Sounds just about perfect:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=27125455

I buy it, and I'll buy it.

Hmmm... what's left for the 1 series then? Makes the value proposition for the 1DS3 pretty weak.

No way.

This gives it away.

- Weather sealing same as 1Ds Mark III

So it has 4x the ISO range of the 1Ds Mark III, the same weather sealing, and 3x the pixels on the display on the back?

I ain't buying it. Someone is cherry picking specifications here.

That's the one thing that at first did seem a little suspect, and yet, if Canon wants it to be a D3-killer (and why not?) it makes sense. Personally I think it would be a brilliant call--they'll still get the people who would have bought a 1Ds III and they'll get a lot of people who might have bought a D3. And they'll get people who'll buy BOTH.

Plus, they're going to sell so many more multiples of a new 5D over the 1Ds III (just like with the current 5D over the Mk II) ) they may not "care".

Seems like the sort of camera Canon will have to deliver if it want's to take the lead back from Nikon. The 1Ds3 would still have the advantage of greater pixel count and 15.3mp is still slightly fewer than the 1Ds2.

An increase from the current 12.8mp of the 5D to 15.3mp is in line with the recent increases in Canon's cropped format; ie. 6mp to 8mp, 8mp to 10mp, 10mp to 12mp (450D). Such increases are not significant, but it's the other features that make the camera desirable.

I'd buy such a camera in a jiffy .

"micro lens fine adjustment for up to 14 lenses"

This gives it away as fake for me. Microlenses are patterned on the surface of the sensor chip and cannot be adjusted. Besides, it's microlenses, plural, not micro lens (minor point, but I notice these things).

Cheers.

I suppose he talks about autofocus micro adjustment.

yep... it would be read as "micro" lens-fine-adjustment... as in fine adjustment, in micro steps, of particular lenses.

Like the 5D made the 1Ds2 seem like a waste? Or what about the new Canon Rebel with 12MP after the release of the 10MP 40D? Canon does not care if cheaper bodies have competitive specs against their own flagship cameras. Pros know what they want. There is still a big difference between a 1Ds3 and this "new" 5D.

If and when this 5D upgrade is released, we'll be able to have long disputes about the real benefits of the 1Ds3. It'll be a field day for pixel peepers who'll no doubt have the opportunity to scrutinise crops of 400% enlargements and claim there's hardly any difference between the two cameras .

Such publicity is good for Canon. We should not forget that there can be no better advertisement for a camera than claims it is virtually as good as another camera costing over double the price.

I remember well the disputes over the differences between the 5D and the 1Ds2.

Not that I have a dog in the hunt, some of the dpreview regulars are questioning the OP's cred.

One speculated it was a teen looking for attention.

Guess you'll know on the 22nd.

bob

Right. There is more to a 1D series camera than the number of pixels.

Some stuff is obvious -- robust build, high capacity battery, vertical grip. Others are not so obvious. Take the very minor example of audio tagging of files. On the 1-D and 1-Ds series, I can hold down one button and talk into the back of the camera, recording names and locations for me or my editors to use in captions. This is a crucial part of our workflow, and one reason why a 40D or a 5D won't work. (Though they are otherwise decent cameras, and I own a 40D for personal use.)

It's not something most people need, but when you need it, you need it.

That 12-megapixel Rebel would last me about a week before I managed to smash it to pieces, BTW.

Still happy with my 1DS3 and the new 5D is hardly comparable, they still feel like toys.

There's little doubt in my mind that the original post was not well-sourced. But I still "believe" it--Canon will bring out a 5D replacement before Photokina, and the specs will be very close to those listed. This seems almost certain to me if it's true that the 5D has been OOP since November.

I also agree though that the main distinguishing factor other than MP count will still be pro-level durability for both body and shutter. WS may be upgraded but won't match 1 series.

I wasn't trying to rain on anyones parade. I've occasionally stop in at dpreview to see what the rabble are up to and to catch on the latest "hot rumor" going around. My experience is: that most aren't factual, though they are presented as such. People have unfortunately made financial decisions on the rumors that in the majority of cases just aren't true.

Most are based on some fact, right time in the cycle for a camera to be replaced, etc.

The majors just don't leak info out early to avoid shutting down sales in the field until actual delivery of the product.

