Sony A900, Canon 5DMkII, Nikon D3x Noise shoot out

[johnastovall]

Luminous Landscape ends the year with a noise shoot out of those three cameras.

A Big Three Noise Shootout

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Cool.

I've gotten to play around with D3X NEF files at ISO3200 and they are cleaner than D3 files at that ISO. They're huge too, amazing detail and color.

Joe

[srwatters]

Dammit Joe.

"I'm not listening", "nanananananananana", "I can't hear you".....

My D3 is just fine and dandy...

Obligatory on topic comment: I would expect all of these machines to perform well and because the Canon is 1/3 the price, I won't be buying a D3x!

[jeffkohn]

I don't agree with Reichmann's conclusions. I guess you can say that the amount noise is about the same; but to me the D3x looks better than the 5D2. I've always preferred the look of Nikon's noise to Canon's. The Nikon looks more film-like, the Canon looks more splotchy. The 5D2 also seems to lose more detail. Even at ISO 1600 the D3x looks better to me.

[photonewb]

at 1600 it doesn't even look like there's any noice in the D3x...sigh...8k is way out of my budget and way out of my needs.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I've always preferred the look of Nikon's noise to Canon's.

It's personal preference but I'm with you Jeff. I tend to like Nikon's new noise handling as well.

I haven't had a chance to look at a D3X NEF at low ISO values so no idea how much, if any better it is.

I think it's amazing how Nikon can make that Sony sensor sing! (ugh, tnoung tyed zup)

Joe

[Pascal]

If only that D3x was $5000.... or even $6000.... we would have seen a swift painful death of the Canon 1Ds Mk III and maybe even the 5D Mk II or a 180 turn in canon price structure.

I don't think the Nikon D3X will stay at the $8k mark for too long. Pretty soon, the prices may drop down to $6800-$7000 or so... given the pricing trend of the previous D3, D2xs, etc.

And yes... from a long time Canon shooter... I am partly vested in Nikon now and plan on being here for a while.... gotta love those colors and that high ISO noise capability of the FX sensors - beats anything currently offered by Canon - in terms of image quality, body functionality, and price. All Nikon needs now is some large aperture primes at competitive prices and a slight markdown of their high end zooms.

[AndrewCCM]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I don't agree with Reichmann's conclusions. I guess you can say that the amount noise is about the same; but to me the D3x looks better than the 5D2. I've always preferred the look of Nikon's noise to Canon's. The Nikon looks more film-like, the Canon looks more splotchy. The 5D2 also seems to lose more detail. Even at ISO 1600 the D3x looks better to me.

You gotta be either talking about just recent bodies or joking. Prior to D200/300, the Nikon noise was terrible. Precisely why I switched to Canon. Our D2X, D70, D100, etc.. were atrocious at anything much over ISO 800.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Let me also say, that I think brand owners tend to see things favoring their brand. For example, as I look at these samples, I personally think the 5D2 files look every bit as good as the D3X...in some examples better. But if I owned Nikon, I'd probably feel different. To me, that tells me they are way too close to call. While I think the D3X will be a most excellent camera, I guess it will depend on what the ultimate need is as to whether it's worth 3 of the 5D2's. I don't tend to use 21mpix/5D2 camera bodies for sports or much of anything outdoors...pretty much weddings and studio. So (for me), I couldn't really justify the 1DsMk3/D3X type of body...The 5D2 does everything I need it to do and at a great price point.

For sports and outdoors, where the nice extras are worth the extra expense (to me), I use a 1D3. Between the 1D3 and the 5D2, I have backup bodies in a pinch, nice diversity when needed and all for less than one of the flagship Full Frame bodies.

Anyway.. Thanks for posting this.. Interesting for sure.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by AndrewCCM

You gotta be either talking about just recent bodies or joking. Prior to D200/300, the Nikon noise was terrible. Precisely why I switched to Canon. Our D2X, D70, D100, etc.. were atrocious at anything much over ISO 800.

Like fingernails on a chalkboard man.

[AndrewCCM]

LOL...

To be honest, I ALMOST...bought a D700 and a single Nikon lens just to have that option. If the 5D2 would have been a disappointment, I would have done that.

I did the mixed bag of Nikon/Canon for about 6months and it really didn't work out all that well for me...but it's been a few years..

[jeffkohn]

You gotta be either talking about just recent bodies or joking. Prior to D200/300, the Nikon noise was terrible. Precisely why I switched to Canon. Our D2X, D70, D100, etc.. were atrocious at anything much over ISO 800.

You'll get absolutely no argument from me that previous-generation Nikons were ill-suited to high ISO work. I wasn't saying that those cameras were better at any given ISO than Canon. I was strictly talking about the character/look of the noise once it does show up. I've just never liked the "Canon look", I prefer how Nikons look.

BTW I shot with a D2x for 2 years, and I think you're being generous when you say it's no good over ISO 800. I never went over ISO 500 except as a last resort, and for landscape/nature work I didn't even like going as high as 320.

[venchka]

Personally, I like to stay under 250 if I can. 20-25-50-100 are really nice. OOPS, wrong sensor material.

Seriously, folks, unless you're on the sidelines at pro sporting events or major colleges, and in that case, somedody else is paying the frieght, who really NEEDS all of this high ISO stuff? Huh? Those same sports photographers (or their ancestors) shot with Kodachome II or high speed Ektachrome 64 for crying out loud. To hear folks talk about digital cameras and high sensitivity, you would think that S.I. didn't have any photographs prior to digital breaking the ISO 800 barrier. Remember, the Civil War was photographed with wet GLASS plates at ASA speeds less than 1. And the original plates are still with us to prove it.

Think about that.

[AndrewCCM]

Wayne,

If you like to shoot without a blasted flash look in low-light concerts or wedding receptions...high ISO is imperative as is fast glass. I DETEST "old-school" blasted flash wedding pics. I typically shoot mostly ISO 1600 during receptions. But with the 5D2, I'll be shooting more ISO3200...Even at those ISOs, I still use bounced flash and in some cases, both bounced flash and off camera secondary flash. But still with ambient light being predominate.

As far as shooting major sporting events and someone else footing the bill... Well, don't count me in that category. I pay for all of my gear...Then again, I am not a full-time employee of a media outlet. Well..actually I am...I work for Thomson Reuters...But in IT. LOL.

[luis_relampago]

I think I'll get a 5DII and lots and lots of cool glass with the extra 5400 bucks. (35 1.4L, 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L) or (16-35 2.8L, 24-70 2.8L & 70-200 2.8L IS) or a combination of primes and zooms and a couple of nice Large CF cards for the HD video of the 5D MKII just kidding
This a very subjective matter and If you have the 8K for a very cool camera like the D3X by all means get it and be happy. If you are like Andrew and don't need the extras of a "Pro Body" well good for you. Remember that life is to short to be remorseful of our decisions. Be Happy!

[jeffkohn]

Oh, don't get me started on the price. I don't doubt the D3x is the best high-res DSLR currently on the market, but at $8K it's definitely overpriced.