Jun 29th 2010 2:13PM @Herr Synnberg It took you seven days to think of an answer??? Jeez, this is stupid - but here we go:
The article was not about sports (a place where Canon still predominates) but about low light performance. The Canon 5D MkII, at almost 4fps in RAW, can shoot to 25k with better a more robust product than the Nikon. The D3s goes to higher ISOs but the pictures get worse from there. The Canon costs less than half of the D3s with but with corresponding increases in resolution and video performance.
My favorite asswipe statement: "Oh, and good luck shooting musicians at 2.9 FPS." You truly are moronic! You have -0- idea what you're talking about noob....
Jun 23rd 2010 12:42AM @Herr Synnberg You are nothing but a troll...
Jun 22nd 2010 9:15PM @Herr Synnberg
Here's your greatest hits: "Jesus, you're an idiot," " same ol' shit," and " look even more stupid."
Really classy. Listen carefully troll:
The article above did not highlight "sports" it mainly showed concert and indoor shots. I pointed out that for the money the Canon 5D MkII is a better choice and, in my opinion, it had superior ISO to 25k. The process Nikon uses to mask noise pumps up color. The moment the color is made more natural (desaturated) the noise becomes apparent and is more difficult to "fix." This process is made harder because it lacks the resolution you find in MOST modern full-frames. These limitations come at the stiff price of $5200 or twice the cost of the Canon.
Clearly you don't do this for a living and, face it, everything you've said sounds like it came from marketing material. It has no depth of understanding whatsoever. I'd love to argue about chroma/luminance noise control in the modern DSLR but I know this is well beyond you. So sod off.
Jun 22nd 2010 4:03PM @Photoman Let me summarize the above comments:
1.) Receptor sites across any given sensor size play only one role in the process hence, by your logic, a 4mp should be better than a 12mp sensor. Short answer: it's not. The sensor is only one component in a chain long chain of hardware and software choices.
2.) The article above posits that the D3s has amazing high ISO abilities. While its images do look very good (it's a full-frame that costs $5.2k - it better) it's pics above 6400 are "fragile" because of the type of noise reduction that Nikon uses that results in more vivid (not natural) colors.
3.) For half the cost of the Nikon you can get a Canon 5D Mk II and get excellent (and more robust) high ISO pics up to 25K. (The Nikon goes higher.)
4. The Canon has better resolution (21mp versus 12mp) and features 1080P at 30fps video.
5. I work with the product from many different cameras and the Canon 5D images are easy to work with at higher ISO. The Nikon needs extra handling and it has less resolution to work with.
6. Even Nikon knows they are punting with the D3s. The so-called "scarcity" of the D3s is merely the company cutting back production of a camera they know will be phased out soon. Canon and Nikon are readying pro-level cameras with larger, higher dynamic range sensors.
The Nikon D3s, which breaks no new ground and is feature shy, is for fanboys only - well-heeled fanboys that is!
Jun 22nd 2010 11:49AM @Herr Synnberg I countered your "blogs" nonsense and your DXO sensor nonsense. You answer back with marketing slogans? Really? Your not going to counter even one of my points? Who is this? Ashton Kutcher?
I'm done; point has been made.
Jun 22nd 2010 10:30AM @Herr Synnberg Hmmm...so the ones not worth reading are..(?)...ahhhh...OK. Hmm. Well, I read DPReview, ePhoto, photography.blog, Photozone, and, well, a bunch of others. They rarely comment on the flexibility of the final pic in so far as processing is concerned. And most don't compare the Nikon with the Canon because the price differential (you could buy two 5DmkII for the price of one D3s.) Many have commented on the Nikon's abilities at high ISOs but that's no biggie for a high-end company designing a full-frame camera. So...your point is...you're well read?
As for DXO - they only test sensor performance. That in isolation means butkis and it is pretty silly to keep this up. Take a look at this:
Yeah, the D300 beats the 7D by a point yet reviews easily give the nod to the 7D in image quality (here's one article out of many, google 'D300 vs. 7D' for more):
There will always be somebody to defend Nikon/Canon even when they produce crap and people get fooled by high price tags all the time. The Nikon is an interim product meant to plug holes in the lineup. (Something that costs less than the D3X but still high-end.) It breaks no new ground and is woefully short on features for $5.2K. With a full-frame sensor it ought to take nice pictures (what full-frame doesn't) it just doesn't compare that well with other full-frames at at that resolution. Simple. Nikon will soon introduce a 24mp FX for $5.2K. Then the current D3s will be a distant, albeit unpleasant, memory...
