The pictures that load on the web page are from the 1Dmk4. Hover your mouse over each image and wait for the D3S image to load. The D3S is awesome!
D3S Versus 1Dmk4
(66 posts) (20 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Yup, noise looks better across the entire range, not to mention better auto white balance.
Posted 3 years ago # -
woah, Mark IV looks like poo. . .in comparison. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's interesting and all, but I only shoot movies now so I'm switching to Canon.
Posted 3 years ago # -
doesn't the D3s do movies now too??
Just wondering how many main stream americans actually own a 1080p set and would demand their wedding movies in 1080p. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think the people that complain about not having 1080p in a Nikon don't realize you need a 1080p TV too :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
You know on the downside by making the D3S so good, we are going to expect this kind of performance in all future Nikon cameras regardless of price!
Posted 3 years ago # -
I hope Willis switch to Canon and never get back to this forum again.
;)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't know... other than noise and maybe color I like the Canon shots better. There is far more detail in the Canon shots than Nikon's. I don't think the pixel density would come into play at these sizes, so maybe Nikon has more aggressive noise reduction? On the other hand, the Nikon shots look kind of smeared to me, maybe at 1/15 second there's blur from the mirror slap?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Retraction: I just realized I don't know *$# about making movies because I'm a photographer, not a director... Guess I'm stuck with Nikon then.
Shiva - Truth be told, I have one 720p and one 1080p TV's and the only way I can see a differince is if I look at them up close & side by side. I might feel differently when I get a blue ray player, but for the Cable TV content, there isn't a lick of difference. The thing to love about HDTV is the form factor, aspect ratio, and the flat viewing surface, not the resolution (also energy consumption for you green types).
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
Retraction: I just realized I don't know *$# about making movies because I'm a photographer, not a director... Guess I'm stuck with Nikon then.Shiva - Truth be told, I have one 720p and one 1080p TV's and the only way I can see a differince is if I look at them up close & side by side. I might feel differently when I get a blue ray player, but for the Cable TV content, there isn't a lick of difference. The thing to love about HDTV is the form factor, aspect ratio, and the flat viewing surface, not the resolution (also energy consumption for you green types).
I knew you'd come around, willis, which is why I didn't come out with my pitchfork.
About 720/1080, I got booed down when I said that about TVs even though I backed up what I said with physics. My aunt (and my wife, to a point) still thinks physics is a little like black magic, despite all my efforts to sway their opinion. Then again, maybe I'd rather be a warlock than a scientist. It's not that I'm against putting 1080p in cameras. My point in the other thread was I'd rather have 720p at 30fps than 1080p at 24fps since not every display device can handle 24fps elegantly.
shivaswrath said:
doesn't the D3s do movies now too??Just wondering how many main stream americans actually own a 1080p set and would demand their wedding movies in 1080p. . .
Those people can also hire a videographer in addition to the photographer.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue, I think that's just the upsizing/downsizing to match 12mp to 16mp. This was only meant to compare ISO performance.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
Retraction: I just realized I don't know *$# about making movies because I'm a photographer, not a director... Guess I'm stuck with Nikon then.Shiva - Truth be told, I have one 720p and one 1080p TV's and the only way I can see a differince is if I look at them up close & side by side. I might feel differently when I get a blue ray player, but for the Cable TV content, there isn't a lick of difference. The thing to love about HDTV is the form factor, aspect ratio, and the flat viewing surface, not the resolution (also energy consumption for you green types).
totally feel you man, I had a 720p set for almost 5 years and LOVED it. . .only reason I "upgraded" this year is we bought a new home and the 20 ft. ceilings in the LR made the 32" 720p look stupid. . .so we got a 1080p 55" set, and side by side, can BARELY tell the difference. . .
the Hz thing REALLY gets to me. . .I watch sports on my 720p set which is probably 10Hz (a Hitachi set from 2004), and when I watch on the larger 240hz set, I see no difference in this "judder" thing they market so well . .. sigh, effective sales tactics. .
Posted 3 years ago # -
I often wonder if people who complain about Nikon not having 1080p video even have 1080p TVs? Or if they realize that 1080p isn't 1080p on a 720p screen?
Posted 3 years ago # -
LOL Johnny... I'd boo any attempt to bring physics into a photography thread (even if it applies). That's like serving spinach for desert!.
