D750 vs 5d3 sample test in a review???

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235687
Yeah, but the 6D had a unique sensor, no other Canon body has it, so it's not like they "massaged" the 5DIII's sensor via electronic ways into producing better high ISO RAWs.
However, the D750's sensor (supposedly) is virtually the same as a few other Nikon and Sony bodies still outperforms all of them at high ISOs.

But who knows, I'm not that into Nikon's trade secrets

End results is end results! I don't care if they ran the RAW files through Chuck Norris' beard, as long as it ends up a better result.

As far as high ISO noise. I have lost countless shots that did not make the grade for landscapes because of high ISO noise. Even my 6D was severely limited in print size there. I need to make a sky tracking device to get better night sky shots.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17235697
You have to put the work in for great results.

this I can stand by.

I still bracket plenty, even with the A7r, no way am I giving up that.

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235619
Indeed, the D750 is really good, I'd say one of the best. But in fairness, its RAW files are not exactly the same pure RAW files as most other cameras', including Nikon's own FF bodies.

Nikon uses some clever tone curve trickery along with a little bit of noise reduction in RAW to achieve the excellent results. Why is that a problem, one might pose the question. Aren't we all after better results? Yes of course. But then when we compare RAW noise levels between the D750 and other FF bodies, we need to keep that in mind. It's not that the sensor has gone through a revolutionary redesign, it's just that Nikon started to slightly "cook" the D750 RAW files

But the bottom line is they do look good.

On the D750 home page, Nikon stated that they increased the pixel pitch on the D750's sensor: "...By making the pitch of each individual pixel on the new image sensor larger, a broad dynamic range is preserved, and superior high-sensitivity performance that enables rich and smooth expression of tones with very little noise has been achieved." So it is NOT the same sensor that is in the D600/D610. This increase in the pixel pitch probably accounts for the improvement in high ISO noise reduction more than anything else.

Of course when Canon or Nikon produce a new sensor, it enables them to write improved programming to take advantage of this new sensor. In this case, Nikon also stated on the D750 home page that; ..."In addition, adoption of new algorithms with EXPEED 4 achieves faithful color reproduction and minimizes noise at high sensitivities."

Canon and Nikon must write programming language, or as you say, "cooking", for their camera's to process all those 0's and 1's; light travels through the lens, hits the sensor, that becomes digital data and then becomes a RAW file. This is as I understand the process, I am obviously not an engineer.

I think the difference is that Nikon's programming engineers have a better sensor to work with than Canon engineers do. By this time next year, Canon may have a sensor that equals or exceeds the Nikon sensor, who knows.

gabebalazs wrote in post #17235687
Yeah, but the 6D had a unique sensor, no other Canon body has it, so it's not like they "massaged" the 5DIII's sensor via electronic ways into producing better high ISO RAWs.
However, the D750's sensor (supposedly) is virtually the same as a few other Nikon and Sony bodies still outperforms all of them at high ISOs.

But who knows, I'm not that into Nikon's trade secrets

I was going to ask you...what made you decide to trade in the 6D for a 5DIII? I have a similar crop/full frame combo as you do, so I was curious what made you decide to make the change?

JBlake wrote in post #17235763
On the D750 home page, Nikon stated that they increased the pixel pitch on the D750's sensor: "...By making the pitch of each individual pixel on the new image sensor larger, a broad dynamic range is preserved, and superior high-sensitivity performance that enables rich and smooth expression of tones with very little noise has been achieved." So it is NOT the same sensor that is in the D600/D610. This increase in the pixel pitch probably accounts for the improvement in high ISO noise reduction more than anything else.

Of course when Canon or Nikon produce a new sensor, it enables them to write improved programming to take advantage of this new sensor. In this case, Nikon also stated on the D750 home page that; ..."In addition, adoption of new algorithms with EXPEED 4 achieves faithful color reproduction and minimizes noise at high sensitivities."

Canon and Nikon must write programming language, or as you say, "cooking", for their camera's to process all those 0's and 1's; light travels through the lens, hits the sensor, that becomes digital data and then becomes a RAW file. This is as I understand the process, I am obviously not an engineer.

I think the difference is that Nikon's programming engineers have a better sensor to work with than Canon engineers do. By this time next year, Canon may have a sensor that equals or exceeds the Nikon sensor, who knows.

