A Biased Evaluation of The Differences..., If only to have a limitless pocketbook. Options

[Quentin]

If the above statement from Michael's review is true, I wonder why it's true? I'm having trouble reconciling the following statement..As pros know all to well, great image quality, while important, does not trump handling deficiencies.

If great image quality does not trump handling deficiencies, why would anyone bother with large format cameras? Don't tell me an 8x10 field camera, a Mamiya RB67 or even a Mamiya ZD handles as well as any reasonably well designed 35mm camera. The point has been made more than once in this forum's MFDB section that those who spend $40,000 on a P45 do so because they are concerned primarily with absolute image quality; the maximum quality they can get.

However, I can understand that having got the image quality one desires or can afford, then the field of dicussion can be narrowed down to ergonomic issues and additional features which are useful, such as the auto ISO feature of the D3. I can't understand why Canon has not long since introduced this feature, as well as ISO bracketing, considering they have, till now, been the leader in low noise at high ISO.

I guess you could say its partly true, when appled to cameras in the same technical ballpark. An 8x10 camera handles so differently from a 35mm camera there can be no basis for a real comparison; the whole concept of "handling" becomes somewhat redundant.

I think Canon had become complacent. Nikon have bided their time and produced a knockout product.

Quentin

[Rob C]

Indeed! I think it's a difficult profession and even more difficult for the photographer who tries to run the business himself. A business is a business, photographic or otherwise, and one needs a partner with some business acumen to run it. I would never attempt to be a one-man band.

I sometimes think maybe I should get my own website and advertise a few photos for sale. Who Knows! Someone might like a few. Then I have second thoughts. Do I really want the responsibility of producing prints on demand, filling out GST (VAT) forms, being available to reply to emails, queries, complaints etc?

I don't think so. However, if some nice, attractive, well-connected and competent young lady would like to apply for the job of handling the non-picture-taking aspects for me, be an agent, oranizer and accountant, I'd certainly reconsider  .

Ray, would a nice, attractive, well-connected and competent young transvestite do instead? I´m sure you could find one quite easily...

That was said in jest, but in all seriousness, perhaps it would be a touch of bloody sales magic: think of some of the mega art buyers and convince me I´m wrong!

Rob C

[Ray]

I guess you could say its partly true, when appled to cameras in the same technical ballpark.  An 8x10 camera handles so differently from a 35mm camera there can be no basis for a real comparison; the whole concept of "handling" becomes somewhat redundant.

Quentin,
If the cameras are in the same technical ballpark, then image quality is likely to be very similar, therefore I can understand that image quality is not so much of an issue and conversation would revolve more around the different features, handling and ergonomics etc. One can't have much of a conversation about differences that don't exist.

But I think that Michael's statement, 'great image quality.... does not trump handling deficiences' just seems wrong to me as a general rule. There are some instances where it doesn't, as in the cases where a professional photographer might use 35mm format or the Olympus 4/3rds format instead of an MFDB, or in the old days of film, 6x7cm format instead of 4x5".

In fact, as I recall there used to be quite a bit of debate amongst professional photographers as to whether the extra image quality of 4x5" film compared with 6x7cm film was worth the additional handling difficulties of 4x5. For some it was; a clear case of image quality trumping handling deficienceies. For some it wasn't; a clear case of handling efficiency trumping image quality.

I imagine there will now be similar concerns amongst professionals who are currently using a ZD or P21 and wondering if they should upgrade to a P45 or get a Canon 1Ds3 for it's easier handling and additional features. I could be wrong, but I doubt that those who decide to upgrade to a P45+ will do so primarily because of ergonomic, handling and other additional features.

[Rob C]

I have to agree with Ray and also Micheal, even though they do, in part, seem to take opposite positions; also, the thing to remember about photographers and equipment in the context of press work (as well as much other, come to think of it) is that format was often IMPOSED on them by editors who really didn´t know squat about cameras. Of course nobody with experience of both, and of sound mind, would choose to go 4x5 (in those fields) if a Rollei was available, even as he´d eschew the PF60 in favour of the electronic lightning bolt.

In one of his books David Bailey mentions having an early Vogue assignment in New York where he´d been told to use 4x5; interestingly, and to his credit, he shot on 35mm and then made 4x5 dupes with which to dupe the editorial department. It worked, which goes to how how much editors really know...