Jun 22nd 2010 7:11AM @Herr Synnberg Yes - each photosite is larger. Congratulations. You passed Sensor 101. Now, think hard, what happens when the density increases but the picture quality improves??? The apocalypse??? No, simply that the the manufacturer has carefully balanced many different components to improve quality despite the increase.
For example Sony sells a series of cameras that use the exact same sensor found in Nikon products but Nikon clearly bests Sony in picture quality at higher ISO values. IS IT BLACK MAGIC? No, please calm down. It is just a sizable, intelligent, mature engineering effort on the part of Nikon. They have lots of experience in this sort of thing. In that regard so does Canon. Hence the reason that a very high density camera (Canon 7D) is considered the king of the APS-C hill and the lower density sensor camera (the very fine D300) is now considered the also-ran. (I'm sure Nikon will come roaring back though - don't worry, my little fanboy!)
See! That's not so hard to understand!
As for higher color values in Canon vs. Nikon: The Nikon's colors become more vivid the higher the ISO. by 12k or so they are really punchy. It's a valid technique for disguising noise. It just has some drawbacks for imaging processing that are pretty severe unless you use the pic straight up. For many photogs that's not an option.
As for bluffing - well I can sniff out a fanboy every time. 1.) You have a little info but think you have a lot and 2.) You constantly refer to data but never really quote it. What in DxO sensor tests do you think proves your point? And considering that point can you compare a 21mp to a 12mp using that data? Consider yourself schooled chum.
Jun 22nd 2010 6:05AM @Herr Synnberg So, by your logic, namely that less sensor density means better sensor, a 2mp full-frame sensor should be really good! Uh, no - there are a whole lot of other things to consider. The highest density APS-C/DX sized sensor out there is in the Canon 7D/T2i and I certainly don't see that hurting reviews or sales!
(DPReview did not compare the Canon 5DMkII to the D3s. But if you do make sure you do so by blowing up the D3s pics to the larger 21mp size of the Canon.)
I process pictures from a myriad of different cameras and the 5DMkII is remarkable - not perfect - but excellent. The D3s starts off with less resolution and goes down hill from there. The D3s starts with overly vivid colors which, in turn, masks noise. (The D700 uses this trick as well.) If you make the colors more natural (like DxO, Bibble, and Capture One do) it turns distinctly noisy which means even more processing making the pictures look very fragile. Forget cropping you simply don't have the resolution except for the smaller display units (web,
Jun 21st 2010 7:42PM @Nilay Patel Forget "software" ISO rise, anti-aliasing filters and what not - just look at the pictures. I work on 5DII and D3s (two jobs, both weddings) photos. I request NEF on the Nikon so I'll have more range and I can get a smoother, nicer photo at higher ISOs. I just don't have that concern with the Canon.
It just seems with the Nikon you are not getting a very good deal if it doesn't trump the Canon 5D Mk. II decisively and it doesn't. Nikon has done a spectacular job with Sony's sensor and they will build a kick-ass FX soon. They just don't have one now...
Jun 21st 2010 6:10PM I've seen pics from Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3s both taken at ISO 25,600. Winner: Canon - by a long shot. Plus it has 8mp more resolution. And the camera costs half of what the Nikon costs. And it weighs less. Oh, and it does 1080p at 30fps.
Even Nikon knows it has an also-ran here because they have quite publicly curtailed production in favor of other cameras and cost reductions. They are insanely busy at work on a FX using Sony's 24mp sensor and hope to have it introduced sometime late this year/early next.
(FYI: I own a Canon 7D. And I love the D300.)
Most Popular Posts
Most Commented Articles
- No Articles Found
- Photobombers -- Ruining Your Pictures, One Click at a Time
- Hot Weather Girls -- Vote For Your Favorite