Bob

Mmmm, here we all are speculating again:) I'm sure that everything will become clear, but really it seems unlikely that canon would release acamera that is better or equal in all respects than the flagship at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. Apart from anything else, there is a cost issue and the next 'budget' full frame (whatever it's called) will need to meet those constrainsts.

A separate issue is whether Canon will feel the need to replace the 1D3 this year with an 'n' version or a completely new version. If Canon inc considers that it needs full frame to compete with the Nikon D3 (which is really a 1D3 competitor not a 5D competitor) then there may be a new FF 15ish Mp sensor that could be used in both... 6 fps in a budget camera and 12 in a sportshooter?

Similarly, the market is improving the specs of slr's at all levels and so the '5D2' will be no exception, particularly as it sits 'above' the APS-C segment - it's really just a question of the economics and how far Canon, nikon et al are will ing to go towards making the pro camera's redundant...


Since I got my Ds3 I've been really pleased with it, and find it handles much better and more intuitively than my 5D, which I already thought was great. In comparison to the past we are very well served these days. Now to go and make some pictures!

Mike

as im waiting for an upgrade to the 5d i read these rumors and always want to believe them although hope often sucumbs to the law of diminishing returns. something about this post hits me as authentic, possibly a canon authorised post. i.e. they get someone to post to generate a buzz. the specs are pretty aggressive and obviously nod to the D3 in its noise features. im inclined to believe it because canon must have been watching the buzz around the D3 and the numbers who are wiling to jump ship if they havnt already. looking at their own product line and seeing that there was nothing there to compete. Prehaps they have decided to pull the launch date forward instead of photokina to stem the tide. some of my thoughts anyway

andrew stanney

Hey! You've got both a 5D and D3? You are just the right candidate to compare noise levels at high ISO. I was frustrated a while back, when in Bangkok, because I could only get my hands on a demo D3 in the Nikon store. They wouldn't let me borrow it. However, my rather hasty test shots of a dark corner in the store, using both the D3 and my 5D in RAW mode, indicated the actual D3 noise advantage was in the order of 1/3 to 2/3rds of a stop at most. Of course, there are lots of other upgraded features of the D3, but I find it curious that there are so few D3/5D comparisons, that is, proper and thorough comparisons that don't cop out by declaring, "the 5D is not capable of ISO 25,600 so we didn't compare cameras at these ISO's".

Ken Rockwell's is one of the few comparisons I came across during an internet search, but he shoots jpeg. He claims the D3 is now king of the castle in the noise department, but interestingly his 5D jpegs, after chroma-only noise reduction, looked just as good as the D3 jpegs, when I tried Noise Ninja. However, the D3 jpegs lost considerable resolution after applying the same degree of chroma noise reduction.

Can we say that the D3 is on honeymoon with regard to the critics, just as our new labour Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd?

Well, I believe he is saying he owns an 1DsIII and a 5D.

Ray, forgive me if I sound too critical but you seem so obsessed in proving whatever point you want to make regarding the high iso noise of D3 that you have started seeing things...

Get over it mate, 1/2 stop, 2/3 stop, 1 stop real difference in RAW it doesn't really matter to most people. The D3 is an excellent package and this is what's making many pro photogs wanting to own one. It is NOT (IMO) the absolute superiotity in High ISO noise, it's the fact that the camera offers AT LEAST as good noise performance as the competition combined with at least as good general IQ in RAW and absolute best in jpeg and all that in a body that offers the best functionality in its class. And yes, I will include the ability to set extremely high ISO in camera (as opposed to underexposing and overdeveloping) as well as very well behaved NR, in the functionality list if that will make you happier.

I have no doubts that Canon will have an answer to that sooner rather than later, but for now, most people would agree (and they are showing it with their wallets) that the D3 is probably the best all-around pro package out there.

Hi
I think the D3 is a good camera but why a 200 iso default? For serious studio work you need iso 100 & even the 5D has that.
Denis

You are forgiven, and I am seeing things.... photographic images.

You might consider me obsessed, but I believe I am not the only one who considers low noise, high ISO capability as a major attraction of any camera.