So perhaps the truth is that each photographer instinctively knows what suits him best for which job and bases his judgement on that, regardless of purely technical considerations or mantras such as big being better. Let´s face it - most pros do own more than one format. Or should that be in the days of film most pros owned more than one format?

Rob C

This post has been edited by Rob C: Jan 12 2008, 12:52 PM

[jorgedelfino]

Interesting article, last week all my canon equipment was stolen (1Ds2 and 40D bodies, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2,8, 50 1,4, etc, etc)... I'm considering nikon now as a future sistem replacement.
Like MR, I was I nikon user till the mid 90's

[John Sheehy]

Michael,

Thanks for your insight.

One reason the D3 is offering selectable 14/12 bit depth might be the increased file sizes produced in 14bits. Remember one of the main target markets for the D3 is PJ's where the trade-off would not always be towards IQ (especially if talking about hard to see differences).

The 12-bit versions may be read out a bit faster into the ADC, as they have more banding noise than the 14-bit versions, even when the 14-bit versions are quantized to 12 bits, in the D300 paired images I looked at.

I really think that people sit around in these big corporations and decide how to time things like the introduction of 14 bits; they wait until some other improvement comes along, and then marry the 14-bit depth with it in a camera release, so that everyone attributes the improvements to the extra bits, so that next time they can use more bits to make people feel that a big IQ advantage comes along with it.

Ideally, I think the camera should offer two different speeds of readout, but the option for bit depth in the slower speed should be a separate option, too, as the signal content of the extra 2 bits is infinitessimal in current cameras, with their analog noise levels. There seems to be a current technology wall on read noise levels; the best performers at ISO 100, like the Canon 1D*mk3 series, the Nikon D3, the Fuji S* cameras, the Phase P30, and probably others, all have almost *exactly* the same read noise, relative to maximum signal, at their lowest full-DR ISO (100 usually), about 0.035%.

12 bits is more than enough to handle the usable signal content here, but packaging it in a higher bit depth, with extra bits (despite the fact that they are almost all noise) forces converters to use more precision in processing the images, and converters do a *lot* of math on RAW data, in series. I believe that any useful benefit of the extra bits (beyond 12) at this point in time could be had if the extra bits were just binary "1000" for 16-bit, and "10" for 14-bit. If I made decisions at a company, knowing what I know, and being as honest as I am, I would offer users the option of reducing stored bits to significant bits only, while all the time maintaining 16-bit working precision with pads of "10" and 1000" and even "10000" for high ISOs with higher noise. IOW, the encoding scheme in the RAW file would automatically append a binary "1" and then enough zeros to make each pixel 16 bits, after decompressing the reduced-bit data. For example, for ISO 1600 on a camera that had no special "high ISO" circuitry, where ISO 1600 would have 15x the read noise of ISO 100, I would use only 8 bits of data in the main encoding, but the decoding process would would append "10000000" to it, making it 16-bit as it is decoded. Extra precision would be available (overkill), but that really doesn't slow down any converter that's loading everything as 16-bit anyway, as ACR does; it aligns input data to their internal data by the LSBs, rather than the MSBs. IOW, ACR loads a 12-bit RAW "xxxx xxxx xxxx" as "0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx" rather than "xxxx xxxx xxxx 1000". When you have a 16-bit RAW, and the least 4 significant bits are all noise ("n"), ACR loads them as "xxxx xxxx xxxx nnnn", hence, automatically giving the extra precision to work in. This, I believe, may be the only reason 14-bit or 16-bit RAW data may give more tones in the output (if they are not attributable to other things) with current cameras and their noise limits.

[Graeme Nattress]

When RAW decoding I immediately bump the data precision to 16bit or float - it does make a difference.

Graeme

[jjj]

At our monthly Pro Photographer meet last week, 2 of our crew had their new toys a D300 + a D3. The D3 owner also brought along A3 prints taken at 3200 + above. They were very impressive indeed. This is where Digital goes way beyond Film's capabilities.