I have never liked the default color output from Nikon cameras, and the WB and tint were always a little off on my D800. Not that color output is really difficult to fix, but it was annoying when my Canon cameras never needed color correction as much.

With that said, the D750 has incredible colors! I was shocked looking at various samples, as I couldn't see any of the issues I experienced with Nikon before. It may just be me, but I think others are seeing the differences as well.

I"m not as concerned about noise at high ISO as degradation of color. On higher ISO you lose that quality of color. It just looks pale. Wonder if these newer cameras are better now.

drveede76 wrote in post #17234356
Good points, are there any side by side comparisons between a D810/750 and a 6D/5Diii? I would like see a side by side to see what the realistic difference in the DR at 100 ISO.

The Antique D800 pitted against a 5D3. You can kinda guess what the D810 will do...
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17235961
I"m not as concerned about noise at high ISO as degradation of color. On higher ISO you lose that quality of color. It just looks pale. Wonder if these newer cameras are better now.

This is what jumps out at me about the A7s and now the D750, they seem to hold color extremely well at high ISO.

I am not a pro level landscape shooter by any stretch, but wouldn't a 2-3 stop ND grad level the playing field quite a bit?
Sure it is less hassle to be able to pull shadows in post, but with the proper filters, you can have your cake and eat it too.

cali92rs wrote in post #17236263
Sure it is less hassle to be able to pull shadows in post, but with the proper filters, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, that's exactly why I'm asking if his reasons for doing this is valid. But it seems he's one of those top-level pros, so I can't really say much.

cali92rs wrote in post #17236263
I am not a pro level landscape shooter by any stretch, but wouldn't a 2-3 stop ND grad level the playing field quite a bit?
Sure it is less hassle to be able to pull shadows in post, but with the proper filters, you can have your cake and eat it too.

some prefer grads, some dont. I have a nice collection of grads, but generally, I prefer bracket shots compared to grads. It's harder to assemble the images manually, but I do it anyways because the images come out cleaner.

Grads also require a horizon.... what if you have none? Like the photo Brexxi posted a few moments ago?

That photo Brexxi posted has like the whole thing exposed to the left, dare I say, exposed to the right, canon would have looked better, and nikon for that matter. Looks like a stop + could have been preserved. The final shot has a great expression, but IQ looks kinda meh, even if small.

JBlake wrote in post #17235763
On the D750 home page, Nikon stated that they increased the pixel pitch on the D750's sensor: "...By making the pitch of each individual pixel on the new image sensor larger, a broad dynamic range is preserved, and superior high-sensitivity performance that enables rich and smooth expression of tones with very little noise has been achieved." So it is NOT the same sensor that is in the D600/D610. This increase in the pixel pitch probably accounts for the improvement in high ISO noise reduction more than anything else.

Of course when Canon or Nikon produce a new sensor, it enables them to write improved programming to take advantage of this new sensor. In this case, Nikon also stated on the D750 home page that; ..."In addition, adoption of new algorithms with EXPEED 4 achieves faithful color reproduction and minimizes noise at high sensitivities."

Canon and Nikon must write programming language, or as you say, "cooking", for their camera's to process all those 0's and 1's; light travels through the lens, hits the sensor, that becomes digital data and then becomes a RAW file. This is as I understand the process, I am obviously not an engineer.

I think the difference is that Nikon's programming engineers have a better sensor to work with than Canon engineers do. By this time next year, Canon may have a sensor that equals or exceeds the Nikon sensor, who knows.

Interesting.
I always thought that pixel pitch was the result of how many pixels are fitted on how big surface area. So I don't understand how Nikon increased the pixel pitch of the same number of pixels fitted on to the same sensor surface area. Or am I missing something? (which might well be the case.)

gabebalazs wrote in post #17236330
Interesting.
I always thought that pixel pitch was the result of how many pixels are fitted on how big surface area. So I don't understand how Nikon increased the pixel pitch of the same number of pixels fitted on to the same sensor surface area. Or am I missing something? (which might well be the case.)

D810 sensor with images resized to 24mp via firmware

Charlie wrote in post #17236332
D810 sensor with images resized to 24mp via firmware

Ahha!