File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Which would have better overall image quality, /p/? Not just resolution, but everything: dynamic range, noise, etc? Both have almost the same number of megapixels, and the same size sensor, and so presumably a similar pixel pitch.

I know some sensor expert lurks /p/; he posted some technical thing about overexposure and image sensors that was really good one time.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
Go away.
>> Anonymous
A DAGUERREOTYPE.
>> Anonymous
I'm seriously just curious; the question popped into my head earlier this morning when I realized they both have ~12 megapixels and the same sensor size. I have no interest in buying either one.
>> Anonymous
Hai, professional photographer here.

Image quality would be the same with identical settings.

However the D3 is far more versatile, and is in a pro body as well. Better build quality, features, screen, etc.

But I mean shit that applies to all cameras. Its not about how the picture looks, its about how the shot is made at this dollar amount.
>> Anonymous
D3 has immensely better performance at high ISO settings.

ISO 6400 on a D30 will look better then ISO 3200 on the 40D
>> Anonymous
>>100845

I'm sorry but the Canon 5D has the best noise performance of any camera out today, including the new Nikon D300 and D3.

And what the hell do the 30D and 40D fit in here for.
>> Anonymous
>>100847

This is wrong on such many levels.
>> Anonymous
>>100847
ORLY
Maybe it's even better than 1Ds II/III ?
>> Anonymous
>>100857
When it comes to image quality besides resolution, I'm almost sure it is. Less megapixels with the same size sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>100857

or a medium format back (hasselblad or mamiya)

or a large format scanning back.

or a low-rez astrophotography ccd sensor.

yep! 5d beats them all!
>> Anonymous
Bleh. I should've said any mainstream crop or full frame cameras.

Don't go throwing out those niche market equipment.
>> Anonymous
>>100859
The 5D *does* beat all of those when it comes to high sensitivities. Have you seen the mess that CCD-based backs produce when pushed to ISO beyond 400?

>>100858
Both 1Ds II and III yield better images when they are downsampled to the same 12 megapixels. And from what I've seen on the internets, Nikon D3 also has a slight edge over the 5D at high ISOs.
>> Anonymous
>>100877
From the pics i've seen the D3 is by far better than the older 5D for high ISO pics, especially past Iso 3200.

But theres a huge price difference between the 2

I'm hoping Nikon comes out with a body similar to the 5D, Not top of the line but still full frame, and affordable enough for me.
>> Anonymous
>>100902
>especially past Iso 3200
That's probably because 5D doesn't have ISO higher than 3200, lol.
>> Anonymous
WELL, I HEARD TO REDUCE NOISE, YOU HAVE TO SCREAM WHILE YOU TAKE YOUR PHOTO.


IS THAT TRUE?
>> Anonymous
>>100916

It's true. It works just like fill flash to balance out strong sunlight. You need it to be powerful enough to stop the subject turning into a silhouette. In the same way you need to yell really loudly as you take the photo to balance out the noise. For a long exposure at night you have to shout loudly for the duration to try to reduce the noise by balancing it with your fill noise.
>> flashboxx
>>100920

i lol'd. fill noise...truly classic:P
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>100902

Yeah, i'm hoping Nikon brings out a cheaper FX model soon... i'm still debating whether or not i should bother with a D300 in the interim... kinda wish i kept my 17-35mm nikkor.. that with the 50mm 1.4D would have made me go back to my F6...

not that i'm complaining about the 17-55mm with my D70s...

with the 5D prices as they are now... so fuckin tempted to get one with a 17-35mm 2.8 L then get whatever nikon has to offer.... hmmm