Michael Reichman's comment on D3 @ High ISO

Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscape has chimed in on a thread on his site.

The full comments can be found at the following link:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22188&st=60&p=167515&#entry167515

The thread comments that precede HIS comments are interesting as well. To sum it up? He states that him and several others (his peers) feel the D3 represents a significant development for High ISO imaging.

M.R. says he sees a difference of "at least" 2.0 stops from any camera he's used before...

FYI

Ed,

Michael is smart and has shot many cameras and even heralded the significance of the D30 as a film-buster ahead of most. He also to his credit has reviewed and given opinions on MF digital backs more than all other websites I know of. Further I like some of his books and photographs. I have several on my coffee table. His view always interests me as he actually uses stuff on his trips. He's a natural and it seems loves new gear.

Here, however, Michael is on an adrenaline rush for this D3 as if it will be a practical change in how we work. Well yes, if you do available light photojournalism and street photography requiring perhaps, this might be substantial advance especially if one cant afford a 1DsMark III!

Take that new Canon DSLR, for example, one can bin down pixels and get rid of noise and probably match or likely trump the D3 at 3200 ISO. Someone please try it!

Also most pros who use controlled light conditions would not go above ISO 100-400. So the extra light sensitivity does not matter to most guys earning a living. As wedding or event photographer, are you really going to shoot at ISO 3200 with flash? I doubt it.

What might count more is the ability to get detail in demanding landscape or architectural scenes or fashion spreads or photographing art. I am p[retty sure that given a choice of two cameras, the 1Ds III or the 1DMark III would be chosen over the D3, if cost was not counted (especially for a working pro with existing lenses) it's a no brainer.

Asher

Edward Bussa said:

M.R. says he sees a difference of "at least" 2.0 stops from any camera he's used before...

Click to expand...

It's not clear from that if he means that the D3 replicates the noise of other cameras at 4x their ISO, or if he means that at any given ISO, there are two more stops of usable shadows. Neither is physically possible, and I must conclude that he has an affinity for noise reduction.

So, is there an imperative practical use of the D3 over other cameras for on'es work that would make you switch brands?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Take that new Canon DSLR, for example, one can bin down pixels and get rid of noise and probably match or likely trump the D3 at 3200 ISO. Someone please try it!

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be interesting! However, as Michael points out in his post, his opinion is not about absolutes - it is about his experience with the product.

Now, since he is a credible source, and an experienced one at that, I tend to lend credibility.

Asher Kelman said:

As wedding or event photographer, are you really going to shoot at ISO 3200 with flash? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

This strikes me as an odd statement. ISO 3200 allows much more flexibility to balance ambient light with the flash output AND potentially saves on the amount of flash required to light a scene, effectively increasing the guide number of your flash or reducing recycling times! That is, if the image quality at 3200 is up to par, as it sounds like it is...

Asher Kelman said:

I am pretty sure that given a choice of two cameras, the 1Ds III or the 1DMark III would be chosen over the D3, if cost was not counted (especially for a working pro with existing lenses) it's a no brainer.

Click to expand...

With no justification of this statement (except for the existing lenses argument), it strikes me as prejudice.

With Michael and others saying the D3 is AT LEAST in the same league, I don't understand why it is such an easy choice to go with a 1D*!?

I don't find Michael's post controversial at all. It seems like a reasoned opinion. I'm sure Canon makes fine equipment, but that doesn't mean that the D3 doesn't (or can't?) clearly beat Canon equipment in some areas... no?

I know there are many more Canonites than Nikonians on these forums, I'm just making people aware of a possibly important comment (depending on who you are).

Edward Bussa said:

Yes, that would be interesting! However, as Michael points out in his post, his opinion is not about absolutes - it is about his experience with the product.

Click to expand...

Michael does this "Gestalt" opinionating and that's what the limits are.

Edward Bussa said:

Now, since he is a credible source, and an experienced one at that, I tend to lend credibility.

Click to expand...