I actually prefer to take shots in low light conditions without using flash, if possible. I'm absolutely fascinated that any camera could deliver up to two stops lower noise than my 5D. If I were to believe that, you could be certain I'd have my order in for a D3.



What matters to most people is not my concern here. I'm not a politician trying to keep his seat.



Of course! I wouldn't disagree with that. I'm just trying to get an accurate assessment of what the improvements (over the 5D) actually are, after one has subtracted the bells and whistles. I can live with an underexposed representation on the camera's LCD screen of the shot I've just taken. It's not ideal and it would be hopeless for people who shoot jpeg, but I always shoot RAW.



Are we talking about the same post?

Yes.

Yes, I'm fortunate enough to have a 5D and a 1Ds3. BOth are excellent, but don't allow me to comapre high iso noise to the D3 - though I would if I could.

I can see Ray's point that, in some situations, even better high iso performance would be helpful and certainly there are shots that I have that could be improved by cleaner files and would expect the D3 or 5D replacement (assuming it sticks at less than 21 Mp) to deliver some improvements.

I struggle with the comparison of the 5D with the D3 however as they are only comparable in that both have 12ish Mp full frame sensors. The competitor to the D3 is the 1D3 (not the 1Ds3 which has a different focus). This is where Canon are really being hurt by the D3, I expect, as it appears to offer a package that will suit 1D3 users very well. However, if Canon can introduce a 5D replacement offering the sort of specs suggested and then put the sensor in a 1D3n (or 1D4) then they would probably look competitive again.

It will be interesting to see where the high resolution cameras go over the next couple of years - Nikon and Sony are both expected to release a 24 -25Mp body later this year (available early 09?). In my case I was able to buy the 1Ds3 at a sensible price and took advantage of purchasing a bit earlier than planned. Either way, I didn't want to swap out of the lenses that I own and have to buy a new set of Nikon or Zeiss sony glass.

Sorry for rambling - they are both really good cameras and much more than I could have wished for 10 years ago!!

Mike

Like Denis, I think I would rather have 21MP and 100 ISO in the studio.

I'm trying a D3 soon and really looking forward to it - but until Nikon bring out a higher rez camera it's not really on my radar.

Why do you need ISO 100 for studio work? If ISO 200 and 100 offer the same noise performance, what's the specific *need* for the ISO 100?

Are you seeing that the D3 at ISO 200 is necessarily noisier than the 1Ds Mark III or the 5D at ISO 100? Or are you just using one spec difference to help justify a decision you've already made?

Note I have a 1Ds Mark III but don't see what you're getting at specifically w.r.t. ISO.

That's not quite true, is it? They are also comparable because they both have the same sensor size; same FoV, same pixel count, same pixel pitch, same resolution. I would have thought that these two cameras are ideal candidates for comparison.

Comparing 5D and D3 images is like comparing apples with apples. Comparing D3 and 1D3 or 1Ds3 images is like comparing apples and oranges, to use a well worn cliche.

However, I can understand if you are comparing camera bodies and their features, rather than the images they produce, and are considering such factors as continuous frame rate, robustness, waterproofing, LiveView capabilities etc, then there would be little point in comparing the D3 with the 5D.

However, when comparing images, the fact that the D3 is a more recent product boasting a whole swag of new features, is not necessarily apparent in the image.

A shot with the 5D at ISO 3200 in RAW mode, using the same aperture and shutter speed as a correctly exposed shot from a D3 at ISO 25,600, is also effectively a shot with the 5D at ISO 25,600. The fact that the D3 has the convenience of an ISO 25,000 setting which brightens the preview so you can clearly see the shot you've just taken, is obviously a useful feature. But this feature is not apparent when comparing the two images after they've both been appropriately adjusted in the RAW converter with respect to EV compensation, temperature and tonality etc.

Well, the guy said they are both '12mpish full frame sensors' didn't he?. Isn't this a more succint way of saying what you said in a long sentence?

As for the rest you said, you just can't resist repeating the same things, can you?

It is indeed a more succint way of saying what I said in a long sentence. I thought the point needed some amplification because I fail to see where the struggle would be in such a comparison.

The struggle, in my opinion, is in comparing different size sensors with a different pixel count, or even the same size sensor with a different pixel count, such as the 1D3 and D3, or the 1Ds3 and the D3 or the P21 and the 1Ds3.



Very true, but only when I get a sense a point has not been understood.

you hit the nail on the head! i also have a 1ds3 and don't quite understand the earlier post regarding iso either... and perhaps i have a different perspective since i also shoot with a db: my aptus model's iso starts at 25, while some of the other aptus models iso starts at 50--but that does not necessarily make my back a better studio tool than the others.

I was in Vistek yesterday and I noticed that Canon has put the 5D on sale again just like in the fall.
They bundle it with lenses for a cheaper discount.
This sale goes to June 30th.
I would think that puts the kibosh on the rumour about a new 5D being released June 1st.
The salesman in the store seemed to think that they would not announce a new 5D until this new sale was done.

My point, not personally directed, is that although the sensor layout is the same the target market and use of the two camera's is very different.

Yes, the pure image output by sensor is probably the most comparable on the market at present, and the D3 hasn't the resolution to be compared to a 1Ds3 (apples to oranges!). But, it costs significantly more than the 5D and does a whole load of other stuff as well. In terms of target audience/usage I think the 1D3 is a closer match, and the comparison of images is then relevant despite the differing sensors.

If the 5D gets close in IQ terms and you don't need the rest of the D3's abilities, then (as with the 5D - 1Ds2 choice) the 5D is an absolute bargain, but if you need the rest then the 5D isn't in the field. There are areas where a 40D will be more useful than a 5D, e.g. high frame rates, fast and more reliable focus tracking etc.

Hence my comment - I understand that for your work the main criterion is pure image quality, hence you perhaps find the two bodies more comparable than I see them as being.

Mike

Hi
When you are working with large floor packs that are 2400 ws I need iso 100 & many times I work with iso 50 with the ZD & Aptus backs. For example on a recent shoot I was a f 16 @ iso 100 using 5 heads. Now with iso 200 I am at f 22 but my 85 1.2 lens only goes down to f 16. When I shot film in the studio i used iso 100. Lets say I was in the market for a new camera the default of the iso 200 would be a deal breaker for me with the D3. Even my light meter is set on iso 100. That is how we work.
Thanks Denis

Why can't you use lower flash power, either by using less powerful pack or using ND gels?

Hhmm! I didn't realise I was in such a minority. It wasn't so long ago, on the old Rob Galbraith forum, there were long threads debating the image quality differences between the 5D and the 1Ds2, two cameras that would seem to appeal to different segments of the market in a similar respect to the D3 and 5D.

However, I can see from your perspective there might be a complete disincentive to do a comparison since it is almost certainly the case that the D3 will produce either equal or slightly better images than the 5D, assuming equal quality lenses are used.

The question for me is, how much better and in what circumstances?

Is there any reason now for you to use your 5D?

BTW, it seems I can pick up a D3 in Australia, shopping around for the best price, at the the same price I paid for my 5D 2 1/2 years ago. But that's partly because of a rising Australian dollar. The main obstacle for me is the fact I don't have any Nikkor lenses.

Expecting serious reviewers to perform exhaustive time consuming tests on just a single parameter of their performance - very high ISO in RAW without any NR applied- (with, as we all know by now, the risk of many a smart guy on the net pointing out that this or that parameter was not fixed / equalised and as such the test was not scientific enough) of cameras as dissimilar as the 5D and the D3 is totally unrealistic.

Would you expect to see reviews of the Canon 450D/Xsi against the Nikon D300? Based on your criteria they are as similar as the 5D is to the D3 and even more so since they are both new products on the market.

If you are interested in my personal subjective opinion, not owning either of the cameras but having scrutinised images from both, the D3 appears to produce a better file (in the sense of pixel integrity) not only at higher but at lower ISOs as well. On top of this, the noise apparent when you take a D3 file and stretch it in the way you would if you would be significantly underexposing and overdeveloping a RAW in post, has a much more acceptable (and processable) quality than the 5D with none (or very little) of the ugly banding you can readily see on the 5D files when you do the same. I would say the same if I was comparing the 1DIII against the 5D, only with the D3 the difference is apparently greater.

The differences are there if you really look for them but are significant only for a minority of photographers.

