High ISO with Mk III @ Import Car show.

[M Powered]

All shots taken with ISO 3200 @ F 2.8

Many of the shots are at hand held 1/10 sec shutter so blur is definitely an issue. The sharp ones has a higher shutter speed.

Curious to see how Nikon would hold up in the same situation?

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-1.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-2.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-3.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-4.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-5.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-6.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-7.jpg

[M Powered]

Some more.

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-8.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-9.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-10.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-11.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-12.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-13.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-14.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/hin-15.jpg

[adam75south]

oooooh, me likey girls.

looks awesome for ISO 3200.

[swgod98]

All shots taken with ISO 3200 @ F 2.8

Curious to see how Nikon would hold up in the same situation?

I hope this gets settled quickly so Canon users can stop worrying. I think this Canon forum houses every D3/D300 comparison thread at dcresource!! :eek:

[XaiLo]

Pretty decent imaging. Nice shoots!

[No Control]

Good thing the good high iso performance isn't as fake as the girls. :p:rolleyes::D

[r3g]

:eek: Very Very nice.


Now for the image quality... Those are some amazing shots to be ISO3200. I too am very curious to see how the Nikons compare.

[coldrain]

hmm... car show? :eek:

Very good photos, and indeed very impressive ISO 3200! My ISO 800 doesn't reach that.

[TNB]

All shots taken with ISO 3200 @ F 2.8

Many of the shots are at hand held 1/10 sec shutter so blur is definitely an issue. The sharp ones has a higher shutter speed.

Curious to see how Nikon would hold up in the same situation?
How much post processing did you do in CS3? Also, how will it be the "same situation" unless someone with a Nikon was at the same show as you taking photos next to you? And although I like the photos and my D200 doesn't have that high of an ISO, I'm still more curious as to why you didn't use a flash?

[M Powered]

How much post processing did you do in CS3? Also, how will it be the "same situation" unless someone with a Nikon was at the same show as you taking photos next to you? And although I like the photos and my D200 doesn't have that high of an ISO, I'm still more curious as to why you didn't use a flash?

Most of the pictures, I just applied a little USM with sharpening. I couldn't get too creative because all the lighting at the event was very unnatural, meaning lots of colorful strobes, so determinging white balance is almost impossible. Other than that they were RAW > JPG conversion with resize.

This is the first import car show that I've been to and I wasn't sure if they allowed flash photography. Instead of carrying around a 9lb camera, I thought 7lb camera was more accomodating :)

[TNB]

This is the first import car show that I've been to and I wasn't sure if they allowed flash photography. Instead of carrying around a 9lb camera, I thought 7lb camera was more accomodating :)

I would have taken the flash. I also know someone who went to AVN without a flash--the sponsor didn't want his photos.

This is supposed to be an example from the D3 at ISO 5000--for more bickering, I mean discussion, visit:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=24566258

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b261/Beau63/165156_1188226760.jpg

[M Powered]

Nice, but nothing to boast about, pretty much on par if not sub par with Canon.

[TNB]

Nice, but nothing to boast about, pretty much on par if not sub par with Canon.
So let's see your action shots at ISO 5000....

[cwphoto]

Nice, but nothing to boast about, pretty much on par if not sub par with Canon.

That D3 shot looks pretty impressive to me for ISO 5,000. I wish my Mark III was FF. :(

[TNB]

That D3 shot looks pretty impressive to me for ISO 5,000. I wish my Mark III was FF. :(
That's probably one of the most honest responses I've read in the last few days on the camera forums. Kudos.

[timmciglobal]

It's total crap! Notice the dull colors? Notice how everyone appears black? HARSHLY undersposed. ISO 5000? Unprintable. I only use ISO 100 in bright daylight and the 40D ISO 3200 is FAR more saturated and printable.

Sorry, I know coldrain has had a busy day so I figured I'd post for him to save him the time.

;)

Tim

[No Control]

Notice how everyone appears black?

Hahaha! :D:D

[swgod98]

colors

An obvious imposter! :D

[M Powered]

So let's see your action shots at ISO 5000....

Wow, I think I hit a nerve!

Show me yours and I'll show you mine ;)


1st off, I can't do 5000 only 6400.

2nd why wait for me. Do a search I'm sure you can find hundreds of Mk III ISO 6400 shots.