Yes the report is entirely credible and a nice expression of Michael's feelings. He's claim no more than that. So it is to his credit that he shares his insights, however, these cannot replace objective tests.

Re Flash and choice of ISO being for pros usually not shooting weddings at ISO 3200:

Edward Bussa said:

This strikes me as an odd statement. ISO 3200 allows much more flexibility to balance ambient light with the flash output AND potentially saves on the amount of flash required to light a scene, effectively increasing the guide number of your flash or reducing recycling times! That is, if the image quality at 3200 is up to par, as it sounds like it is...

Click to expand...

The image cannot be on a par with images taken at ISO 100 or 200 since there are not enough photons to define the shadows as adequately and some sources of noise become much more important to overcome and the greater the number of photons the better one is. For a wedding, defining the black suits with silk collars and lapels is a challenge especially right by the brides delicately patterned white gown and pretty flowers. She's paying for the magic moments to be memorialized photography and the Professional is not going to use ISO 3200 and compromize quality just to save 4 AA batteries!

I take a box of batteries with and/ or have some other lighting source.

Re Choice of 1DIII series preferentially

Edward Bussa said:

With no justification of this statement (except for the existing lenses argument), it strikes me as prejudice.

Click to expand...

Ed, I'm in no way predjudiced against Nikon; in fact the opposite. I prefer Nikon wide angle lenses and Macro setup. I just think that for those with Canon lenses, the ISO thing is not as wonderful as more pixels or faster shots.

I have always looked to Canon as a leader. In fact I celebrate every time I see a Nikon shooter. The question is always is there enough for a Canon user to switch. To me, at least, it's a good choice if one has a need for wide angle not requiring the 21MP of Canon and espcecially for street and other available light photography, even more for B&W. I've thought of getting one just for that purpose, but I reckon the 6D with higher usable ISO will appear very shortly and I already have my lenses!

Asher

Edward Bussa said:

Yes, that would be interesting! However, as Michael points out in his post, his opinion is not about absolutes - it is about his experience with the product.

Click to expand...

Michael does this "Gestalt" opinionating and that's what the limits are.

Edward Bussa said:

Now, since he is a credible source, and an experienced one at that, I tend to lend credibility.

Click to expand...

Yes the report is entirely credible and a nice expression of Michael's feelings. He'd claim no more than that. So it is to his credit that he shares his insights, however, these cannot replace objective tests.

Re Flash and choice of ISO being for pros usually not shooting weddings at ISO 3200:

Edward Bussa said:

This strikes me as an odd statement. ISO 3200 allows much more flexibility to balance ambient light with the flash output AND potentially saves on the amount of flash required to light a scene, effectively increasing the guide number of your flash or reducing recycling times! That is, if the image quality at 3200 is up to par, as it sounds like it is...

Click to expand...

The image cannot be on a par with images taken at ISO 100 or 200 since there are not enough photons to define the shadows as adequately and some sources of noise become much more important to overcome and the greater the number of photons the better one is. For a wedding, defining the black suits with silk collars and lapels is a challenge especially right by the brides delicately patterned white gown and pretty flowers. She's paying for the magic moments to be memorialized no top rank Professional is not going to choose ISO 3200 and risk compromizing quality just to save 8 AA batteries in an evening or change the battery on his belt.

Re Choice of 1DIII series preferentially

Edward Bussa said:

With no justification of this statement (except for the existing lenses argument), it strikes me as prejudice.

Click to expand...

Ed, I'm in no way predjudiced against Nikon; in fact the opposite. I prefer Nikon wide angle lenses and Macro setup. I just think that for those with Canon lenses, the ISO thing is not as wonderful as more pixels or faster shots.

I have always looked to Canon as a leader. In fact I celebrate every time I see a Nikon shooter. The question is always is there enough for a Canon user to switch. To me, at least, it's a good choice if one has a need for wide angle not requiring the 21MP of Canon and espcecially for street and other available light photography, even more for B&W. I've thought of getting one just for that purpose, but I reckon the 6D with higher usable ISO will appear very shortly and I already have my lenses!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

... no top rank Professional is not going to choose ISO 3200 and risk compromizing quality just to save 8 AA batteries in an evening or change the battery on his belt.

