mark III iso 6400 vs. D3 iso 3200

quick comparison here:

http://www.pbase.com/d​rogowski/test

please note that i am handhelding in a crapy light conditions ..you are also looking at my ugly face with spots and natural discolorations and flaws..i don't have a make up on and didn't shoot it in perfect studio conditions ...noise reduction on in case of mark III ...when it goes to d3 ,,,who knows

MIII anyday of the week at 6400, the d3 at 3200 just not doing it for me.

Nice watch lol just kidding right on Good to see canon hasn't completely lost their marbles.

Sorry, but I'll take her over him any day, even if he was shot at ISO 50 and she at 50,000.

me

also, how did you get your hands on the D3? I didn't think it was available yet.

She's plasticy!

MDJAK wrote in post #3918149
also, how did you get your hands on the D3? I didn't think it was available yet.

Nikon D3 Image Sample Page.

You've gotta realize the Nikon image your using is a JPEG FINE Large from the D3 so some type of in camera Noise Reduction is being added to the final result. The Jury is still out on this until we can see RAW files for comparison.

BTW though your 6400 image looks nice ...

You should have used the Nikon iso 6400 shot:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Yeah the Canon looks better, I'd say. Of course it's quite hard to tell based on a single comparison frame, so we'll have to wait until there are more comprehensive reviews out...

MDJAK wrote in post #3918146
Sorry, but I'll take her over him any day, even if he was shot at ISO 50 and she at 50,000.

me

yeah what watch ?

ed rader

Seiko

MDJAK wrote in post #3918149
also, how did you get your hands on the D3? I didn't think it was available yet.

Some sports photogs have them, at least at the Rose Bowl (UCLA vs. BYU) this past Saturday. He was sitting next to me in the end zone so hard not to miss. Looks like a pretty good camera. Saw a few MKIII's too. I was jealous...

Tsmith wrote in post #3918207
You've gotta realize the Nikon image your using is a JPEG FINE Large from the D3 so some type of in camera Noise Reduction is being added to the final result. The Jury is still out on this until we can see RAW files for comparison.

BTW though your 6400 image looks nice ...

You should have used the Nikon iso 6400 shot:

but that shot has bad WB, and we all know that WB does change the noise (go try it with any camera, the warmer the shot the less noise there is)

basroil wrote in post #3919570
but that shot has bad WB, and we all know that WB does change the noise (go try it with any camera, the warmer the shot the less noise there is)

Give respect where respect is due. I'm not a Nikon user or will I switch camps but to my eyes this result at iso 6400 is very good. Mind you too thats a large crop if you haven't seen the original.

White Balance set and saved as a jpeg twice now, still looks impressive on my monitor.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

They look good, to be sure. But nothing revolutionary as we were all told. And mind you, the hype was deafening.

At first glance, without anything to go on but these samples, it appears that Nikon has merely caught up to Canon, but certainly not surpassed them. As we learn and see more, we'll have a better idea of what the latest Nikon's are capable of, but as yet, Canon doesn't need to be scrambling to put out any fires...

...well, save the AF issue on the Mark III.