Canon is slow...

primoz wrote in post #5839702
Here you are wrong. Nikon is far from "solely camera company", probably further then Canon. Canon is still mainly tied to electronics (cameras, printers, etc.), while Nikon is also in medical business. .

And Nikon is also in the business of making semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and inspection equipment for general manufacturing, as well as the microsopes for scientific and medical uses.

AdamJL wrote in post #5840425
I'm not going to argue that IQ is first and foremost the most important factor in a camera. Nikon's D3 still doesn't compare to the 5D IMO

Now here I do disagree. Firstly, the 5D offers superb IQ, no question and for the money is a steal right now.

But, the D3 offers just as good IQ but adds in greater DR, better high ISO performance and 14-bit tonality to the mix. Now factor in genuine pro-spec AF and the D3 not only comfortably matches the 5D, and exceeds it in others. I've yet to see any area where the D3 is poorer than the 5D.

It's what I'd expect 3 years down the line. It's equally clear to me that Canon should have little trouble adding these advances.

I've seen images from the D3, and to be, at higher ISOs, they do appear over-sharpened, and "plastic" - NR gone too far perhaps? And since I think the Mk III is a touch better than the 5D, ergo I place it's IQ above the D3 as well.
I'm in no doubt it's a superb camera, but I've yet to be convinced it offers IQ above the 5D. Feature-wise though, it's everything I could want!

Unless theyre images where you know what the PP was, and what the in-camera high ISO NR was set to (I have mine set to 'Off btw) it's very hard to make that judgement. We are talking about small degress of difference at any level now.

Some shots for you - I can't see any plastic look, and it's interesting that that comment is often aimed at Canon cameras by Nikon shooters (equally inaccurate IMO)

ISO3200

I've always been a canon shooter.

But these images.. at ISO 3200. Holy ****.

My 40D is so far behind in noise at that high ISO's.

Dude you are making it hard to hold on to this canon of mine

dpastern wrote in post #5838861
Are you sure, or just guessing?

Dave

I have no inside info but I have faith that Canon will answer the call for Nikon.
When it boils down to it they are both amazing cameras. Nikon has its advantages and so does Canon. What I find odd is that nobody ever seems to mention Pentax. 14 mp, weather sealed, built in IS, and the built in flash can trigger the off shoe flashed without a need for a transmitter.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …D_SLR_Digital_C​amera.html
that seems like a great deal but Canon and Nikon really have the market. I am not one to jump every time a new body comes out though. Look at how far they have come in such a short amount of time. I can not imagine how much they will differ in 5 years. The number one rule of competition is to keep up with your competitor and Nikon and Canon have been going at it for many years. They are not about to stop trying to out do one another now.

radiohead wrote in post #5842144
Unless theyre images where you know what the PP was, and what the in-camera high ISO NR was set to (I have mine set to 'Off btw) it's very hard to make that judgement. We are talking about small degress of difference at any level now.

Some shots for you - I can't see any plastic look, and it's interesting that that comment is often aimed at Canon cameras by Nikon shooters (equally inaccurate IMO)

ISO3200

1600

and 6400 (this is a decent test as it was under awful tungsten light)

FWIW

Some at 200





and 400



Having spent 18 months shooting the 5D professionally I wouldn't have gone to D3's if the IQ was in any way a backward step.

Nice pics, but (don't be offended here), I'm not going to take anything from reduced web jpegs. I've seen pictures of that (high) quality from a 350D and a kit lens. Run anything through PS, reduce the dimensions, add sharpening, and if you're good at PS, you can make a good picture.
The true test is a straight-from-camera RAW or Jpeg. I hear the D3 even runs the raw through sharpening?

You won't see 350D shots with a kit lens at 3200 that look like that, not at any size.

They're not posted to try and make the D3 look better than it is - they're posted to show how good it is. No agenda.

Raw through sharpening? Nope. Use Capture NX and it'll see any in-camera parameters you apply, but no other converter will. I don't use it. This is exactly my point about some of the inaccuracies that are reposted time and time again.

As for this sharpening thing - in my experience every camera raw file benefits from sharpening. It's bandied around like some sort of badge of honour to post 'straight from camera' - a straight from camera JPG is processed, it's just the camera doing it rather than you on a PC. Unsharp mask is a darkroom term from film - why is it now seen as a bad thing?

So, take what you want from the images you're seeing.

It is pretty easy to fake shallow DoF in Photoshop from a picture taken from a kit lens. Gaussian blur, layers, a bit of erasing, voila! My point is that these days, PP is potentially more powerful a tool than the camera, in the right hands. Some of the salvaged shots I've seen boggle the mind.

I don't mean to take anything away from your pictures, as they are indeed impressive.

And I do see your point about the "straight from camera" subject, but again, because of the power of PP, it's the only true measure of what the camera is capable of natively, without any additional fiddling (I speak of Raw here, not in-camera jpeg).

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread any longer, so that'll be it from me

johnz wrote in post #5842229
I've always been a canon shooter.

But these images.. at ISO 3200. Holy ****.

My 40D is so far behind in noise at that high ISO's.

That was my thoughts at the recent Australian camera and photographic show. The D3 is an exceptional camera - I was utterly impressed with it.

Radiohead - lovely series of shots.

Dave

Actually, if you research *some* of my posts, you will see that I have recommended Pentax DSLRs several times. Pentax makes fine cameras, and fine lenses, even today. What lets the current Pentax DSLRs down are burst speed and AF speed/accuracy. Noise performance isn't quite as good as Canon or Nikon either. If Pentax can improve that...

Dave

midnight_rider wrote in post #5843252
I have no inside info but I have faith that Canon will answer the call for Nikon.
When it boils down to it they are both amazing cameras. Nikon has its advantages and so does Canon. What I find odd is that nobody ever seems to mention Pentax. 14 mp, weather sealed, built in IS, and the built in flash can trigger the off shoe flashed without a need for a transmitter.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …D_SLR_Digital_C​amera.html
that seems like a great deal but Canon and Nikon really have the market. I am not one to jump every time a new body comes out though. Look at how far they have come in such a short amount of time. I can not imagine how much they will differ in 5 years. The number one rule of competition is to keep up with your competitor and Nikon and Canon have been going at it for many years. They are not about to stop trying to out do one another now.

AdamJL wrote in post #5847059
My point is that these days, PP is potentially more powerful a tool than the camera, in the right hands. Some of the salvaged shots I've seen boggle the mind.

I disagree here. A good photographer will usually get it *right* in camera. Even given todays technology, it is still better to do it this way imho. Why make life hard for yourself later on in PP?

Dave

AdamJL wrote in post #5847059
It is pretty easy to fake shallow DoF in Photoshop from a picture taken from a kit lens. Gaussian blur, layers, a bit of erasing, voila! My point is that these days, PP is potentially more powerful a tool than the camera, in the right hands. Some of the salvaged shots I've seen boggle the mind.

I don't mean to take anything away from your pictures, as they are indeed impressive.

And I do see your point about the "straight from camera" subject, but again, because of the power of PP, it's the only true measure of what the camera is capable of natively, without any additional fiddling (I speak of Raw here, not in-camera jpeg).

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread any longer, so that'll be it from me

FWIW - my PP is restricted to:

Crop
Exposure tweak if needed
WB adjustment if needed
Mono conversion if appropriate
Sharpen

That's all I ever do.

dpastern wrote in post #5847126
That was my thoughts at the recent Australian camera and photographic show. The D3 is an exceptional camera - I was utterly impressed with it.

Radiohead - lovely series of shots.

Dave

Cheers Dave