Click to expand...

Not every image is about the ultimate in image quality. I believe that high ISO in demanding situations, such as wedding photography, can give the edge you need to capture the moment you envision.

Also, I said nothing about saving batteries! Faster recycle times means you flash is ready faster for that decisive moment, and enhanced guide number means effectively higher watt seconds! Toss the batteries!

Asher Kelman said:

I just think that for those with Canon lenses, the ISO thing is not as wonderful as more pixels or faster shots.

Click to expand...

If you're in the business of making super large reproductions, the D3 is mostly likely not your camera.

As far as fast shots goes, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression the D3 is no slouch, if not a top performer?

Asher Kelman said:

I have always looked to Canon as a leader ... I reckon the 6D with higher usable ISO will appear very shortly and I already have my lenses!

Click to expand...

I think the wishful bashing I've seen with comments like "Canon has slipped" is most likely just that. I do not underestimate Canon and I'm sure they are anxious to compete. This is good for us.

Also, a follow on the D3 is sure to come.

I found Michael's comment compelling because they coincided with my own initail observations from the controlled test I had seen. I was conservative by saying I saw a 1.5 stop difference. Michael says at least 2. Either way, to each his own whether or not thats useful or compelling.

The noise level in D3 files is significantly lower than that in 1DsMk2 and Mk3 files. Furthermore, the ISO can be pushed to over 25,000, something that no Canon camera can do. For example, at 1600 ISO D3 files have far less noise than 1DsMk2 or 3 files.

I currently use a 1DsMk2 (in addition to 4x5) and would switch to Nikon if it wasn't for the lower pixel count. However, if Nikon introduces a 21mp camera with comparable noise level, I will switch, unless Canon matches the Nikon noise level in their next cameras.

Why? Because it means foregoing the use of a tripod in low light situations and getting the same noise level as with the camera on a tripod with a lower ISO. Not using a tripod has many advantages: speed, accessibility of locations where tripods are inconvenient or cannot be used, not having to adjust tripod legs in tricky locations, not having to carry a tripod, using lenses that have smaller openings and are thus lighter and less expensive, and more. Plus of course the new image creating capabilities that such a high ISO setting offers.

The Nikon noise technology is something I have been eagerly wating for. Now let's see if they will offer a sensor size comparable to Canon's.

I was one of the first few fans of Michael's website and like most people around the world, enjoy most of his articles there. However, over the years, I also noticed that he may sometimes erred on his thoughts and findings too.

One of those is his constant lamentations on an easier way to get mirror lock-up on EOS DSLR bodies rather than via a Custom Function. And he would always compared Canon's way of doing it to Nikon's simple way of putting a mechanical mirror lock-up lever at the front of the camera. Someone needs to remind him that the EOS System uses a fully electronic lens mount system and all mechanical connections/settings between body and lenses or individually of one another is not a concept of Canon. The Nikon system is still partially mechanical despite the advanced methods employed in the new D3.

Back to Michael's finding of the noise level between D3 and againts the 1Ds MK II/MK III, there's one thing we have to bear in mind: the pixel size of the D3 is much larger than those on the Canons. Granted, should Canon put a DiG!C III processor in a new 12.8MP full frame EOS DSLR, I am sure the noise levels should be cleaner than the D3's.

After all, the pixel size of existing EOS 5D is definitely larger than the D3's and some comparison tests done elsewhere has shown the 5D (DiG!C II) still resolves more detail and better overall colour balance than the D3's. The latter only won in low noise segment in high ISOs, that's all.

Alain Briot said:

The Nikon noise technology is something I have been eagerly wating for.

Click to expand...

From the image samples I've seen, we're talking about noise reduction that produces varying degrees of reduction based on luminance, and it looks disturbingly odd to me. On top of that, the relatively large sensel size helps to collect more photons, which helps to get cleaner data, but will limit resolution (due to fixed size of sensor array). Higher resolution will require smaller sensels, so we're only looking at a noise reduction algorithm.