18 months ago I was photographing an event one of my Nikon using photographer colleagues was also covering. I used a 5D at 1600 ISO and a 16-35mm f2.8 and he had a D2X, not sure of lens. I was just able to get good quality hand held shots and he had to stand further back [crop sensor limitations] and struggled to get sharp shots as he was having to use 800ISO and was lacking the f2.8 as well. I was shooting at 160th/f3.2 he was using [I'd guess] 60th/f3.5 and it was a fast dance performance. He was very tempted to get a Canon after that for the FF, fast W/A lenses and high speed performance as he felt he was penalised by his Nikon's shortcoming with regard to low light wideangle photography.
The reason I mention this now is the D3 has meant my friend can now buy a Nikon that is excellent at high ISO and also at very high ISOs too, judging by the A3 images I looked at and they've introduced an F2.8 w/a zoom. Still no 24mm f1.4 though!
Heck if all my kit was stolen tomorrow, Nikon would now get some very serious consideration, whereas before they weren't even an option.
Let's hope this wakes Canon up. They have had it too good for too long and have become complacent IMHO.

But I still think Canon's handling is better. I've never held a Nikon that felt that comfy even before I used Canon full time and was part of the reason I chose Canon when my OM2s and OM4s got too old for serious use. And with the digital cameras a manual even for basic things, seems more of a necessity than with Canon.

[John Sheehy]

Heck if all my kit was stolen tomorrow, Nikon would now get some very serious consideration, whereas before they weren't even an option.
Let's hope this wakes Canon up. They have had it too good for too long and have become complacent IMHO.

I don't know where people get the idea that the D3 is better than any Canon in low light. It's better than the 5D (in both shot noise and read noise), and even the 1Dmk3 (if only for shot noise), but the 1Dsmk3 collects similar photon levels as the D3, maybe a hair less, but has a lot more pixels with about the same read noise. The "edge" that the D3 seems to have over the 1Dsmk3 in some people's eyes, is nothing but noise reduction, IMO.

What is needed is two RAW files of the same scene from the same tripod, shot with the same lens (manual aperture, if possible, and tripod-mounted), manual shutter speed, the same on both cameras with an exposure index of 51,200 with the D3 set to that and the 1Dsmk3 set to its highest ISO (3200, IIRC), and comparing straightforward homogenous conversions in DCRAW or IRIS. The 1Dsmk3 will have an edge, IMO.

I myself stated that the D3 was the best low-light camera at the time of its introduction, but I wasn't expecting Canon to increase quantum efficiency and reduce high-ISO read noise in the 1Dsmk3 as much as they did.

[Mort54]

I don't know where people get the idea that the D3 is better than any Canon in low light.

Well, I believe one source is Michael R. himself. Reread his section on noise in the article being discussed in this thread. Also, in the quick and dirty side by side shots between the D3 and 1DsIII in a recent LL workshop, the D3 turned in lower noise (Michael posted a short article on this also). Also, Lloyd Chambers, of DigitalLloyd, has done side by side comparisons of the D3, 1DsIII, and 1DIII, and stated (with regard to noise) "the Nikon D3 stands head and shoulders above anything I’ve ever used (including the EOS 1Ds Mark III and EOS 1D Mark III)". There are many others making similar claims. They can't all be wrong.

Anyone who has looked at the superb retention of detail in D3 high ISO images would dispute your contention that Nikon is only getting there by using noise reduction. They are using noise reduction above ISO 3200 (I believe I'm recallilng the right number), but so is everyone else. Canon is a master at applying noise reduction. The main reason the D3 excells so well at low noise, however, isn't NR, it's their large photosite size. That was the tradeoff they made by staying at 12 MP. They sacrificed resolution to get low noise. Since the D3 is primarily targeted at PJs and sports shooters, that was the right tradeoff for Nikon to make. When the D3X (or whatever it's called) comes out, it will go the other way, and sacrifice noise performance to get resolution.

This post has been edited by Mort54: Jan 14 2008, 11:05 PM

[NikosR]

The 12-bit versions may be read out a bit faster into the ADC, as they have more banding noise than the 14-bit versions, even when the 14-bit versions are quantized to 12 bits, in the D300 paired images I looked at.

Absolutely nobody has reported any speed disadvantages of using 14bit vs 12 bit on the D3. You are probably confusing the D3 with the D300. My original comment was about the D3 of which Michael was wondering why Nikon provides the 12bit option. The only difference with regards to camera useability that I see is in the file size and that's what I have said. I have seen no reports comparing the buffer depth so I don't know about that (there might or might not be a noticeable difference there).

