canon 5D mk2 versus nikon D3 ISO

L

LKavaney

Suspended / Banned
Messages
434
Name
Lisa
Edit My Images
Yes
How do the ISO's compare in your opinion on these two cameras? I've researched and googled and have my own opinions but I would like other people opinions too, preferably un-biased not Canon rulz Nikon droolz or vice versa camera war lol

I'm invested in Canon all my kit is canon but I shoot live music so ISO IQ is rather important to me...

Thanks!!
 
I think the 5D is more sharper than the D3 in higher noise comparasions but the D3 might produce a very slightly better image.

I don't think you'll get different images from using either. I think its under the 100% tests where your choosing a side.

I think the cameras will produce almost the same results.. I would base your desicion on something other for a choice.
 
Okay, let's assume that the D3 is better. So you chop in all your Canon gear for Nikon and spend a few months getting to grips with it. Then you read that Canon's new DSLR has even better high ISO performance.

What are you going to do? Change again?!

If your pictures are up to scratch, nobody is going to care about the minuscule difference in IQ between the two cameras. It just doesn't matter in the real world.

People spend far too much time worrying about their gear when there's much more important things to be thinking about.
 
glitch said:
Okay, let's assume that the D3 is better. So you chop in all your Canon gear for Nikon and spend a few months getting to grips with it. Then you read that Canon's new DSLR has even better high ISO performance.

What are you going to do? Change again?!

If your pictures are up to scratch, nobody is going to care about the minuscule difference in IQ between the two cameras. It just doesn't matter in the real world.

People spend far too much time worrying about their gear when there's much more important things to be thinking about.
Click to expand...

+1
its not what you got its how you use it.
 
Canon and Nikon have a slightly different philosophy which confuses the issue a little bit.

Tests in a lab show that the output from the 5D2 sensor is cleaner than the D3 but the final output will show cleaner images from the D3 :thinking:
It really comes down to how much noise is tolerated and the incamera processor will clip the dynamic range (throw away a portion of the bottom end data) to produce the final readable data.
The end result is that the 5D2 is marginally noisier but with a marginally better dynamic range.....you pays your money and takes your choice.

Bob
 
glitch said:
Okay, let's assume that the D3 is better. So you chop in all your Canon gear for Nikon and spend a few months getting to grips with it. Then you read that Canon's new DSLR has even better high ISO performance.

What are you going to do? Change again?!

If your pictures are up to scratch, nobody is going to care about the minuscule difference in IQ between the two cameras. It just doesn't matter in the real world.

People spend far too much time worrying about their gear when there's much more important things to be thinking about.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
I'd add that the D3 and the 5DII are two completely different types of DSLR. The D3 is a feature rich body with pro spec build around a 12MP sensor. With the 5DII (as with the 5D) Canon have kept the price down by producing a much more basic body, with less features (compare the two AF systems for example) around a higher MP sensor.

If you were coming to the scene with no history with either brand I'd say consider a 5DII or D700 if your work was 75-100% landscape, but if your work is more varied or includes action then the choice would be between the D3 and the D700.
 
What about the 1dmkIII?
 
NorthernNikon said:
I'd add that the D3 and the 5DII are two completely different types of DSLR. The D3 is a feature rich body with pro spec build around a 12MP sensor. With the 5DII (as with the 5D) Canon have kept the price down by producing a much more basic body, with less features (compare the two AF systems for example) around a higher MP sensor.

If you were coming to the scene with no history with either brand I'd say consider a 5DII or D700 if your work was 75-100% landscape, but if your work is more varied or includes action then the choice would be between the D3 and the D700.
Click to expand...

^^^ Got to agree with that :)
 
NorthernNikon said:
I'd add that the D3 and the 5DII are two completely different types of DSLR. The D3 is a feature rich body with pro spec build around a 12MP sensor. With the 5DII (as with the 5D) Canon have kept the price down by producing a much more basic body, with less features (compare the two AF systems for example) around a higher MP sensor.

If you were coming to the scene with no history with either brand I'd say consider a 5DII or D700 if your work was 75-100% landscape, but if your work is more varied or includes action then the choice would be between the D3 and the D700.
Click to expand...

What he said :D
 
NorthernNikon said:
I don't think that it's full frame, isn't it a 1.3 crop?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the 1d AF, good noise handling and 10fps shooting mode would benifit a music tog
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Yes, but the 1d AF, good noise handling and 10fps shooting mode would benifit a music tog
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not a good camera, but I would say that the D3 was far better suited for a music tog given that it's full frame, 12MP, best performing low light/high ISO DSLR (I've yet to see a reveiw of a DSLR which beats it), better Af and has 9fps (more than enough for a music tog).

If I had £3k to spend on a body for music photography, it would be the D3 over the 1DMkIII every time. (and I put my money where my mouth is only a couple of weeks ago!)
 
Where you already invested in a system? The OP is invested in Canon so was just suggesting that its another alternative.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Where you already invested in a system? The OP is invested in Canon so was just suggesting that its another alternative.
Click to expand...

I'd already invested in the Nikon system, but given the jump to a £3k body, it wouldn't have stopped me from looking at other systems. The fact that the D3 and D700 are the best low light/high ISO DLSRs simply made my choice easier. I chose the D3 over the D700 for the added features.

Given that the OP has a sub £600 camera and is considering spending upwards of £3k on an upgrade, the argument for staying within system is a thin one. I've no sight of her lenses, but unless she has some exotics in there, she'll have to upgrade those too to make the most of any full frame body so it's as good a time as any to switch if that's the right thing o do.
 
Actually, yeah, Sod it OP, scrap the whole lot and move to Nikon.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Yet more constructive commentry, eh?
Click to expand...