I seriously wonder if NeatImage/NoiseNinja/etc. cannot do a better job than the built-in noise reduction algorithms. Unfortunately is seems impossible to really switch off the in-camera NR, and the noise reduced data is saved to Raw, so there is no choice for the user.

Bart

Alain Briot said:

The noise level in D3 files is significantly lower than that in 1DsMk2 and Mk3 files.

Click to expand...

The mk2, yes at high ISOs and maybe general shot noise. The mk3, no. The mk3 uses the same level of improvement in microlens efficiency as the D3. Before the mk3, all Canon full-frame cameras had low quantum efficiency. Not the 1Dsmk3. The pixel read noise is very similar to the D3 at all ISOs, perhaps slightly higher in the mk3 at high ISOs (samples I looked at varied from the same to several % more), but there are almost twice as many of them in the 1Dsmk3, reducing their effective read noise by about 20%. And that doesn't include the possibility that the the Canon may really have a higher ISO than stated, as many have in the past.

Furthermore, the ISO can be pushed to over 25,000, something that no Canon camera can do. For example, at 1600 ISO D3 files have far less noise than 1DsMk2 or 3 files.

Click to expand...

You seem to be fond of noise reduction.

Any camera can be used at ISO 1 million. It's just a matter of what kind of noise you're willing to accept in your push, and how much resolution you need. Actually, the D300 and possibly the D3 can't be pushed that far, because they clip shadows above black. Canon leaves black intact and even preserves room for negative read noise in its RAWs.

The Nikon noise technology is something I have been eagerly wating for. Now let's see if they will offer a sensor size comparable to Canon's.

Click to expand...

There is some greatly improved low-noise technology in the D3, but if you see it outperforming the 1Dsmk3, you are seeing NR.

Philip Chong said:

Back to Michael's finding of the noise level between D3 and againts the 1Ds MK II/MK III, there's one thing we have to bear in mind: the pixel size of the D3 is much larger than those on the Canons. Granted, should Canon put a DiG!C III processor in a new 12.8MP full frame EOS DSLR, I am sure the noise levels should be cleaner than the D3's.

Click to expand...

A 12.8MP would only give better results than a 12.8MP crop from the 21.1MP. You don't get less image noise by having less and bigger pixels in the same size sensor. This is a very popular but totally unfounded myth.

John Sheehy said:

You seem to be fond of noise reduction.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Given two pictures, the one with equivalent detail but less noise wins, no?

The conclusion that noise reduction is somehow a bad thing seems to be a kind of absolute viewpoint.

I understand there are physics involved. However, this viewpoint goes both ways. If only physics determines the image quality, then how could any camera mfg. have any advantage?

There are numerous answers to that question. It appears that Nikon has implemented some of them.

Edward Bussa said:

Given two pictures, the one with equivalent detail but less noise wins, no?

Click to expand...

That's the general idea.

The conclusion that noise reduction is somehow a bad thing seems to be a kind of absolute viewpoint.

Click to expand...

I think the amount of user controllable noise reduction needs to be considered. Noise reduction in postprocessing can achieve better results than some one-size-fits-all type of black-box approaches. The problem with the Nikon Raws seems to be that it is not possible to completely avoid NR, even when it's supposed to be switched off. The Raw quality is not the main issue, the lack of user control is.

Let's investigate further when suitable Raw files are available.

Bart

John Sheehy said:

You seem to be fond of noise reduction.

Click to expand...

Yes. I use Noise Ninja and other NR software regularly.

Edward Bussa said:

Given two pictures, the one with equivalent detail but less noise wins, no?

Click to expand...

In my book, yes. That's how I look at it. My pespective is purely pragmatic. I care about how the photograph looks. I am not particularly concerned about how it was created, except when I want to find out more about the vision of a specific artist.

Another way to look at it is to say that I look at noise level from an artistic perspective, not from a technological perspective.

