| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
d3s/m4 2000 asa
Matti Matikainen, Photographer
 |
Helsinki | - | Finland | Posted: 9:09 AM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> Simple test 2000 asa to both cameras same exposure by judging the histogram. Raw files to the cs4 just convert them to jpegs no color or expo corrections.http://www.sportsshooter.com/mama/test |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:13 AM on 01.03.10 |
->> why bother with 2000??? If you want to test them boost them up to 6400 or even 12800. The D3s at 6400 is quite impressive. 2000 shows nothing imo.
bb |
|
Matti Matikainen, Photographer
|
Helsinki | - | Finland | Posted: 9:37 AM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> I put the stupid samples on stupid low iso, because its the iso speed we normally shoot up here in the winter darkness...and if m4 starts to go on color noise at the 2000 iso where nikon keeps the shadows totally clean and higher you go the difference get much bigger but as said it starts to happen from iso 1000 and you can REALLY SEE IT (the Canon color noise )- so on may opinion it is not a great "hi" iso camera but af seems to work. Similar gallery but and the same blah blah blah iso 6400 on both. http://www.sportsshooter.com/mama/6400 |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:42 AM on 01.03.10 |
->> Can you hear that??? What is it??? Its that huge sucking sound as thousands more canon shooters make the leap....
I was actually hoping Canon had a real iso contender on its hands with the mk4.....apparently its more like a contender for the D700/D3 but not the D3s. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 10:58 AM on 01.03.10 |
->> To make it fair shouldn't you resize the canon image to the Nikon image then do a 100% from there?
Also I hate pixel peeping, I think it is a waste of time. From the images I have seen of the Mark IV, it's high ISO is outstanding. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:01 PM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> It is outstanding, but it's not as good as the D3S. However, high ISO performance is not the only compelling advantage of the Nikon system... |
|
Michael Ip, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:15 PM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> A little off topic here.... but I'd like to see some comparisons between a 1dmkIV and a 1d (original) and a D3s and a D1. It'll really show how far digital cameras have come. I wonder how many people were complaining that ISO 800 was too noise on the 1s. Think of it now, we've essentially got digital cameras that can shoot way cleaner than film ever was able to and some people are still finding a way to complain. I'll take that ISO 2000 over tri-x pushed two stops any day. -end rant |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:38 PM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> I still hear that 'too noisy' comment...and I remember the days that I shot Tri-X pushed to 1600 for night football...even 1D files are superior to that... |
|
Matti Matikainen, Photographer
|
Helsinki | - | Finland | Posted: 4:15 PM on 01.03.10 |
->> ...After af horrible m3..switched back to nikon and started to shoot with d3 when it came (mine was 3rd body when the shipments started to finland and i was one of the first´s also in finland to get d3s)....but i kept all my canon lenses for the future to come...I was sitting in the canon headquaters 31.12.2009 with my just arrived m4 drinking coffee and to be teached about the settings of m4 af when my cellular ringed. Matti: somebody is shooting people at the Sello shopping mall 5 allready killed and the shooting seems to be going on, take your cameras and go. But i did not have my nikon`s with me so I borrowed all the lenses,flashes etc. from canon showroom and I drove to the scene. I started to shoot with my totally brand new m4... something was wrong.. is it me or camera i could not tell but i wasn´t very happy..I had problems with af and the file quality when i chimped.. oh my... 1000 asa and they looked like grain mess is this a m3 with new name...I am not a pixel what so ever but as a former agency chief photographer i also look the pictures as much about it´s content but also the technical quality. Matti you are in the midlle of major news and you creating tehnical s**t- if somebody pick up the pictures from the quality issue on mind they are not mine. Here we don`t have sun shining we have darkness and bad light allways. If you have access to EPA you can see or download files from Sello shooting or just try to google out to see real life samples.
What i did today was just to see what m4 files are really made of and trying to figure out about the odd happenings and quality results i had with the m4 on a breaking news event. I was standing side by side to my fellow epa shooter with old d3`s shooting a police officer looking out some bullet`s on the ground now movement no nothing..and i couldn`t get m4 single af to get right focus at all.. focus light was on and the camera was able to shot the picture on view finder it looked sharp. The file chimped i really could`n tell where the focus was. When I looked our pictures transmitted out by our third epa shooter on the scence (he made the selection not me and most he had picked up from me were kind of bit soft). After thinking and thinking over and over again my own opinion is that af problems may have been: from not so good af settings or the truth that pixel density on m4 is so high that you need 1-2 stop more speed to freeze the action than with nikon d3 but i am not really sure. The file quality difference as you can see with the totally non scientific tests shows at least to me as a Nikon shooter that 4700euros super band hyper new with lastes of the latest is not near by. To me this was finally it: sorry canon you couldn`t do it- not even close it was your last chance. As naive as it may sound i posted all these just to clear my on mind about the fact when something really happens and you try to do your best on assignment and cameras don`t work as they should or in this case you are used to get better results out of your gear and you loose important pictures... it make one to do odd things |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 4:48 PM on 01.03.10 |
->> Matti,
Not to be critical, but are you really saying that the M4 files at ISO 1000 are a grainy mess?
I hope not because that would make me have to laugh out loud.
Here is a link I found at FM, and to say ISO 1600 is a grainy mess is just absurd!
http://caswell.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p479742405.jpg
Look I LOVED the D3, awesome camera, but to say the Mark 4 files are grainy is just plain ridiculous.
JMHO |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 5:02 PM on 01.03.10 |
->> ...."Matti you are in the midlle of major news and you creating tehnical s**t- if somebody pick up the pictures from the quality issue on mind they are not mine."......
In the USA the thought would be..... Wow I'm shooting a major breaking story, I wonder how many times my images will be passed over in favor of free user submitted cell phone photos.
Matti you took a virgin camera from the box into hell and didn't even give yourself or the camera the benefit a ANY tweaks to the settings. When I got my D3 my Nikon rep called and walked me through her favorite settings as a starting point. With the Mk IV's leaking out if the image and AF was 1/2 as bad as what you are seeing the roar would have already crumbled Canon HQ to dust. I think you need to either A. take a few days with a Canon rep to tweak out the body or B. swap it out and test a 2nd copy. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> Something isn't right here. There is no way there could be that much of a difference between the two files. Am I crazy here? I can't imagine the Mark IV being that bad. If so, Canon has a major problem on their hands. Still, something isn't right with these files. I believe there is either something wrong with that particular camera, or there was something in the settings that led to this amount of noise. Even the Nikon doesn't look as good as I have seen at ISO 2000 |
|
Michael Ip, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:00 PM on 01.03.10 |
| ->> Wow, Paul thanks. That's absolutely amazing. And to think the price of the 1d was $6500 and the d3s is only $5200. It gets so much better and cheaper too! |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|