I like to think so.

And sorry, maybe i forgot to put some smileys at the end to show the sarcasm and humour in the comment
 
Canon Bob said:
Canon and Nikon have a slightly different philosophy which confuses the issue a little bit.

Tests in a lab show that the output from the 5D2 sensor is cleaner than the D3 but the final output will show cleaner images from the D3 :thinking:
It really comes down to how much noise is tolerated and the incamera processor will clip the dynamic range (throw away a portion of the bottom end data) to produce the final readable data.
The end result is that the 5D2 is marginally noisier but with a marginally better dynamic range.....you pays your money and takes your choice.
Click to expand...

I wonder whoose lab that is then... The D3 has twice larger pixel area meaning it can produce better SNR in lower light. The 5D MII has still a remarkably clean images out of the camera but it was my understanding that it was all down to in camera processing engine which only means something when you shoot JPEGs. If you look at RAW files the picture may indeed be very different.

What you say about in-camera processing is also not relevant to RAW and this is what should be used comparing hi ISO images really...
 
LKavaney said:
How do the ISO's compare in your opinion on these two cameras? I've researched and googled and have my own opinions but I would like other people opinions too, preferably un-biased not Canon rulz Nikon droolz or vice versa camera war lol

I'm invested in Canon all my kit is canon but I shoot live music so ISO IQ is rather important to me...
Click to expand...

Despite being a Nikon man myself, I'd say stay with Canon. You already used to the system, have a few lenses and the 5D MII is a remarkable camera. It may be (arguably) slightly less performing than D3 in low light but it is still remarkably good. And don't forget that it will give you extra resolution - this (if downscaled) may still have finer details resolved on high ISO images than D3 and hence give you cleaner downscaled images.
 
NorthernNikon said:
I doubt it, AFAIA the DXO Mark testing is done without lenses, which is like test driving a car by just running performance tests on the engine. Unless you know how the car handles the power of the engine what's the point in knowing one engine has 15 BHP more than another?
Click to expand...

So if the testing is done without lenses I guess they arre adressing the core issue which is how well does the sensor perform in RAW mode. The OP was asking this specifically rather than any issues relating to handling, quality of lenses etc.

DxO specifically state this as;
"What we DO is focus intensively on the sensor itself: we measure the quality of this subsystem, and of this subsystem only. So if you are shooting in JPEG, these measurements and ratings might be of limited interest for you, since the RAW image will be processed by your camera’s embedded image processing chip. However, if you shoot in RAW, dxomark’s metrics will be critically important to you, since they will indicate the maximum image quality you can reach with optimal RAW conversion."

Based on this, the DxO data does seem to have some relevence as part of the overall jigsaw of information gathering but is by no means the complete picture, however, the OP only asked about this bit specifically if I recall. To use your own analogy - if you were asked which of two cars had the most powerful engine it would be equally pointless to ramble on about handling in corners etc :thumbs:
 
I tried a 5D II recently. Nice enough body and familiar after spending 2 years with 5D's, but the AF was poor compared to my D3's and simply wouldn't lock on using anything other than the centre point where the D3 did with ease. So I'd personally not use a 5D II in preference. Given that I rarely use the centre AF point it's a big consideration even before I factor in the overall handling, build, dual cards, battery life, viewfinder and customisation available in the D3. My D3's cost me what a 5D II does today.

That said, consider the system overall and pick what's right for you, not anyone else.
 
oldestswinger said:
However, the OP only asked about this bit specifically if I recall. To use your own analogy - if you were asked which of two cars had the most powerful engine it would be equally pointless to ramble on about handling in corners etc :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The OP asked about ISO performance in relation to shooting gigs so that's certainly not a simple straight line test.

Measuring the amount of noise is one thing but noise has a quality about it too, something which science can't measure as it's a subjective quality. The way bodies handle noise varies enormously, and the noise you get in low light venues is one example of where the photogrpaher's eye is a far better judge than any software algorithms.
 
NorthernNikon said:
The OP asked about ISO performance in relation to shooting gigs so that's certainly not a simple straight line test.

Measuring the amount of noise is one thing but noise has a quality about it too, something which science can't measure as it's a subjective quality. The way bodies handle noise varies enormously, and the noise you get in low light venues is one example of where the photogrpaher's eye is a far better judge than any software algorithms.
Click to expand...

But surely if you introduce subjectivity you also introduce bias and personal views based on one's own experiences and value systems. It is therefore open to interpretation which anybody else can agree with or disagree with and each can be correct from their own base point.

As a matter of interest have you looked at the results of the DxO test which clearly indicates a better performance for D3 - your views as to the validity of this would be intersting ;)

What would be of equal interest would be if there were any comparisons on the site that you feel they have got wrong and why.
 
oldestswinger said:
But surely if you introduce subjectivity you also introduce bias and personal views based on one's own experiences and value systems. It is therefore open to interpretation which anybody else can agree with or disagree with and each can be correct from their own base point.

As a matter of interest have you looked at the results of the DxO test which clearly indicates a better performance for D3 - your views as to the validity of this would be intersting ;)

What would be of equal interest would be if there were any comparisons on the site that you feel they have got wrong and why.
Click to expand...

Well, re the subjective nature of noise, the general concensus of reviews I've read all side with the D3/D700 sensor for the quality of it's high ISO noise, so subjectivity can still be analised if you have enough of a sample pool.

As for the D3 coming out on top in the DXO Mark tests, it doesn't really matter, because the test aren't done in the real world, like testing a car on a rolling road. A Bugatti Veron is likely to top a rolling road test, but unless you can drive it on the road you've no idea of what it's capable of in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top