If I need photographs that have lower noise levels, and a given camera can give me photographs that have lower noise levels, then that's good enough for me. I'm not that interested in how this lower noise level is achieved.

In other words, I am interested in the technology insofar as it gives me what I am looking for. I am not interested in the technology for technology's sake.

I have all the respect in the world for technicians and for what they create. Without technicians and engineers we would not have access to the wonderful camera equipment, computers and software that are available today.

However, my personal interest is to create art with these tools. I have only 24hrs in a day, and I want to spend these on what is most important to me, and that is doing photography as art.

I am not a technician, I am an artist. I understand the technology to some extent, but in the end it is the art that matters most to me and that is the focus of my efforts.

This holds true for most of my endeavors in photography. In short, my approach to photography is an artistic aproach and my goal is to express my vision.

Philip Chong said:

Back to Michael's finding of the noise level between D3 and againts the 1Ds MK II/MK III, there's one thing we have to bear in mind: the pixel size of the D3 is much larger than those on the Canons. Granted, should Canon put a DiG!C III processor in a new 12.8MP full frame EOS DSLR, I am sure the noise levels should be cleaner than the D3's. .

Click to expand...

Why are you "sure the noise levels should be cleaner than the D3's" in an equivalent Canon (like the 5D) with a Digic III?

Philip Chong said:

After all, the pixel size of existing EOS 5D is definitely larger than the D3's and some comparison tests done elsewhere has shown the 5D (DiG!C II) still resolves more detail and better overall colour balance than the D3's. The latter only won in low noise segment in high ISOs, that's all.

Click to expand...

I thought the 5D's pixels were smaller than the D3's inasmuch as it has higher pixel count in the almost-the-same size sensor.

I certainly am not trying to make this thread look like one on DP Review; I'm just interested in the evidence for these statements. Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer. ;~)

As MR said, Nikon is definitely "back in the game." No question that Canon was the only choice for high-ISO photography up to now, whether it was event photography or sports. But now there are two choices, and that's good for everyone. I don't have a D3 - I'll probably wait two years for Nikon to put a full-frame sensor in a D200/D300-type body. But I hope that Canon comes out with a camera with a full-size sensor in a 5D-like body (without that stupid "Print" button), more megapixels than the 5D has now and with lower or equivalent noise to the D3. Competition is great.

I switched from Canon to Nikon back in 1979-80, and I have too much Nikon gear to switch just because Canon has a camera with marginally better anything. Now that I do more event and people photography than landscape, I'm more interested in high ISO performance. Before the D3 and the D300 (which has lower noise than the D200 but doesn't come close to the D3), I salivated over the ISO 3200 photos Michael Tapes took with his 5D and 1DMkIII. All I could do was pray for something equivalent from Nikon. Now that it's here, let the games go on!

Joel

I have tried not to react impulsively and empty my wallet for each seductive move the camera companies make. My 1DII and 5D serve most of my needs well.

Nikon's move is very attractive for the reasons already mentioned however, the camera does not have enough pixels for landscapes at the size I'd like to print and with the lower blacks clipped and no means of removing NR, Nikon has made some unfortunate and seemingly unnecessary choices for us. For copying art, this might be limiting. Also for getting the best B&W files there may be practical losses in the shadows and lower blacks.

Still for most people, especially with Nikon lenses, this camera is likely to be experienced as a practical breakthrough. I will try out the D3 so that I'm being honest to myself, at least. If I do get superior available light street and portrait images, then I may add the D3 to my clutch of cameras.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

... with the lower blacks clipped and no means of removing NR, Nikon has made some unfortunate and seemingly unnecessary choices for us...

Click to expand...

I've heard this mentioned before, but I have yet to understand the basis for these statements. Is this just a circulating rumor or does Nikon state this as fact or has a test been done? If this is fact, when would someone be likely to run into a limitation, in printing the image?

Alain Briot said:

Yes. I use Noise Ninja and other NR software regularly.

Click to expand...

