fan of Nikon or at least the D800 (over the 5d markIII)

Actually, I think Fred currently shoots Canon and Medium format.  I think he is trying to wrap his hands around the D800.  He's trying to decide what it really is amd whether he should now be adding it to his toolbox.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Since this thread is about noise.

Here is another interesting site:

Translated.
http://translate.google.com/translate?s … sch-bereik

Pulled shadow detail from a 4 stop underexposed NEF looks very good to my eyes (bottom left > bottom right window)

I'm getting tired of looking at all the shadow/dynamic range threads

I'd like to assess the Nikon under my own work flow/conditions. Love to see some clean beauty work with this cam, maybe in 2 months time????

sigh.....

Robb Mann wrote:
The fact that ISO performance at 12,800 is even debatable between the 5DIII & D800 pretty much means that Canon blew it. Low-light performance is a key 5DIII feature, Not so the Nikon.

Not necessarily. Fact is, Canon did improve low light performance over the Mk II by a significant amount, essentially matching the performance of the D3s sensor with nearly twice as many pixels.

I'm hopeful this will finally shut up the whiners who say that more pixels leads to worse high ISO performance. That's never been true, and the D800 should settle that once and for all.

Robb Mann wrote:
Why on Earth Canon waited to release the New 5D is a complete mystery. Supposedly it was ready to go months ago, which is why supplies are so high.

Tell that to the people who've pre-ordered from B&H.

Canon's always had ample supplies of hot new cameras on launch. I've never had any trouble getting a Canon within a week of introduction, and that includes some extremely popular cameras.

Nikon, on the other hand, has a history of very tight supplies for the first few months.

The Visual Effect  wrote:
Just curious if any one shoots anything for profit at this ISO? 


JD

Yes.

The Visual Effect  wrote:
Just curious if any one shoots anything for profit at this ISO? 
JD

Not me. Max I will go is ISO3200 for a wedding. I MAY use 6400 on my 1dx (when it's finally released) but I don't want any more noise than that which 3200 on my 5dii produces. 6400 may help me get a little more DOF when I really want it so could be useful.

I know when I'm evaluating a camera I look at "good enough". By that I don't mean "poor" I just mean that it does what I need it to.  It's stops me from looking at things which I just don't need and concentrate on the differences which will actually benefit me.

5d3
ISO: Good enough
DR: Good enough
Card slots: Nearly good enough - I'd really prefer two CF
FPS: Good enough
Auto WB: Good enough
Metering: Good enough
AF: Nearly good enough (the faster focussing of the 1dx will be of benefit at times)
AF tracking: Not good enough
Buffer: Not good enough
Handling: Nearly good enough (I really like the idea of the custom buttons for switching modes quickly)
....and so on...

The few things noted as not good enough were the reasons I decided on the 1dx over the 5d3, but they were things I could have lived without if needed and that was a call I made.

Everyones list is different..

Robb Mann wrote:
The fact that ISO performance at 12,800 is even debatable between the 5DIII & D800 pretty much means that Canon blew it. Low-light performance is a key 5DIII feature, Not so the Nikon.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Not necessarily. Fact is, Canon did improve low light performance over the Mk II by a significant amount, essentially matching the performance of the D3s sensor with nearly twice as many pixels.

I am not sure that is a fact at all.  Even the new D4 isn't quite up to the same capability as the D3s (at least according to DXOmark).  The D800 came in better with dynamic range, etc, but it's low light performance was somewhat less.

You are saying that the 5D III is equal to the D3s because  it offers the same ISO ranges as it.  Until we get full sensor testing, we won't know how it really shapes up in performance.

The Nikon D3X isn't known as a high ISO camera, yet according to DXO mark, it had a more sensitive sensor in terms of low light capability than the 5D II.  Canon achieves some of their high ISO capability through effective noise reduction rather than sensor sensitivity.

I think the point being made here is not that Canon did a bad job.  They obviously didn't.  I think Canon did a great job.  I think people are just sruprised that we are debating this at all.  Nobody woudl have expected it from a 36mp camea.

In the meantime, I would like to wait to see the DXO mark testing before I talk facts.  Right now, it is all anecdotal.  I know that DXOmark has their limitations.  Theri results are, what they are.  It does give us one more piece of information to use to evaluate cameras, even if it is not perfect.

Once we have the testing, we will be able to talk about this with less poking and more emperical data.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Here is what I did:



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

I did the same test and so far I did not get the same results. By my math, to reduce the 36mp image to match the 22mp image, I used 80% (could be 79%, or somewhere in between) in the "image size" function in photoshop. The resulting crop is very nearly identical in size to the 5dmk3.

After making that reduction, the noise in my example appears to be chunkier and less attractive in the d800 sample. I didn't get anywhere near as clean of a file as you got and have no idea how you achieved such good results. Did you convert from RAW? If so, are you sure you applied the same degree (or lack thereof) of noise reduction? I'll see if I can post my results later, but I can say they are quite contrary so far. I'm going to try a few different variations from the RAW files to see if the results vary, but so far I'd say they look nearly identical, with slightly chunkier noise pattern in the d800.