I can't make an informed comment because I've never seen any such careful comparisons. My own comparisons are all I have to go by, and they were flawed because (1) the salesman had the D3 set on 12 bit mode without my realising it, and (2) what I assumed was the central focussing point on the D3 was not central, so all D3 images were tilted up. For these reasons, I never made my RAW images of these tests freely available. Nevertheless, it seemed clear to me that the differences in noise levels were very marginal. The problem was, how much to factor in for the 14 bit process which I inadvertantly didn't use.

Actually, I have seen another comparison, by the much maligned Ken Rockwell. His 5D jpegs, when cleaned up in Noise Ninja with purely chroma noise reduction, are at least the equal of the D3 images.

I found his D3 jpegs were unable to be improved (noise-wise) without destruction of fine detail, which caused them to look worse than the 5D images.

This entire issue has been neatly side-stepped by those who insist on struggling to compare apples with oranges, the D3 with the 1Ds3.

There's no reliable and detailed information out there on the internet at all, that I can find, comparing the 5D with the D3. In my books, that's really weird.

Hi Ray,

Actually I am interest in the IQ obtainable, and I'm sure that you're right and that the D3 would probably provide equal or slightly better files than my 5D. I don't know how it would compare to the 1Ds3, but at the sort of iso values I normally work with and on a tripod, I expect (hope?) that the Ds3's resolution advantage will count for something in prints at about 15 by 10 up. In that respect the D3 would have been a very expensive sideways move.

My comment was really about the perspective of reviewers and the market in general - if you don't need 10fps but want the best 12Mp full frame dslr then the D3 is probably it. Is it worth 2 or 3 times the price of a 5D - depends on the magnitude of the improvement (which we haven't really understood yet) and how you value that - but you are getting mighty close to a 1Ds3 when you buy a D3 and no need to change your lenses. That's just my perspective.

Oh, you're right. there's not much use for the 5D at present except as a back up body. I occasionally shoot weddings, so it will come in handy to avoid swapping lenses there as well. I will keep it though as when we go off for 2 or 3 week trips it's nice having a spare. - and I still have some nice 24 by 16s from it:)

Mike

I am worried about jumping into this fray, but here goes. Mike simply, is there any way to borrow, rent a D3 for a couple of days or so or week? I did just this. I didn't take Rockwell or anyones advice for this big a purchase and would never do that. Nor anyone in this group alone or collectively, NO OFFENSE. But that is silly and risky. Everyone uses and post processes stuff differently, each camera feels different in ones' hands. Only you can decide what works best for you. I have done just that, and until a couple of weeks ago, I had three systems, Nikon, Canon and Leica. One down, keeping two for now. My decision is MY decision. Won't get into that. These are all great cameras and one can be the best or worst for a particular user. My decision surprised me and my friends at the time. I was surprised by the results of both my images and the decision. Don't listen to hype by manufacturers or other users claiming to have found the holy grail. YMMV and will....In a two week period I borrowed both a D3, 1DIII. Could not get ahold of a 1DS III, I shot about 1-2000 images with each camera in varying uses and spent hours doing PP. Lastly, do not judge anything by images posted on the web by anyone. It is not an issue of trust , it is an issue of LOOKING at a monitor, even if it is calibrated perfectly[??] Make prints the size you intend to use or sell and judge for yourself. Artifacts you see on a screen may never bother you in print, things you think you don't see on a monitor may show up viewing the print. Hope this does not open a hornets nest ......

Sounds like excellent advice to me. I think one might be able to hire a D3 (and other recent models of DSLRs) in New York, but I failed to find one for hire in Bangkok and don't see any prospect of hiring one in Brisbane where I am currently.

This is why I find a good review is so essential and they are becoming more essential as cameras get increasingly higher but similar pixel counts.

Without good reviews, there's no doubt in my mind that people would kid themselves, for example, that the 40D produces significantly higher quality images than a 20D. The presence of a couple of extra megapixels and 14 bit processing is sufficient for the placebo effect to kick in.

It's only as a result of careful and thorough testing that we discover there's virtually no noise advantage, except possibly in jpeg mode with the 40D's chroma NR enabled, and only a very slight resolution advantage, sometimes apparent at 200-400% enlargement, depending on the nature of the target.