I meant that you seem to be impressed by NR, in leiu of the natural look.

If you like the NR and it looks pretty much how you would do it in PP, then that's nice, but one should never mistake the lack of obvious noise in an image as the result of low-noise technology. Nikons have always had a more aggressive removal of chromatic noise at all tonal levels, and total desaturation and blurring in the deepest shadows, by converters. The RAWs have always been chock full of lots of chromatic noise. Here's an example; the JPEG embedded in a D2X RAW, and the RAW data literally converted to RGB:

John Sheehy said:

Here's an example; the JPEG embedded in a D2X RAW, and the RAW data literally converted to RGB:

Click to expand...

What is the ISO? And, can you post a small jpeg that shows the whole photo?

Alain Briot said:

What is the ISO?

Click to expand...

1600

And, can you post a small jpeg that shows the whole photo?

Click to expand...

I don't know where the photo is right now. It's from one of the 3 or 4 websites that have RAW samples from various cameras. If you're concerned with the scale, these are 100% crops.

John Sheehy said:

1600
I don't know where the photo is right now. It's from one of the 3 or 4 websites that have RAW samples from various cameras. If you're concerned with the scale, these are 100% crops.

Click to expand...

John,

Thank you. Do you have a similar photo for the D3? It's the D3 I'm interested in. Not the D2x.

Alain,

Our own Ron Hiner has taken possession of a D3 and has offered some sample files if you PM him. The offer is at this link: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=39575#post39575

Hope that helps!

Edward Bussa said:

Alain,
Our own Ron Hiner has taken possession of a D3 and has offered some sample files if you PM him. The offer is at this link: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=39575#post39575
Hope that helps!

Click to expand...

Edward,

Thank you. I appreciate the tip. Just out of curiosity, which camera do you use?

I'm using a Pentax K10D for now. I'm waiting on the announcements from Pentax coming up next week to determine my upgrade path. I don't think a new Pentax camera is going to do it for me though. I'm pretty disappointed with their flash system and from what I understand, there's none better than the Nikon system, so...

However, I'm trying to practice delayed gratification at this point!

Edward Bussa said:

I'm using a Pentax K10D for now. I'm waiting on the announcements from Pentax coming up next week to determine my upgrade path. I don't think a new Pentax camera is going to do it for me though. I'm pretty disappointed with their flash system and from what I understand, there's none better than the Nikon system, so...

However, I'm trying to practice delayed gratification at this point!

Click to expand...

Ed,

It looks like a D3 or a D300 might be on the horizon ;-)

I'm back...:>)

Asher Kelman said:

and with the lower blacks clipped [snip...]

Also for getting the best B&W files there may be practical losses in the shadows and lower blacks.
[snip...]

Asher

Click to expand...

Hi Asher (and gang),

Long time no see. Hope to be back and posting again.

As you may know, Magne Nilsen and I have formed a new company (Etcetera Consulting) and hope to introduce a new raw converter soon, featuring the purity of color that Magne's C1 Profiles are known for, along with many other raw imaging techniques that we hope will elicit the max image quality from well shot raw files. In doing this work, of course we will offer D3 support from the get-go.

We had a D3 for a few days last month to gather some test files, and now I have purchased a D3 to have in house for further tweaking.

As to your point above regarding clipped blacks in the Nikon raw file.... While it is true that Nikon does not provide the image data below the Black point level, and Canon and others do, the data in question must be clipped out of the file before processing in all cases, so in reality, Nikon is simply saving us the task. This has no practical implications to the final IQ. So please allow me to ask you...what improvement do you find in having the below black point in the raw file?

Thanks. Good to be back!

Michael Tapes
http://www.RawWorkflow.com
WhiBal
Raw without FUD (DVD & Download)

Alain Briot said:

John,

Thank you. Do you have a similar photo for the D3? It's the D3 I'm interested in. Not the D2x.

Click to expand...

Here's a similar comparison of the D3 at ISO 6400. Simple, literal RAW conversion on the left; embedded Nikon JPEG on the right: