Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
The number one downside is that the better the food the less likely they are to have beer, wine, or booze. That's why I normally go for lunch or carry out only.
There used to be a descent spot (not the best, but not too bad) where you could drink, but the guy was sending money to Hezbollah and fled the country at which point the Feds seized the franchise...
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Image Date: 2009:10:28 09:27:03
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm
CCD Width: 5.28mm
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/0.0
ISO equiv: 1000
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
11/06/09
11/06/09
"If the paper turns clear, it's your window to weight gain" #fastfood
11/06/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
I mean...wow.
I own/use a Nikon D3 (and a D300) and several lenses semi-professionally. As most of my shots are of people on stage (think theater or music performances), I rely on often-challenging existing light, never using a flash. For that reason, when Nikon announced it was releasing a successor to the D3, its new lowlight champ the D3s, I immediately placed a pre-order for one. Two full extra stops of usable shooting? Incredible! Lame, tacked-on 720p video? Meh, don't care...too much. Anyway, that was last week.
Then along comes Canon this week announcing its own new lowlight miracle camera, the 1D Mark IV, featuring exactly the same extended range of high ISO settings as the D3s, but at higher resolution. And then Canon proceeded to one-up Nikon by including full 1080p video, and yet did all this at the same price point. Crap! Was I backing the wrong photographic horse?
Still, there was something odd about all this, as Canon, despite the significant extra pixels (16MP vs Nikon's 12MP), was using not the expected full frame sensor like the D3s, but a smaller one, a sensor with a 1.3x crop factor. Really? How in the hell could the much smaller photosites on the Canon sensor manage to achieve the same ISOs as the much larger photosites on the Nikon? Hmm... Still, Canon's press release lauded all the huge technological advances they had made to achieve their remarkable results with such a small sensor...yada yada.
Now having seen and studied high ISO samples from both cameras at the extended ISO settings—thanks, matt!—I can breathe a sigh of relief. Because the answer to the question of how could Canon achieve the same ISOs as Nikon is: They Can't. All that Canon techno-mumbo-jumbo is nothing more than that, just ISO Marketing Bullshit. Indeed, it's the same crap that they (and all other camera manufacturers, including Nikon) have long used in misrepresenting their consumer point-and-shoot products, but now doing it in their professional line as well. Well, KUDOS to Nikon for playing it straight with us, and BOO to Canon for (intentionally) misleading specifications.
Needless to say, I am not only relieved but more excited than ever about my decision to continue on with the Nikon D3s. Canon Fanbois? Before you go all Flame On with me, first study the sample shots out there now on the Web, then fire away...if you can. (Hint: you can't.)
10/22/09
Good luck with the new D3s, she looks purdy. #nikond3shandson
10/22/09
I completely agree with you - it's marketing bullshit the way a lot of visual technologies have been bullshitting with numbers since the cathode ray was invented. This is like putting '4x' zoom on a RAZR.
Their goal is to get semi-pros to drop more dough for gear they wouldn't normally buy and don't need.
10/22/09
Damn sexy camera and I hope you enjoy it. I'm quite envious. I miss my days of photography and getting stuff published, but grad school strips you of free time to do so. #nikond3shandson
10/22/09
10/22/09
Actually, Canon samples are right here. Ugly as shit noise in the higher ISOs. I would never have made the statement I made about having studied sample photos if, as you say, no such photos existed.
Now, to be completely fair, what we need is a shoot out with both cameras covering the exact same subjects, and that does not yet exist. Still, the samples linked above tell enough of the story for me to stand behind my statements.
10/22/09
Those really are some atrocious photos. Noisy to the point of being unusable, Not only that, but they have that distinct coloring and feel of bad digital grain at the higher ISOs. I don't think I've seen ISO looking that bad since the 1D. The bad high ISO grain that Canon is known for is why we never used ISO boost when we shot with it. Definitely some marketing BS on Canon's side, and that's understandable. Nikon has had Canon playing catch-up for some time now and there has been a trickle of pro-photogs switching to Nikon from Canon. #nikond3shandson
10/22/09
The Canon vs Nikon debate is a moot point for me, since it's more of a matter of "do I want to take the convertible or the truck out today?". Canon has been king for a while but Nikon is catching up quickly in all segments (except point and shoot).
Competition keeps both companies on their toes and innovating. Hopefully Nikon will ditch the Sony relationship soon. At least with the D3S, they co-designed the sensor with Sony instead of picking off the shelf.
10/22/09
10/22/09
And, yes, you're right. The hideously noisy Canon shots (now yanked per Canon's request—Canon, are you reading and reacting to this story/thread? Fascinating!) were from a pre-production camera.
But, then again, the Nikon shots in this story are also from a pre-production camera. And while it's true that both models are subject to modification prior to release from either manufacturer, at this stage I'd suggest it's still a reasonable apples to apples comparison.
10/22/09
But since you DO have a D3, you must be "semi pro", as you said, and not just a rich amateur, so I'll take your word for it.
But keep in mind that Canon and Nikon continually leap frog one another, just like they had since the 1970's (and especially during the 1980's, when Olympus and Minolta were juggernauts too). Pretty soon Canon will come out with the 1Ds Mark IV, which will beat the D3X/S, and then Nikon will eventually come out with a D4. When Canon first came out with the EOS lineup when I was born (1987), they held such a huge lead that it took Nikon nearly 20 years to catch up. It's stupid to "back a horse" because I'm also assuming you have thousands invested in glass (which I'm assuming you have good ones- it's pointless to get a great camera if you use bad lenses on it)- it's too expensive to jump back and forth between brands, unless you're super rich.
Just be happy with what you have and get out there and shoot.
10/22/09
And someone using a Kodak Brownie can take better shots than someone using a Hasselblad. But, as I was commenting strictly on the technical and objectively measurable capabilities of the equipment, nothing in my commentary is related in any way to a discussion of a photographer's skills nor, for that matter, her/his economic status. So I'm really not sure what the point of your slightly snarky comment is in the context of this thread.
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Where have you been for the past two years? DxOMark tells a different story (dxomark.com).
Even canon shooters are dissappointed:
[forums.dpreview.com] #nikond3shandson
10/22/09
10/22/09
In any case, I do enjoy what I have. And if all I had for equipment was the aforementioned Kodak Brownie, I'd continue to enjoy photography (although I would probably have to make a wee bit of adjustments to my shooting style).
However, back to your trolling, if technology continues to improve, are you suggesting we are not supposed to even discuss those advances? Because I would have to disagree with you; there is a difference between a purposeful discussion of technology and, as you describe, asinine "dicking around with specs"—which nobody in this thread was doing (even if such a distinction goes over your head).
No matter. If you want to comment about an aspect of photography completely unrelated to and independent of the equipment's capabilities—perhaps, as you brought up, the importance of a photographer's skills or the thickness of his/her wallet—you can always post your own original comment. I, for one, would gladly jump into such discussions...elsewhere.
10/22/09
However, I would like to remind you that your 'talk' of technical details amount to no more than "Ugly as shit noise in the higher ISOs", despite the fact that samples from production cameras have not been compared. That's critical response if I ever heard of it.
Even putting that aside, these comparisons again, are stupid, because Nikon and Canon continually leap frog each other. My original point is that while you are patting yourself on the back that you were in the right camp by choosing a Nikon, it's a silly comparison to make because it's almost certain that Canon will come out with a camera with better technical specs in the near future (1Ds). Your D3 won't look so good 2, 3 years from now. So will you suddenly regret your purchase and jump ship to Canon? And then back again when Nikon beats Canon again with a D4?
As for marketing, I'm sure that the inclusion of the EXPEED sensor doesn't count as marketing BS from Nikon either. Frankly, I don't think any of the ISO 102,400 shots are useable for anything other than maybe web graphics (if even).
10/22/09
That's correct...but essentially a pointless misdirection. While no samples from either Nikon or Canon were from production samples, all samples were from pre-production units, thus putting the state of the technology on more or less equal footing for a fair if early rough evaluation...as was duly noted by me and others.
Frankly, for the purpose of this thread, I think it is a shame (but understandable) that Canon forced the linked site to pull the dozens of sample shots, otherwise you could have simply viewed for yourself what I and others saw in the Canon samples. Noise. LOTS of it. I am indeed grateful that at least one other Gizmodo commenter had a chance to see those samples before they were yanked so my comments re: excessive noise could be corroborated.
"That's critical response if I ever heard of it."
Um...yeah (?). Again correct. That's because my comments re: excessive noises were meant to be "critical". However, given that you seem to think you have just slammed me for doing something inappropriate or wrong, I suspect you don't fully grasp (or at least agree with) a common definition of critical, i.e., "an analysis of the merits and faults of" something. Being critical of hardware capabilities, analyzing both its merits and faults, seems pretty appropriate to me.
"...I do sense from posts like yours (and you're not the only one to do this, if you've ever been on the dpreview.com forums) that some people are more interested in justifying their purchases..."
I have no idea what the people on dpreview.com say or do in those forums as I've never participated in any of them. Perhaps some people have done as you say, perhaps not. However, I resent your all-but-stated assertion that my comments were made only or primarily to justify my purchasing decisions, and a critical re-reading of my words should reveal to a reasonable person that you haven't a shred of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to support your mildly insulting charge against me.
To the contrary and to be absolutely clear, my critical comments serve only to describe and assess the capabilities of two new and competing pieces of hardware. I like Nikon. I like Canon. I own and/or have used both in my work and will continue to do so. Trying to disparage me (or anyone else) with unfounded and snarky allegations—and, moreso, accusations that do not directly relate to the critical assessment of equipment capabilities—sounds a whole heck of a lot like someone trying to derail the conversation for some unstated purpose. #nikond3shandson
10/22/09
10/22/09