Of course, there's more to a camera than bottom-line, fundamental image quality, and these other features might well be sufficiently useful in their own right to justify unpgrading. Auto ISO, fast frame rate, high resolution LiveView screen, better in-camera processing of jpegs etc etc. can all be useful at times.

However, I get a little annoyed when owners of these new DSLR models like to throw in additional claims of image quality superiority when it's really the case that none exists, of any consequence, at the RAW image level. And don't most of us on this forum shoot RAW?

Kayell can rent to you ... they are based in Sydney and Melbourne but they can ship. Here is their rental list, it includes the D3, D300 1DSiii and 1diii.

http://www.kayellaustralia.com.au/rental/K...NTALJan2008.pdf

cheers

Jeremy

Thanks! Kayell was the first company I checked when I returned from Bangkok beginning of February. I didn't see any recent models of DSLRs on their list of equipment for hire. In fact, they still had the 1Ds for hire on the list that I saw in early February. This January 2008 list must have been added just recently.

I'm going to try and hire the D3 for a weekend but I notice that Kayell does not include the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 FF lens on their list, which is a lens I'm specifically interested in. What lens would you recommend to ensure my 5D does not outclass the D3?

Ray,

IMO one needs more than a couple of days to become somewhat familiar with a camera like the D3 even if one is familiar with the Nikon system which, I suppose, you are not.

Additionally, you will need some time to get familiar with the RAW post-processing which, of course, you will be able to do after you return the camera, but it will be always better to attempt while you still have it. Regarding post, you will not be fair to the camera (or to any Nikon camera for that matter IMO) if you quickly process the images with Lightroom or ACR.

Currently best raw converters to use IMO in terms of IQ and getting good results quickly are Nikon Capture NX and Aperture (Mac only). This will add another quite steep learning curve to your testing. Especially with NX you will need to familiarise yourself with manipulating the quite ugly in terms of gamma and saturation camera picture style defaults.

One more thing to bear in mind is that the sharpening required for the D3 seems to be quite different (and more agresive) than on the 5D.

What I'm trying to say is that your lens choice (as long it is a decent pro-calibre lens) is much less significant than getting used to the camera and the post-processing if you want to do justice to the camera.

Reading LLoyd Chambers' blog in an older to newer entry order from Nov 2007 till now with regards to his experience with the D3 can give you an idea how a 'died in the wool' Canon user went through initial frustration and dissatisfaction with the D3 only to become a big fan after some time.

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

NikosR,
I wouldn't be attempting a full review were I to hire the D3 for a weekend. I'll mainly be testing the camera for its low noise performance compared with my 5D. I have in mind taking a walk in a nearby rainforest where there are lots of dark shadows. I'll have both cameras around my neck and I'll attempt to duplicate each shot using both cameras at the same aperture, shutter speed and focal length.

Picture styles and jpeg performance will not be a priority. I always shoot RAW because of the obvious advantage that images can be reconverted in as many different ways as one likes with as many different converters as one has time to experiment with. Which converter produces the best results and with what type of image, is something that can be determined later.

The choice of converters is really a separate issue. I don't see any hope of resolving that problem. For example I still use RSP for some images, although I use ACR as my default converter.

If I start using Nikon Capture to convert the Nikon RAW files because you or someone else thinks it's a better converter for Nikon files, then I would also be obliged to use Canon's DPP for the 5D files because some folks also happen to think that that converter is a better choice for Canon files.

Just as a matter of interest, the 100% crops below represent my attempt to get ACR (latest version) to produce the same effect as the discontinued RSP. This is the bottom left foreground of a D60 image taken many years ago which is slightly out of focus (in that part of the scene) and requires a lot of sharpening. The Raw Shooter conversion on the left has more character in my opinion; a better mixture of greens and browns, more variation of hue and a more solid feel to the colors. I prefer it. No matter how hard I try, I can't get the ACR conversion looking the same. But that could simply be due to a lack of skill.

Click to view attachment

Yikes - what have we started. I can hire a D3, but to hire a D3 for a week (not much more than a weekend) and then process and print at 24 by16 a suitable number of pictures will cost about 500gbp... I may actually have time later next month, but not the spare cash at present. I think Nikos' point on the learning curve is probably right - I might inadvertently not be quite fair, though I could at least use my zeiss zf35 on all three bodies.

