JRCrowe Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>I was looking through the Nikon forum and they were talking about comparison photos between the D4 and D800. You can also compare them to the 5D Mklll <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">here</a> The results are surprising! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscar_van_der_velde Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Unless you intend to shoot only JPEG images, it is more useful to look at RAW images. Not sure why Canon cannot match the RAW processing qualities of their Digital Photo Professional software in-camera. Canon's own official sample JPEGs look awful even at low ISO but a RAW file I downloaded from Imaging Resource looked great.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>What do you find surprising John?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRCrowe Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>I really expected to see much less noise in the D800 at ISO 6400 and above but the 5D Mk lll seems to outperform it. I had seen some photos from the D800 at WPPI, there were some night shots displayed that were quite sharp at more than 100% with little noise, and some high ISO shots that looked very good. I am surprised that the 5D Mk lll seems to outperform it in the test shots. Many people were disappointed at the specs and the price of the 5D Mklll, me among them. Its only preliminary but it looks like the two cameras may be more equal than the numbers suggest. The 5D Mk lll may even be worth the higher price. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Well the D800 crops at 100% are considerably more enlarged, and so is their noise, than the 5D MkIII, also, despite assertions and theories to the contrary it does seem to be that for same generation sensors denser pixels in the same area do not perform as well at high iso than their less dense cousins, even when you resample down to match resolution.</p> <p>Both cameras will take superb images, but realizing the full capabilities of resolution from either will be down to very good technique. Bench tests like those linked to will always perform well, but those situations are a world away from real world shooting and I think many will be disappointed in their own results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <blockquote> <p>despite assertions and theories to the contrary it does seem to be that for same generation sensors denser pixels in the same area do not perform as well at high iso than their less dense cousins, even when you resample down to match resolution.</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Seriously</em>, Scott?</p> <p>There are <em>no</em> "same generation" examples to prove that. None whatsoever. </p> <p>The notion that the 5D Mk III and D800 sensors are "same generation" simply because they've appeared at about the same time, is just revisionism to support your baseless assertion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Well if you just use the words in their correct context and don't just fly off the handle at assertions you might not agree with.</p> <p>By definition the 5D MkIII and the D800 are the same <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generation">generation</a>, that is the meaning of the word! Trying to assert that they are not in the same generation is revisionism.</p> <p>Now, Keith, show me a same generation denser sensor, of the same design, that performs better at high iso than a lower density one. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisgg Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Forgetting about the comparison, the Canon looks sweet at high ISO. The ISO 3200 and 6400 are excellent. 3200 is really clean and smooth.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Apples and oranges. These two different cameras aren't trying to be each other. Yeesh.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Why are simpleton bullies like Keith tolerated on photo.net? I guess it's because we tolerate the intolerant. Good on us for that, I suppose, though I feel sorry for those naive members who actually believe everything they read on this site.</p> <p>Do you know what the words "same" and "generation" mean, Keith? And are you able to put those two meanings together? Does the word "contemporaneous" ring any bells? Or are you, as your words seem to imply, either living in another universe, or brain dead?</p> <p>I'm sorry for the stridency of my remarks, but I believe that it's incumbent on us to call out the bullies in our midst.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>The D800 is 36MP vs 22MP of the 5D III. I would expect the 5D III to be the better high ISO performer. No surprise for me. I'd expect the D800 to be only slightly better at high ISO than the 7D, given the pixel density, which doesn't really impress me that much. To me, it seems a 36MP full frame camera is geared towards landscape shooters that use ISO 100 and a tripod, not a shooter looking for low light performance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Matt,</p> <p>I disagree, they are two manufacturers products aimed at the same market segment. They are both high end "prosumer" models, both full frame with very similar specs and prices and released at the same time. They are in direct competition for a particular market segment, just like the D700 and 5D MkII were, the previous models had bigger feature differentiation but they were still in direct competition.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>I am not surprised. It is still easier to get better high ISO performance from less dense sensors. </p> <p>These cameras are not trying to be each other, however, in my opinion, Nikon and Canon did try to be more like the other and actually thought the cameras they were developing would be similar. Each overshot the other. Canon wanted a better high ISO camera to compete with the D800 that they were expecting to see (a marginally higher res D700 with better high ISO) and Nikon wanted a better high res camera to compete with the 5D III that they were expecting to see ( a 5D II with 30+ megapixels). </p> <p>Funny how it turned out, and judging by people here on photo.net it seems that both Nikon and Canon should be apologizing to their customers for their misjudgements. Nikon has already backtracked by saying that the D800 is not meant as a replacement for the D700. Canon is sticking to their guns that better high ISO, marginally faster fps, and better AF, is worth $1000 to $2000 over the 5D II. Yes, I just noticed you can buy a refurbished 5D II, which will have similar low ISO performance, directly from Canon USA for less than half the price of a 5D III.</p> <p>P.S. I am not the original poster. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubo Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <p>Well, if you want to compare "same generation" cameras with different pixel density, you should compare 1Dx to 5D III.<br> Guess which will have better high ISO performance?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_south Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <blockquote> <p> I'd expect the D800 to be only slightly better at high ISO than the 7D, given the pixel density, which doesn't really impress me that much.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's dangerous to make an extrapolation based upon pixel density alone. We don't know what kind of firmware processing is built into any of these new sensor chips or how efficient they are at collecting photons.