K E S L E R wrote:
I'm always suspicious about these comparisons.  More now than ever.  Not because they favor Nikon or Canon, thats irrelevant.

Is it even fair to take a comparison from a camera with 66% more resolution?  Thats like me taking a 10MP file and blow it up to a 18MP and comparing it to my 7D.   I can almost guarantee the 18MP native sensor is going to have more detail. 

High noise?  Like the saying goes... re size it for web and no one will notice... or in Nikon's case, resize to 22mp

If theres going to be a sensor comparison, it should be the D4 vs the MD3, no?

Agreed.

I'll chime in with this: I've been shooting professionally for 5 years, and nearly 5 years before that periodically. I've gone to a variety of workshops/seminars etc. and never fail to hear this from people "I rarely ever shoot over ISO 800". That's coming from professionals a lot.

I get that high ISO is important to the sports and wedding crowd. There is also a definite application for photojournalists.

What I don't get are the people who bitch about high ISO and then you look at their portfolio and everything looks shot at 100 to 400.

Most of the new camera bodies recently released are pretty good right up to 6400...I think the only real differences are features.

iseethelightman wrote:

Agreed.

I'll chime in with this: I've been shooting professionally for 5 years, and nearly 5 years before that periodically. I've gone to a variety of workshops/seminars etc. and never fail to hear this from people "I rarely ever shoot over ISO 800". That's coming from professionals a lot.

I get that high ISO is important to the sports and wedding crowd. There is also a definite application for photojournalists.

What I don't get are the people who bitch about high ISO and then you look at their portfolio and everything looks shot at 100 to 400.

Most of the new camera bodies recently released are pretty good right up to 6400...I think the only real differences are features.

I don't think this comparison or 99% of the comparisons out there between the 5D3 vs D800 even cares about real world use.

Its about sensor.  A sensor 66% larger than what its being compared to...  But seriously, I'd love to see this sensor comparison between the D4 vs the 5D3.

K E S L E R wrote:

I don't think this comparison or 99% of the comparisons out there between the 5D3 vs D800 even cares about real world use.

Its about sensor.  A sensor 66% larger than what its being compared to...  But seriously, I'd love to see this sensor comparison between the D4 vs the 5D3.

A good point again. Most of the test/comparisons are from sources shooting books, bottle, toys etc..and then there are the people taking pictures of their cats and dogs. I'm really interested in seeing day to day work from a professional using these new camera bodies.

There is one shooter (wedding) Spencer Boerup who recently gave his thoughts on using the new Canon. One of the better reviews so far. Haven't seen any for either Nikon models that I would consider to be as good.

iseethelightman wrote:

Agreed.

I'll chime in with this: I've been shooting professionally for 5 years, and nearly 5 years before that periodically. I've gone to a variety of workshops/seminars etc. and never fail to hear this from people "I rarely ever shoot over ISO 800". That's coming from professionals a lot.

I get that high ISO is important to the sports and wedding crowd. There is also a definite application for photojournalists.

What I don't get are the people who bitch about high ISO and then you look at their portfolio and everything looks shot at 100 to 400.

Most of the new camera bodies recently released are pretty good right up to 6400...I think the only real differences are features.

What people show in their MM profiles does not necessarily reflect what they need a camera to do as a professional. My profile is of work I never get paid for, while the work I do get paid for is considerably different and varied. While I also don't shoot over ISO 800 (or even 100 for that matter) very often, I do get several jobs per year where clean ISO 6400 would be an absolute advantage. Given the option of increasing shutter speeds and shooting at higher ISOs, there are definitely jobs where I would put that option to good use. An example is that I sometimes shoot events where there are keynote speakers in dimly lit stage conditions with background screens for powerpoint type presentations. Shooting with a 300mm lens for closeups, you would always prefer to shoot at 1/500th instead of 1/250th or even 1/125 on cameras with similar ISO 3200 output to that of the mk3 or d800. These are not uncommon applications for working pros, so the ability to shoot usable ISO 12800 files is not trivial.

Similarly, I sometimes shoot sporting events for charity fundraisers where I'm currently stuck with 200mm at f2.8, 1/250th and ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 depending on the venue. Shooting at 1/500th more than doubles the keeper rate due to the fast motion of the sports being shot. Not all sporting events are held at venues with good lighting or strobes like the pro arenas have, so again a usable ISO 12800 shot is invaluable.

What is even more useful is having that capability in the same body that you can walk into the studio and shoot tabletop work with, then go on site to shoot corporate portraits with, and then go on to shoot architectural work with. I think for a large group of working photographers, that is the kind of variety that has to be accomplished in order to make a living freelancing.

The Visual Effect  wrote:
Just curious if any one shoots anything for profit at this ISO? 


JD

No is the answer.

These discussions about super high ISO are about as useful as a cock flavoured lollipop!

The Canon offering is not even in the same league as the D800, it's a freakin toy!

iseethelightman wrote:

A good point again. Most of the test/comparisons are from sources shooting books, bottle, toys etc..and then there are the people taking pictures of their cats and dogs. I'm really interested in seeing day to day work from a professional using these new camera bodies.