On raw conversion I've now reached the point where LR/ACR is my default converter, but I still sometimes use DXo or DPP - both of wwhich render colour differently. A really big step forward for me in my 5D workflow (to be repeated for the 1Ds3 and GX100) was when I calibrated the ACR colour using the Tindeman script. I ran calibrations at 100,400 and 1600 iso and then interpolated for the 200 and 800 values. After some testing I set these up as presets in LR to be applied on input. I also calibrated using both a standard LR type render (i.e.LR defaults for other values) and a neutral render (all LR controls set to zero). These settings have given me much better colour much more easily Skin tones used to take a lot of work in LR and CS3, but now I am usually happy straight of LR.

That's my workflow 'tip of the week', though I keep meaning to post a thread on a couple of things I've learned lately.

Anyway, I'm happy to do a D3, 1Ds3 5D cmparison, but it will have to wait until I've some cash!

Mike

I referred to picture styles only because NX honours the camera defaults during RAW conversion. Thus, picture styles are the starting point when doing an NX raw conversion. One cannot escape that.

Even if you will only judge noise performance, the raw converter choice influences that. Different raw converters produce different looking noise even if their particular controls for noise reduction are set to zero. This is one of the perils of testing. Adobe converters do not behave very well on Nikon files in my personal opinion. The same can be said for default colour presentation.

The logic of equalising the field by selecting to use a common raw converter is faulted if ones is looking at the problem from an IQ priority point of view, since the only thing one's doing is using the raw converter's author best judgement about how raw files from a particular camera should be handled. Of course, this logic is perfectly valid from a workflow priority point of view.

In my view one can do one of two things when trying to compare two cameras. Either decide that one's workflow is fixed, for example raw converter choice, and see what each camera can produce within that fixed workflow, or try to choose the best workflow for the particular camera.

Either of these approaches is valid but one has to be aware of the limitations of each.

I would not think that the differences in noise levels and noise appearance from different converters, with noise reduction set to zero, would be significant.

There has to be some cut-off point whereby one decides that, although one can see differences at high magnification on the monitor, or with a loupe on a print, such differences are simply not important or of practical significance.

When noise is a preoccupation, I think the fairest approach, as well as the approach which is likely to produce the best results with both images, is to use a dedicated noise reduction program like Noise Ninja.

I'm particularly impressed with Noise Ninja because one can separate the application of chroma noise reduction from luminance noise reduction. One can also selectively remove the resolution-destroying effects of luminance noise reduction, with a brush, in any part of the image where retaining resolution might be considered to be more important than reducing noise.

The impression I have so far, from the tests I did in Bangkok, is that the D3 images come out of the camera with a certain amount of chroma noise reduction already applied, at high ISO. The 5D images lend themselves to chroma noise reduction in Noise Ninja, without losss of resolution. The D3 images seem to be much more difficult to improve (in Noise Ninja) without further loss of resolution.

If I hire a D3, I'll be looking at this issue more carefully.

If Nikon have managed to separate colour (chroma) noise avoidance from luminance noise avoidance at the pre-raw conversion stage then they must be congratulated because this would be a first AFAIK. Remember , the difference between the two is really nothing more than a 'noise imbalance' in the raw data. If noise manifests itself uniformly distributed in all raw data then no chroma noise would be apparent. The distinction between luminance and chroma noise is only possible post-debayering. This is the way I understand it. If you know otherwise please explain.

I would suggest, alternatively, that what you perceive is simply Nikon's 'better' noise quality (in terms of noise patterns and distribution across the image). This does not suggest noise reduction (in the traditional image processing sense) but effective noise 'avoidance' or noise 'pre-conditioning' if one can use this unscientific term.

Of course, your impressions could just stem from different raw conversion characteristics, which just brings us back to the issue of raw converter choice.

This is why I feel compelled to hire a D3 in order to do more thorough testing. I cannot draw any firm conclusions from my previous tests. Having RAW images in my possession from both cameras, which are exactly comparable with regard to focussing, FoV, shutter speed, aperture, tripod stability, and of course enabled 14 bit mode for the D3, will allow me to do as many comparisons, after I've returned the camera, as I have time to make using whatever converters and noise reduction programs I can get my hands on.