</p> <p>From all reports the D800 exceeds the High ISO performance of the D700. I fear that the 7D, which does a remarkable job for having a lot of pixels on a small sensor, isn't going to be in the same league with either of these cameras.</p> <p>Full disclosure: I own a 7D (which I don't plan to sell anytime soon), I used to own a D700, and I have a D800E on order. I have no brand-based bias in this discussion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <p>At first glance, the Canon does seem to offer a cleaner image than the Nikon, but I'm honestly not too sure exactly what I'm comparing. When I compare the 5DIII to itself at different ISO settings, progressively higher ISOs show progressively more aggressive noise smoothing, to the point that considerable detail and contrast are lost, so there appears to be some dynamic process afoot. I'm not sure I consider this "good." I'm wondering how the images would look with noise left intact, sparing sharpness and contrast.</p> <p>This may be old news to many people, but I admit it's not what I expected. I presume these are in-camera jpegs. Would/could DPP do the same conversion? I suppose we don't know yet how the RAW files compare at different ISOs. Or do we?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Internet IQ comparison is always difficult although I would expect the 5DIII to outperform the D800 at higher ISO. This is really just physics as both cameras have the same generation of signal processing and sensor. While the engineers differ and the algorithms also differ the larger Canon photo sites will give a better Signal to noise ratio ((Eb/No for the pedantic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <p>Notwithstanding the limitations of comparing JPEGS, I have to say that I would be pleased to shoot either of them. The Canon looks very clean at high ISO, and it is not so far behind in resolution even at ISO 50--where both are very clean. That should not be too surprising, though. A camera with twice the resolution of the 5D III would not have 44 mp, but 88. (Resolution is a linear function, being defined in terms of line pairs per mm.) Comparing the square roots of 22 and 36, on the other hand, indicates that even on purely mathematical grounds alone, the Canon should have about three quarters the resolution of the Nikon, not 22/36, which at 11/18 would seem to imply (falsely) that the Nikon would be almost twice as good in terms of resolution as the Canon. (I realize that I presented all that in a confusing way, but those who understand resolution will, I hope, get the point.)</p> <p>Given everything else that the Canon comes with, I would say that the advantage seems to go to Canon. The resolution is not equal to that of the Nikon, but it is closer to it than one might imagine just by comparing the total number of megapixels of both.</p> <p>I used to say that I would not ever need more megapixels than the 5D II can give. Well, now we have that (and a tiny bit more in terms of resolution), but with a lot of other improvements. Right now I am happy that went with Canon back there with the original 5D in 2006, when the price had already slipped almost a thousand dollars. When it does that for the 5D III (adjusted for inflation), then I hope that I can buy the 5D III. I do not think that I will be trying to buy the Nikon. The marginal value of the added resolution is simply not that great, and on everything else the Canon is clearly superior.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitsuneya Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <p>I just put the information here about latest comparison result in Japan between D800 and 5Dmk3.<br /> ISO: D800>5Dmk3<br /> Dynamic range: D800>5Dmk3<br /> Resolution: D800>>5Dmk3<br /> Price: D800>>5Dmk3 (D800 is amazingly cheaper than 5Dmk3.)<br /> Canon users look doing funeral ceremony against Nikon users Rio's Carnival.<br /> Also, D800 and D800E's order percentage is 46% vs 54%.<br> And waiting time from order to in coming is now 2 months for D800, 5Dmk3 is not informed yet.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <p>I think you messed up your ">" signs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith reeder Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Internet IQ comparison is always difficult although I would expect the 5DIII to outperform the D800 at higher ISO. This is really just physics as both cameras have the same generation of signal processing and sensor.</p> </blockquote> <p><em>The physics </em>says nothing of the sort. <em></em><br> <em> </em><br> <em>The physics </em>says whether a sensor has one pixel, 4 pixels or 40 million pixels, its overall light-gathering capacity will be the same.</p> <p><em>The physics </em>says it's the size of the "window", not how many panes of glass it's made up from, that controls how much light it will collect.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 That might be what the theoretical physics says, the actual engineered sensor doesnt work at the theoretical level though, for many reasons, and empirical results just don't support your beliefs, there are countless examples of higher density pixel sensors, even when they are younger, not performing as well at high iso (or at the pixel level at base iso) as lower density sensors. I have posted my own test examples many times that illustrate that. Whether the increased noise is too much to affect the image, or not be process-able away or any other symantec game, doesn't alter the fact that countless images readily available on the Internet, from reputable sites, all support my initial assertion and nobody has provided a single image to rebuff it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_de_ley Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I'm wondering how the images would look with noise left intact, sparing sharpness and contrast.<br> This may be old news to many people, but I admit it's not what I expected. I presume these are in-camera jpegs. Would/could DPP do the same conversion? I suppose we don't know yet how the RAW files compare at different ISOs. Or do we?</p> </blockquote> <p>Right, what really matters isn't what comes straight out of the camera but what can be done with it in PP. A significant scrambling factor in the mix are/will be performance of different existing & future versions of the various third-party RAW converters with files from either camera, or even the continuously improving performance of noise suppression algorithms for jpeg files. Not to mention the times needed to PP 24 Mpx versus 36 Mpx files on everyone's slightly to greatly different hardware configurations.</p> <p>And I'm not familiar with the details of i-r's test procedure, but presumably both cameras were shot at +/- zero Ev. Do we know whether their iso scales are truly matched, or do one or both benefit more substantially from exposing to the right?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_de_ley Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <p>As to the irrefutably definite certainties of physics, that reminds me of Click & Clack aka Ray & Tom Magliozzi's "<a href="http://www.cartalk.com/content/understanding-engineers">Understanding Engineers</a>" ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_bergman1 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I suppose we don't know yet how the RAW files compare at different ISOs. Or do we?</p> </blockquote> <p>Imaging Resource has posted both the D 800's NEF files and the 5D Mark III's CR2 Raw files. I downloaded them yesterday. Once I update my ACR to version 6.6 I will give them a test.</p> <p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now