[spxxxx]

Posted over on POTN

shot at ISO 3200


http://pixmariage.free.fr/d3/_EF22344.JPG


Looks good - but hard to say if it's any better than Canon...............

[Steve]

Just look at the top left and right of the frame.

What iso was this shot at because if its anything other than a high setting then I would not be happy about that.

[Charlotte]

That image took AGES to load!

BG is cluttered + distracting, not helped by a fair amount of noise (from the high ISO). I think the BG should have been either clearer (more DoF) or more blurred (shorter DoF).

However, it's crystal clear + ultra-sharp on the FG subject, i.e. where it counts

[VinnyP]

Looks pretty good for 3200 to me.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

BG is cluttered + distracting, not helped by a fair amount of noise (from the high ISO). I think the BG should have been either clearer (more DoF) or more blurred (shorter DoF).

Give me a break, your critique is besides the point as well as being wide of the mark. You have completely neglected to consider context for a start. But anyway...the picture was posted (and probably shot) to show the noise levels at high iso's

Originally Posted by Charlotte

However, it's crystal clear + ultra-sharp on the FG subject, i.e. where it counts

Please...so the next time someone here posts a nice dreamy scene that just happens to have noise in the sky you wont be the first to raise that point? I can just see it now, "Crystal clear + ultra-sharp on the FG subject, ie just where it counts". Of course the background noise levels count!!! If everything else is perfect in a shot do you not think that will bring even more attention to the noise levels? I am sorry Charlotte but I personally disagree with just about every word of your post with the exception that the subject is in focus.

Originally Posted by VinnyP

Looks pretty good for 3200 to me.

It does Vinny but the noise patterns/characteristics are very different to what I am use to seeing. In the shot above it is showing as blotches which I personally find more distracting. The patterns in that are a long way removed from conventional film noise grain that most are used to. However if this is a improvement for Nikon users (and there is no doubt that many will be happy with the above) then that is a good step forward and should now allow them to shoot with confidence in lower light.

I think this argument is one much like the ones we see about the different colours that Canon and Nikon capture from the same scene. Both will do a great job but some will prefer the colours from the Nikon while others the Canon...its all personal. Nikon improving their cameras (and both the D3 and D300 are definite improvements) will only lead to more competition between them and Canon, that leads to the customers (no matter which camp they are in) becoming the overall winners

[Dave]

Without starting any flaming wars, how does it compare to Canon noise Steve ?. I've got no problem being a fan of how well Canon has always managed high noise so well, but have never got to a point of examining it in detail.

[VikingPhotography]

At this stage in the game it's far to early to infer anything from the samples that have been posted around the web; we know nothing of the circumstances under which the shots were taken and if or how they were post-processed.

The fact is that these shots are taken using pre-production bodies and, furthermore, by photographers who will have had little time to familiarise themselves with setting up the camera to get the best from it.

I'll wait and see definitive reviews and samples appearing on the likes of robgalbraith.com, luminouslandscape.com, naturfotograf.com and evern dpreview.com before I pass judgement on the ISO performance of the D3 or D300 bodies.

[Steve]

In all honesty its very difficult for me to do a fair comparison. The light I usually shoot in is not that great and from looking at the image above I would guess that it could have been shot at a lower iso without much trouble. obviously thats an assumption on my part but there is hardly a wrath of information included with the shot on which we can basa our conclusions. That's hardly a fair test of one against another. And as VP has stated, the shot is from a Pre Production body and being used by a shooter that probably has not had sufficient hands on time to assess it correctly.

Irrespective...at ISO 1600 I don't bother running any shots through noiseware or any other filter software, if you have exposed the shot properly it is that clean that its not necessary. At ISO3200 on my 20D you have to look at the shot full size to see the noise. If you then clicked the shot to view the whole image in your browser (as you can do with the above link) then at worse it looks much like the noise you would see in film (film grain). Its there of course, but its completely different to the noise seem in the Nikon above. I think I have provided example shots to you in the past that where taken at ISO3200 underground. If I recall correctly you where amazed at the lack of noise in the unedited versions.

Now this is where it all becomes subjective. I don't think the Nikon shot above is worse or better, it is just different in as much as it seems to look (to me at least) 'blotchy' in comparison to the Canon equivalent. As the Canon produces noise more like film grain I find it more acceptable and less intrusive...but that is probably only because I am used to seeing noise in that 'style' and so it fits in with the photo better. Maybe with time (or a firmware upgrade if they wish) if there is demand, Nikon may tweak the processing algorithms to make it appear more that way? It all depends on how it accepted by their user base. One thing is for certain, it's a definite improvement on what Nikon users have had in the past, so that has got to be a good thing.

That is the best I can do to explain my feelings on it without wanting to start a flame war.

[silkstone]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at here - I can't make out what the background is meant to be. What I do see is lots of banding - as if the image is taken through a chain-link fence - and also vignetting at the top corners. But again I don't know if that's down to the camera, the processing or what was actually in the background.

The jury may be out for some time...

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by silkstone

I can't make out what the background is meant to be.

looks like rows of chairs to me with the occasional peeps dotted around. the bands are just the gaps between chairs. that's my take anyway.

[silkstone]

Ah yes - that makes sense. I couldn't work it out until you said!

[VikingPhotography]

Originally Posted by silkstone

I'm not sure what I'm looking at here - I can't make out what the background is meant to be. What I do see is lots of banding - as if the image is taken through a chain-link fence - and also vignetting at the top corners. But again I don't know if that's down to the camera, the processing or what was actually in the background.

The shot is from the IAAF championships in Osaka, Japan - that's the only place in the world where D3 and D300 bodies are actively being used right now by select photographers whom have been pre-approved by Nikon.

Nikon Japan has a team on-site that is assisting these photographers in using not only the D3 bodies but also the new 400, 500 and 600mm VR lenses.

As I said before; these are pre-production bodies that are undergoing their first real-world tests before shipping begins. This is effectively beta-testing for the cameras before they are finalised... hence November being the availability date.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by Steve

Irrespective...at ISO 1600 I don't bother running any shots through noiseware or any other filter software, if you have exposed the shot properly it is that clean that its not necessary. At ISO3200 on my 20D you have to look at the shot full size to see the noise. If you then clicked the shot to view the whole image in your browser (as you can do with the above link) then at worse it looks much like the noise you would see in film (film grain). Its there of course, but its completely different to the noise seem in the Nikon above. I think I have provided example shots to you in the past that where taken at ISO3200 underground. If I recall correctly you where amazed at the lack of noise in the unedited versions.

That is where Canon has had the lead for ages. It is the same story after processing but in fairness not so pronounced. Nikon does less noise reduction in camera. The finished results are a lot closer when you look at noise scores but the equivalent Canon still seems to edge it by about half a stop.