Best High ISO performance Nikon D3 vs Canon 5D MKII?

[tony_black1]

<p>Which camera do you think is best for iso 800-3200 shooting?</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>It's either a tie (according to DxO's downampled comparison) or slight edge to the 5DII. The extra resolution _might_ mean you like larger prints better. Maybe. In a high-ISO shot, the middle tones and highlights should have more detail in the 5D2 images, while the shadow areas should look similar.</p>

<p>Of course, if you need burst speed and only make smaller prints, it's a slam dunk for the D3. And the D3x should give you the best of both worlds.</p>

[davidlong]

Disclaimer: I've never used either camera, but I was surprised by that, so I checked DxOmark.

 

My reading of the downsampled comparison is that it's the D3 that is slightly ahead in all the (print) categories except dynamic range, where they seem basically identical from 800-3200. The D3 is also listed as being slightly more sensitive (E.g. at indicated ISO of 1600, the D3 is slightly more sensitive than the 5Dii). Not that most of the differences are big of course, and for low ISO the 5Dii presumably has some resolution advantage.

[eric merrill]

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/">http://www.dxomark.com/</a></p>

<p>Compare the two using DxO's site.</p>

<p>The D3 has an edge. Look at the SNR tab. The 5d2 at 800 has (almost) the same noise as the D3 at 1600. The 5d2 at 1600 is slightly better than the D3 at 3200.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[tony_black1]

<p>I asked the question because a friend of mine has D3 and he said, no camera in the market can beat D3 in high iso. even d3x. but i need high resolution and thinking about buying canon 5d mk ii. let me check that site also. thanks.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>From opinions already presented, the same program seems can provide different answers to please whoever seeks advice. </p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>That's because the D3 pixels are larger than the 5D2 pixels, and thus the individual pixels have lower noise, but you can downsample a higher resolution image to reduce both noise and detail, resulting in a rather similar images. The bit about the extra resolution in the middle tones and highlights being valuable is my theory; YMMV. IMHO, the 30% extra resolution should be significant, although it requires lenses that are sharp wide open for it to be useful in low-light work.</p>

 

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>The D3 is better for me because my lenses fit the Nikon mount ;)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>more megapixels = more noise. it's simple physics.</p>

[mark_davidson1]

<p>It is probably academic anyway as it would be almost impossible to see a difference between the two in print.</p>

<p>As for 800% magnification on a monitor you <em>may</em> see slight differences but I guess it would be a matter of opinion as to which was better.</p>

<p>I like the advice to buy the one you have lenses for.</p>