Some things just look better at lower resolution (Sara Palin, Jerry Seinfeld, Peter Griffen.... I'm looking at you!). Outside of sports I just don't generally bother to tune to the HD stuff.
As far as frame rates go... I'm told that 24fps works better in a theatre setting, and that 30 fps works better for home TV use (at least in America it does, and apparently its not 30fps, its 29.75 or some such non-sense).
Niko - You are right on the money. I can almost guaranty you they don't (especially if they are the indie film directors they claim to be LOL).
Posted 3 years ago # -
hey jonny I don't know why but as I read your response I suddenly recalled my physics teacher, Mr. Wizard. My he rest in peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Mr._WizardHa ha, you're right about the claims of indie directors Willis. But don't we all claim to be "photographers" around here too? :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
shivaswrath said:
totally feel you man, I had a 720p set for almost 5 years and LOVED it. . .only reason I "upgraded" this year is we bought a new home and the 20 ft. ceilings in the LR made the 32" 720p look stupid. . .so we got a 1080p 55" set, and side by side, can BARELY tell the difference. . .the Hz thing REALLY gets to me. . .I watch sports on my 720p set which is probably 10Hz (a Hitachi set from 2004), and when I watch on the larger 240hz set, I see no difference in this "judder" thing they market so well . .. sigh, effective sales tactics. .
Your hitachi is probably 30Hz if you're in North America. The only time you'd see the difference in judder effect is in telecine (movie->TV) and only if you have a player that will output at 24p (the movie framerate). If that's the case, you'll get frame pulldown on a 30Hz device that you won't get on a 240Hz device (or 120Hz device, for that matter) because those numbers divide evenly by 24 frames. If you had that same player hooked up to your hitachi (assuming it doesn't do 24fps natively, which isn't always true as some plasma TVs do it), the TV will have to do a 2:3 pulldown to get 30 fps, mixing some frames together to create new frames to fill the gaps. That's where the judder comes from. Now, whether you can actually see judder depends a lot on physiology (your flicker fusion threshold) and whether you know what to look for. I'm guessing at least 90% of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
And for broadcast there is no difference between 30Hz and 240Hz devices as both handle the 30Hz broadcast natively.
[waits to be booed down once again]
edit: willis, at least I don't bicker about 30 vs 29.9whatever.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
hey jonny I don't know why but as I read your response I suddenly recalled my physics teacher, Mr. Wizard. My he rest in peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Mr._WizardHa ha, you're right about the claims of indie directors Willis. But don't we all claim to be "photographers" around here too? :^)
Oh, I know that crazy canuck. I enjoyed Bill Nye even more, though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What?!? Bill Nye has NOTHING on Mr. Wizard! Wasn't there a third guy as well? He had a big sewer rat as an assistant. What was his name?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Found it, thank you google!
Wow you guys are crazy off-topic now!
Posted 3 years ago # -
No, you're thinking splinter on TMNT, Niko.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
That's MASTER Splinter to you jonny.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
So glad I missed beakman's world. Was this promo photo shot with a 1D4?Yes, yes... indeed it was jonny. It was actually shot with a prototype mock-up of what would eventually be called the 1Dmk4 back in 1991 I believe.
Note the strange banding pattern in the purple areas of the background. The D3S used on Mr. Wizards promo shot contains no such anomalies
Posted 3 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue said:
I don't know... other than noise and maybe color I like the Canon shots better. There is far more detail in the Canon shots than Nikon's. I don't think the pixel density would come into play at these sizes, so maybe Nikon has more aggressive noise reduction? On the other hand, the Nikon shots look kind of smeared to me, maybe at 1/15 second there's blur from the mirror slap?I really think you need to look at those pictures again. There is more detail in the Nikon photos over canon. Look at the background, it is obvious across the ISO range which tells me Nikon is getting far better at contoling noise in the first place before you need to apply noise reduction. Aslo, the photos from the Canon are to warm, and the color is not accurate, just look at the cast over the white, and gray. The white you see from the Canon is off-white. You may prefer the look of the Canon shots because you prefer a warmer image as many people do, but that color is far from accurate. Besides, you can have the same effect in post just by adjusting the white balance.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