1 more pic FTW! Hand held ! Booo yaaa Kaasha!

http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-aston.jpg

[Gintaras]

i think it makes sense to wait until full reviews on D3/D300 are out. and yes, i agree, people buy DSLR not just for high ISO performance. in fact i always prefer to shoot at lowest ISO possible with my XTi cause i want a cleaner look in my pix. high ISO is nice in extreme conditions but not in day to day use. of course i am not a professional photographer so my range and angle differs. :eek:

[coldrain]

Hmmm? I see more Nikon fan boy reactions in this thread than anything else.

And to be honest, the photos shown look GREAT, and flash would have ruined them. I do not know what the obsession about thinking you need to flash is all about. I really like them, and it is obvious why high ISO was needed there.

Sure, you can use flash when you cant shoot high ISO like that. But it will rob of the atmosphere.

Anyway... Tim, if you care to actually look at that supposed ISO 5000 D3 shot, you WILL see that there is a fair amount of noise going on. Way better than what my camera can aspire to, sure! But uhmm... The photos posted by the OP look a lot better, and he says they are basic RAW to JPEG conversions.

CW, why do you wish your MK III was full frame, in connection to a sports photograph? For your wedding photography I can understand that... but I have never heard you think about even a 5D for FF stuff?
FF for sports is not exactly a requirement, is it?

So let's see your action shots at ISO 5000....
Huh? 1st... what has action got to do with noise? And 2nd... It will NOT be a hard task to find high ISO action photos made with a 1D MK III. Since almost action shots will be shot with an 1D.

[Rooz]

NO ONE said the iso performance of these pics wasn;t great. no one. it's almost humorous that there are camera system "wars" about high iso's going on before any authentic side by side comparisons can be made.

almost humorous.

and incidentally...why use a flash...oh i don;t know...how about to try and get the subjects in focus ? just a minor point i suppose.

if you cant see thisis a flaming thread. well...what can i say.

[M Powered]

Before this gets out of hand and turns into a Nikon vs Canon debate, let me address what I believe is the number 1 feature in a DSLR; IQ.

That goes for bright light, to low light. IQ is what MAKES me buy a DSLR; ANY, whether its Nikon or Canon. Personally for me, 95% of my shooting is during the day, however the high ISO performance of the Mk III is definitely welcome. Even in 6400 with USM and CS3 RAW noise reduction, photos turn out seriously nice. In my 5D I would have to resort to 3rd party noise software.

Lets not speculate based on what the limited images that we've seen what the D3/D300 will do. Lets wait for the hard facts before we make any judgments.

and incidentally...why use a flash...oh i don;t know...how about to try and get the subjects in focus ? just a minor point i suppose.

Subjects are in focus, motion blur is what makes them "look" out of focus.

all this talk of high iso performance is becoming a bit tiresome anyway. you would almost think that it was the ONLY feature of a dslr that was worth buying it for. its becoming extremely over-rated.

Really? If it is so over-rated, then why is it one of the first photos leaked on the internet about the new D3 is high ISO photos? :confused:

[Ray Schnoor]

Subjects are in focus, motion blur is what makes them "look" out of focus. :confused:
This photo, at least, looks like a focus issue, not motion blur.
All shots taken with ISO 3200 @ F 2.8
http://home.socal.rr.com/mpowered/HIN-5.jpg




Ray.

[24Peter]

Subjects are in focus, motion blur is what makes them "look" out of focus.

Well it would be camera shake, not motion blur, as none of your subjects are, ehem, moving very fast. But also agree with Ray, this particular photo looks like the MKIII poor focusing issue.

As for the pics themselves, I know you've taken trouncing on at least one other forum for them, so I'll just say while you have a good eye for pretty subjects, you may also want to work on your framing/compositional/general portrait skills. Unless of course, you were just taking random photos to show off ISO3200 on your new camera without considering those things which is fine.

[coldrain]

This photo, at least, looks like a focus issue, not motion blur.

Ray.
Hmm? Look again.... the car that is standing diagonal on the side of the girl in the black skimpy dress is in focus, the area of her hips pretty much is in focus, the locks of hair on the left side of her face are in focus, yet the rest of her is blurry. Looks like a case of motion blur to me...

[Rooz]

Subjects are in focus, motion blur is what makes them "look" out of focus.