This post has been edited by NikosR: Jan 14 2008, 11:50 PM

[jjj]

I don't know where people get the idea that the D3 is better than any Canon in low light.  It's better than the 5D (in both shot noise and read noise), and even the 1Dmk3 (if only for shot noise)......

Whether it is or not that is true it is irrelevent to the comment that this was in reply to. Besides the prints I saw from the at ISOs higher than my 5D can do were very, very good. And as my camera cannot even shoot at those ISOs, the Nikon is going to have a slight edge....
The D3 is at last a viable non Canon viable alternative to the 5D/1DsIII, whereas Nikon's top dog before wasn't, due to poorer high ISO, no fast W/A lenses and not being full frame. And that was the point I was making as FF being more important to me than absolute resolution.
I saw some very decent real world tests of the 5D, 1DsII and 1DsIII a short while ago and quite frankly I wouldn't have paid the extra £3000 for the marginal increase on offer with the 1DsII. I'm not a studio photographer and the 1Ds is too much like a MF film camera in size and weight for my liking anyway. My idea of a nice sized camera is the OM1-4 series. Smaller and with bigger viewfinders than cameras, 30 yrs younger. I would probably go for a Hasselblad over a 1DsIII.

The main reason the D3 excells so well at low noise, however, isn't NR, it's their large photosite size. That was the tradeoff they made by staying at 12 MP. They sacrificed resolution to get low noise. Since the D3 is primarily targeted at PJs and sports shooters, that was the right tradeoff for Nikon to make. When the D3X (or whatever it's called) comes out, it will go the other way, and sacrifice noise performance to get resolution.

And this is why the 5D is so good when compared to its more expensive brethren, Nikon obviously paid attention to this lesson.

[Mort54]

The D3 is at last a viable non Canon viable alternative to the 5D

Such unbiased commentary - it warms my heart :-) Lacking a viable alternative, Nikon had to settle for just gaining market share. The poor saps.

Nikon obviously paid attention to this lesson.

I think the laws of physics are well known, even by Nikon. The good news is Nikon avoided all of the 5D inadequacies in designing the D3 :-) Maybe now Canon is the "grasshopper".

And as my camera cannot even shoot at those ISOs, the Nikon is going to have a slight edge....

And also a "slight" edge at all of the ISOs the 5D can shoot at . The 5D was a great sensor in its day, tho it was hobbled in many other ways. Now its been trumped by the 1DIII, 1DsIII, the 40D, and the D3 (also by the D300 on all around excellence, tho not on noise, obviously). I expect great things from the 5D II, however.

[John Sheehy]

Well, I believe one source is Michael R. himself. Reread his section on noise in the article being discussed in this thread. Also, in the quick and dirty side by side shots between the D3 and 1DsIII in a recent LL workshop, the D3 turned in lower noise (Michael posted a short article on this also). Also, Lloyd Chambers, of DigitalLloyd, has done side by side comparisons of the D3, 1DsIII, and 1DIII, and stated (with regard to noise) "the Nikon D3 stands head and shoulders above anything I’ve ever used (including the EOS 1Ds Mark III and EOS 1D Mark III)". There are many others making similar claims. They can't all be wrong.

Yes, they can. They can all be persuaded by NR, or improper viewing techniques.

Anyone who has looked at the superb retention of detail in D3 high ISO images would dispute your contention that Nikon is only getting there by using noise reduction.

I never said anything like that. I said that the apparent edge of the D3 over the 1Dsmk3 is NR. Without NR, the D3 is still the #2 low noise camera.

They are using noise reduction above ISO 3200 (I believe I'm recallilng the right number), but so is everyone else. Canon is a master at applying noise reduction.

Huh? Canon is the master of refusing to apply noise reduction! They are one of the few companies that leave substantial chromatic noise in their JPEGs, and most commercial converters lean their conversions a bit towards the manufacturer's style.

The main reason the D3 excells so well at low noise, however, isn't NR, it's their large photosite size. That was the tradeoff they made by staying at 12 MP. They sacrificed resolution to get low noise.