There is one shooter (wedding) Spencer Boerup who recently gave his thoughts on using the new Canon. One of the better reviews so far. Haven't seen any for either Nikon models that I would consider to be as good.

Hmm... Think I might write up a review on the 5D3 as well, real world perspective where the sensor alone is worthless without all the other functions/ features of the camera.  Everything has to work in perfect harmony to capture/ deliver the best images possible, and most of all, make the photographers job easier.

curiosa des yeux wrote:

What people show in their MM profiles does not necessarily reflect what they need a camera to do as a professional. My profile is of work I never get paid for, while the work I do get paid for is considerably different and varied. While I also don't shoot over ISO 800 (or even 100 for that matter) very often, I do get several jobs per year where clean ISO 6400 would be an absolute advantage. Given the option of increasing shutter speeds and shooting at higher ISOs, there are definitely jobs where I would put that option to good use. An example is that I sometimes shoot events where there are keynote speakers in dimly lit stage conditions with background screens for powerpoint type presentations. Shooting with a 300mm lens for closeups, you would always prefer to shoot at 1/500th instead of 1/250th or even 1/125 on cameras with similar ISO 3200 output to that of the mk3 or d800. These are not uncommon applications for working pros, so the ability to shoot usable ISO 12800 files is not trivial.

Similarly, I sometimes shoot sporting events for charity fundraisers where I'm currently stuck with 200mm at f2.8, 1/250th and ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 depending on the venue. Shooting at 1/500th more than doubles the keeper rate due to the fast motion of the sports being shot. Not all sporting events are held at venues with good lighting or strobes like the pro arenas have, so again a usable ISO 12800 shot is invaluable.

What is even more useful is having that capability in the same body that you can walk into the studio and shoot tabletop work with, then go on site to shoot corporate portraits with, and then go on to shoot architectural work with. I think for a large group of working photographers, that is the kind of variety that has to be accomplished in order to make a living freelancing.

Read my first comment on the subject of High ISO.

I don't disagree with the need for better sensors..it's a natural progression. My point was that better comparison in images from the new camera's would be appreciated. To the point of comparing a 36mp image at ISO 6400 and beyond isn't very helpful when the base of reference is a 22mp body. And I don't make buying decisions based on shots of empty wine bottles or cats and dogs..or fences and mailboxes. I wanna see these things on an equal comparison basis in a real world situation such as you described with corporate events.

Just something else...the work many people display here is absolutely representative of what they "want" you to see of their work. Otherwise there would be no point. Most of that work falls into the range of ISO 100 to 800..know why? because we all pixel peep, regardless of what we say.  They would rather not take a shot because the lighting doesn't allow for low ISO and high shutter speed. So opinions on noise at high ISO isn't too helpful from people like that.

K E S L E R wrote:

I don't think this comparison or 99% of the comparisons out there between the 5D3 vs D800 even cares about real world use.

Its about sensor.  A sensor 66% larger than what its being compared to...  But seriously, I'd love to see this sensor comparison between the D4 vs the 5D3.

I think it's a pretty fair comparison (mk3 to d800) because the pricing of both cameras is essentially targeting the same buyer. The D4 may be more similar in MP, but it is also considerably more expensive. I think the bottom line is how much camera are you getting for your money. It is pretty clear that both cameras are getting to the point where they really don't have many downsides to consider. Both are very capable, and it becomes a matter of whether the extra resolution is useful to you, or is the extra file size more of a negative. From my testing of both RAW files in Lightroom, the d800 takes nearly twice as long to deal with and I've got a very fast desktop. The mk3 files load and render nearly instantly, while the d800 files take a couple seconds with the turning cursor before they render.

For an event type application, it may be a serious consideration given that there are often thousands of files generated. I've shot corporate events that go through 3 or 4 days with several thousand participants, with a solid 8-10 hours of shooting per day. In those cases, I get in the neighborhood of 2000-3000 shots per day depending on how active and large the group is. With the extremely mixed lighting in those venues, I would never feel comfortable shooting JPEGs, so the difference between the amount of data captured between the mk3 and the d800 is not a small thing to consider. As I understand it, there is no sRAW or mRAW type option on the d800, which I think it really needs.

K E S L E R wrote:

I don't think this comparison or 99% of the comparisons out there between the 5D3 vs D800 even cares about real world use.

Its about sensor.  A sensor 66% larger than what its being compared to...  But seriously, I'd love to see this sensor comparison between the D4 vs the 5D3.

Sensor size or MP's?  Aren't the sensors the same size?

London Fog wrote:

No is the answer.

These discussions about super high ISO are about as useful as a cock flavoured lollipop!

The Canon offering is not even in the same league as the D800, it's a freakin toy!

You are speaking for everyone?

The real answer used to be no, because it has not historically been available at a quality level that was acceptable. I would say the answer from this point foward is yes, because the quality at ISO 12,800 is clearly at a level that is acceptable for professional deliverables. I would estimate that, in the near future, 10% of my paid work will be shot at ISO 12,800. For those who shoot weddings, they may shoot as much as 25% or more of their work at those ISOs.