Resolution vs. High ISO

[frankie_frank1]

It seems that the next high-end Canon is a full-frame 21MP. The next high-end

Nikon is a full-time 12MP with amazing clean high ISO image. And Nikon's

flagship APS-C camera remains 12MP with very very little high ISO noise.

 

From a Canon user point of view, which approach is more practical or more

useable?

[ralph_jensen]

Assuming the noise levels are comparable between the full-frame 21mp and full-frame 12mp, I'd go with the former.

[richard_oleson]

From a Canon user point of view, I'd think the one that accepts Canon lenses would have something of an edge....

[asher]

I think that unless you plan on shooting at max ISO most of the time, and pixel-peeping

every shot, you won't see a difference in real-world practical application. So I agree with

Richard above- go with whatever system suits the lens(es) you already own.

[mike_s.3]

A lot of the reviews that I see for the new D3 are from people like Dave Black who - although an excellent photographer - is nearly a paid spokesperson for Nikon. Wait until we see some more objective reviews that compare the D3 with the Mark III for example. I would not assume that Nikon has the upper hand on ISO until you can see actual comparisons.

 

You may think "well that sounds like a typical Canon shooter", but you would be wrong. I shoot with both Nikon and Canon so if the D3 lives up to its hype I'm happy. However, I just don't think that its going to be anything but comparable to a Mark III in a head to head test.

[elliot1]

The increase in resolution from 12mp or 13mp is minimal even though it sounds like a lot.

 

I am not so sure the D300 will in fact have very, very, little high ISO noise. The sample shots so far show quite the opposite. It looks only marginally better, perhaps 1 stop better, than the D200 which is noisy above ISO 400.

 

As far as the D3 goes, I have seen many noise free shots (the official samples) to some other random shots which don't look much if at all better than the 5D.

 

There is no doubt high end Canon and Nikon cameras can and will produce spectacular pictures. But put one of them in the hands of my wife and the pictures will look about the same (crappy) as any other camera she uses or has used except with proper exposure. Give a pro a basic camera and he/she will get spectacular pictures.

 

This is a link to Moose Peterson's blog. He is just starting to post a lot of D3 images which are stunning. But if you explore his site, you will find all his shots spectacular regardless of which camera he uses (D2X for most of them). A great camera helps and of course great glass is crucial but it has always been and will always be about the photographer (and great glass, of course)

 

http://www.moosenewsblog.com/archives/category/just-out/

 

And whenever someone questions gear, I always like to refer this site, which was shot by a wonderful photographer with an inexpensive P&S camera:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651

 

As far as pixel count, I agree with Ralph, but it is possible/likely that noise levels will be lower with a 12mp sensor than 20+. More is always better unless it gives you less. For example, I find the Nikon D40 a little better noise wise than the D40x. I have not done a scientific test, nor have I seen one, but I have a D40 and have used the D40x.

 

I used my Nikon D80 on Saturday for a brief few minutes after using my 5D exclusively for the past three weeks. It is likely the last time I will use it - the 5D is far, far superior.

[beauh44]

Here's another <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3.shtml">Pre-production review</a> of the D3.<P>

 

I think that the jump from the 12mp of the D3 to the 21mp of the 1DsIII is significant; the Canon has almost double the MPs and I'm sure it's no slouch in the noise department - my 1DsII does fine and it's rare that I need to shoot past ISO 800. If you do much work in a studio you'd likely be ~ISO 100 anyway where noise wouldn't be a factor with either camera.<P>

 

If you already have Canon glass and some deep pockets, I think it's a no-brainer; stay with Canon. Conversely if you have Nikkor glass and want a full-frame camera, the D3 is a no-brainer.<P>

[richard_driscoll]

It's a little off topic but Elliot might be interested in the comparison of D40 and D40x noise on the dpreview site.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page17.asp

 

From the curves it looks as if the D40 is about "1 stop" or 100% ISO ahead except at ISO 3200 where the D40x is better. The difference is most marked for chroma noise.

 

An interesting question when used handheld. Do you get sharper pictures with 10 as against 6 megapixels when you have to use a slower shutter speed due to the base ISO of 100 rather than 200?

 

I reckon not and that's one reason why I bought the D40, but then I do find it hard to hold the camera still enough!

[jason_hall4]

I think it depends on the intended output. If you need something that comes near medium format in a smaller cheaper package then the 1Ds MkIII is the ticket. Unless you need some massive files for your output I don't see the point. The 12MP ultra low noise to me seems to be a better bet for photojournalist and such, or for those who shoot unpredictable ambient light. Places that flash is not allowed or undesired.

 

But then that is all if a person has nothing else to consider like current lens owned and such. In any case both have awsome cameras that will get the job done.

 

Personaly I have thought hard about switching but the cost to do so is mind boggleing, mostly for somthing I can not promise I will not regret later. Not to mention the learnig curve.

 

So agian, unless your output requires those massive files, what is the point of 21MP. For some one needing medium format like files in a nice (relatively) small package, then it is a no brainer!

 

Jason

[gdanmitchell]

They are really very different cameras, designed for different purposes. For some uses a 12

MP full frame high speed camera like the D3 would be just the thing. For other uses the high

MP count could be useful and worth the much higher price.

 

One isn't "better" than the other, though either could be better than the other for certain

types of use.