That's a myth. A lot of the pixel science going around these days is a lot of hot air. Big pixels only give less image noise when you are scaling the pixels and the sensor size at the same time, and this affects shot noise, not read noise. Read noise tends to be more related to the technology than the geometry. Read noise per pixel is generally remaining the same or getting lower with higher pixel densities. The smaller each pixel is, relative to the entire image, the less detrimental its noise is. A RAW from almost any high-MP P&S has less image read noise than any crop of the same size from a D3 or a 1Dsmk3. Some would even have similar or even less image shot noise. Some high-MP P&S cameras have less pixel read noise than some DSLRs.

If you are subdividing the same sensor size into various pixel densities, you only get more image noise with small pixels when the fill factor starts to drop and/or there are weak or absent microlenses, and/or the readout is too hasty and consequently noisy.

Since the D3 is primarily targeted at PJs and sports shooters, that was the right tradeoff for Nikon to make. When the D3X (or whatever it's called) comes out, it will go the other way, and sacrifice noise performance to get resolution.

There really isn't such a trade-off, unless you are fixated on individual pixels, or think that images must be displayed at the same PPI.

[John Sheehy]

Absolutely nobody has reported any speed disadvantages of using 14bit vs 12 bit on the D3. You are probably confusing the D3 with the D300.

I'm not confusing them. I clearly stated that my observation was with the D300, just in case they were different in this respect.

[Mort54]

John, you have an interesting take on things. Whatever the reason, I'll still take a D3 over a 1DIII and 5D. The noise is better, and the IQ isn't sacrificed to get the low noise. Your joking about Canon not applying NR, right?

P.S. Aren't we lucky to have such great cameras (5D, 1DIII, 1DsIII, D300, D3) to choose from? Basically these little fan boy pissing contests, like the one we're having, are just us arguing about nits. Regarding the things that matter, if you can't take a good photo with any of these cameras, the problem isn't the camera. In the final analysis, you like Canon, and I like Nikon. That's a pretty boring debate. There must be better and more important things for both of us to argue over :-)

Regards,
Mort.

This post has been edited by Mort54: Jan 15 2008, 03:23 PM

[Ray]

As one who is primarily interested in real and tangible improvements in image quality at the RAW level (when buying a new camera), I'm a bit disappointed at the comparisons so far made amongst the D3, 5D and 1Ds3.

It's just not clear to me how substantial the differences really are after other available measures have been taken to clean up the images in cases where one camera has applied a different or greater degree of in-camera noise reduction.

For example, Ken Rockwell's site shows a good comparison of D3 and 5D images at ISO 3200. I believe both images were given the same exposure, which means the D3 image would be slightly underexposed compared with the 5D shot, yet the D3 shot definitely appears cleaner, although both images are equally detailed and sharp.

One might easily jump to the conclusion, on viewing such a comparison, that the D3 has leaped ahead of Canon regarding high ISO noise, and this might well be true. However, if the reason the D3 image looks cleaner is due to in-camera reduction of chroma noise, which the 5D has not applied, then I need to see what software reduction of chroma noise can do for the 5D image.

For all I know, Noise Ninja might be able to get the 5D shot looking very close to the D3 shot. I believe removal of chroma noise does not destroy resolution to the same extent as removal of luminance noise.

The same thing applies to the D3's ultra high ISO settings. If you're comparing high ISO noise, it seems to me a cop-out to declare, "Sorry we couldn't show you the 5D (or 1Ds3) at ISO 25,600. These camera's don't do that." Have such reviewers never heard of the concept of 'push processing'?

What seems to be happening here is that marketing hype is getting mixed up with the facts. It might well be the case that the real advantages of the D3 lie not so much in any significant and fundamentally lower noise at high ISO, than the 1Ds3 and perhaps even the 5D, but with the ease and facility of getting good results at such high ISOs.

It's clearly an advantage to have good in-camera reduction of chroma noise, especially if it does a better job than software such as Noise Ninja. If time is money and especially if one is shooting in jpeg mode, then ISO settings of 6400 to 25,600 are useful.

[michael]

I'm traveling at the moment, so I'll keep this relatively brief.

I have not written about, nor published, anything about the D3's high ISO capability, though I have been shooting with one now for about 3 weeks. I simply haven't had time.

But, having said that, it doesn't mean that I haven't done a great deal of shooting at high ISO with the D3, nor formed any initial opinions. I have.

So here, completely anecdotally at this point, is what I see, and keep in mind that I also own and shoot with a 1Ds MKIII, a 5D, and have shot hundreds of thousands of frames with all of the previous Canon pro cameras as well.

The Nikon D3 is a significant step up in high ISO image quality over any other camera from any other company. My guess is that it represents a real world improvement of at least 2 stops over anything I've yet worked with or seen.

Shots up to a real ISO 3200 need hardly any post camera noise reduction, and the differences between 400, 800 and 1600 are quite small and incremental. And though some would apparently wish it were otherwise this low noise capability is definitely not done at the expense of image detail.

ISO 3200 and 6400 usually require a bit of external noise smoothing, but a bit of Luminance NR in Lightroom or Camera Raw is all it takes, and the use of something like Noise Ninja or Noiseware Pro is unnecessary overkill for these speeds.

The two high settings, 12,800 and 25,600 are not real ISOs but are nevertheless real increases in usable sensitivity and seem to track very well. 12,800 needs some more aggressive noise clean up but usable / publishable images can be produced in colour. 25,600 has a lot of colour noise and to be cleaned up means that a lot of detail will be lost. But if you change to just luminance and can live with a B&W image, the luminance noise is surprisingly low and no worse than say Tri-X pushed to 1600 in an aggressive developer.

I'd add that there is a real difference between a camera's base level ISO, one of it's higher ISO sensitivity settings, one of its pushed settings, and pushing an image with raw processor controls. Each uses different technologies to achieve its ends. But to imply that a camera like the 5D can achieve the same results as a D3 by "push processing" simply ignores the fact that this can then also be done to the D3's images. ISO 50,000 anyone?

Doing these comparisons so that ones approach and methodologies are bullet-proof and beyond criticism is a muggs game. It simply can't be done. I've tried enough times over the years to know this first hand. It's a losing proposition.

But, that doesn't mean that together with other knowledgeable and reliable observers it isn't possible to come up with some generally sound opinions. That's the case at this early stage with the Nikon D3. I know what I see, and I've now been working closely with enough other photographers (most of them well known Canon shooters) who say that they see see much the same thing, and who are therefore in general agreement that the D3 is an all-around improvement at high ISO of about 2 stops over anything else we've shot with, and maybe three stops over anything other than the best of the rest.

Sometimes bumble bees actually can fly even though the aeronautical engineers say that their wing surface area and power to weight ratio prove that they can't.

Michael

[Ray]

I'd add that there is a real difference between a camera's base level ISO, one of it's higher ISO sensitivity settings, one of its pushed settings, and pushing an image with raw processor controls. Each uses different technologies to achieve its ends. But to imply that a camera like the 5D can achieve the same results as a D3 by "push processing" simply ignores the fact that this can then also be done to the D3's images. ISO 50,000 anyone?

Michael,
I don't really believe a 5D image with additional processing, software noise reduction etc, would equal the low noise of the D3 at high ISO, but rather the gap might be much less than it's currently made out to be. For example, if the D3 image has already undergone in-camera reduction of chroma noise, then not much purpose would be served by putting the image through another chroma noise reduction process, whereas the 5D image might benefit significantly from such a process without any noticeable loss of resolution.

An improvement of 2 stops over anything else you've shot with seems huge to me. If the upgrade to the 5D provides no additional pixels but a real 2 stop improvement in noise, ie. chroma noise, luminance noise and resolution at ISO 6400 on a par with the current 5D image quality at ISO 1600, I'd consider that a very worthwhile upgrade by itself.

[NikosR]

But, that doesn't mean that together with other knowledgeable and reliable observers it isn't possible to come up with some generally sound opinions. That's the case at this early stage with the Nikon D3. I know what I see, and I've now been working closely with enough other photographers (most of them well known Canon shooters) who say that they see see much the same thing, and who are therefore in general agreement that the D3 is an all-around improvement at high ISO of about 2 stops over anything else we've shot with, and maybe three stops over anything other than the best of the rest.

Sometimes bumble bees actually can fly even though the aeronautical engineers say that their wing surface area and power to weight ratio prove that they can't.

Michael

Why do I have this nasty feeling that some people will jump in asserting that what you and lots of other respected photogs are seeing is really 'the effects of NR' and demand proof in the form of raw data to be scrutinized with astrophotographer software?

As I said before in this thread, from the point of view of the photographer and not the engineer, I couldn't care less how something is done as long as it is done well.