Really? If it is so over-rated, then why is it one of the first photos leaked on the internet about the new D3 is high ISO photos? :confused:

its irrelevant what SORT of blur it is. the fact is that there is either motion blur from camera shake or subject blur which a flash would have prevented. (btw: there is at least 1 shot thats backfocussed). i understand why you didnt have a flash and i am not criticising your shots, i;m just pointing out that some of them are very soft and blurred from this, (or from NR), which is perfectly understandable given the circumstances.

however, i was addressing a comment coldy made about the obsession with flash photography and stating that the photos would be ruined if flash was used. well, i disagree with that statment cos as i pointed out, some of the shots were ruined cos you DIDN'T have a flash. if you took one with you then the shots of models would have been tack sharp.

the first photos leaked of the d3 being hi iso's is cos thats what everyone seems to want to see and given who its aimed at being sports and journos then that is somehat understandable given that it is the only thing that nikon have yet to prove that they can do well. the fact that it was hi iso's that were leaked has nothing to do with my comment either.

however 99% of people are not going to buy a d3 yet its these same people who only want to talk about iso performance at 3200/ 6400. same goes for the 40d and d300. everything is about iso 3200 and 6400 etc as if that is the most important thing in a dslr. imo thats rubbish and imo people are placing far too much emphasis on pixel peeping a 100% crop of an iso 6400 shot rather than trying to guage the overall performance. thats just my opinion. you don't have to share it. :)

[Ray Schnoor]

Hmm? Look again.... the car that is standing diagonal on the side of the girl in the black skimpy dress is in focus, the area of her hips pretty much is in focus, the locks of hair on the left side of her face are in focus, yet the rest of her is blurry. Looks like a case of motion blur to me...
I guess that we will have to disagree then. It looks as if the background such as the part of the red car directly behind the girl on the right is most in focus. Even the guy on the left in the back seems to be more in focus than the girls. Shouldn't be the case with f/3.2 from the exif. Looks like a case of back-focus to me.

Ray.

[DonSchap]

The chassis on these vehicles are classic. I'm sure we'd all like to take them for a ride around the track once or a dozen times.

Okay, enough of the funny. I noted the focus on a couple of these was not quite right. I recommend a "reshoot" ... it's the only proper way. Also, the clothing may just be throwing the focus off completely, due to the way the camera interprets color shifts within the focal circuitry ... so, ditch the rags, too. :cool:

Quick & Dirty Solutions <-- You gotta love 'em :D

[coldrain]

Look at the red car, and its position. The girl's leg is against it, look at the shadow. So, the red car is diagonally at the side, not behind her.

furthermore, the face of the girl in white is less blurry than the face of the girl in black.
And as you see yourself, the guy behind the girl in black is more sharp too. So...
How on earth can it not be movement blur?

[TNB]

Wow, I think I hit a nerve!
Not my nerves. Your the member who wanted to challenge the Nikon world to an ISO contest.

Sorry, I know coldrain has had a busy day so I figured I'd post for him to save him the time.
It appears he's working overtime now.

Hmmm? I see more Nikon fan boy reactions in this thread than anything else.

And to be honest, the photos shown look GREAT, and flash would have ruined them. I do not know what the obsession about thinking you need to flash is all about. I really like them, and it is obvious why high ISO was needed there..
Again, it appears that you failed to read the first post again Canon fan boy (who also spends a lot of time trolling the Nikon forums. Then again, there is that one post where you claim to own a Nikon. Which model?)! And of course, a high ISO was needed because the OP failed to bring a flash because he didn't want to carry one--see the earlier post or did you miss that one too. Then it appears some want to make excuses for "motion blur" at a lower ISO when the Nikon photo clearly shows "RUNNERS" instead of some minimal case of some feline movement.

Then again, it appears you missed the following post as well... Must be another case of Selective Reading.
Most of the pictures, I just applied a little USM with sharpening.

[M Powered]

Well it would be camera shake, not motion blur, as none of your subjects are, ehem, moving very fast. But also agree with Ray, this particular photo looks like the MKIII poor focusing issue.

As for the pics themselves, I know you've taken trouncing on at least one other forum for them, so I'll just say while you have a good eye for pretty subjects, you may also want to work on your framing/compositional/general portrait skills. Unless of course, you were just taking random photos to show off ISO3200 on your new camera without considering those things which is fine.

Most of the pictures I took are just random walk by snapshots. Framing composition would have been very difficult given the circumstances. It was hard enough to squeeze through the mob of people taking pictures with their camera phone.

I think its pretty much well known the Mk III does have a focusing issue. Let me be one of many to have willingly admitted to this fact. I am on my 4th copy ( yes, four) and this by far is the best one; no doubt some of the earlier built Mk III had issues.

I have no doubt that *SOME* of the shots look to be back focused, when in reality it was camera shake or subject movement. I say this with certainty because all the shots you see that I posted are shot in full auto, I have more than one shot of the same frame to verify focus. I just happen to pick the one I did because it expresses the subject better.

As you can see from the others that are sharp, the shutter speed was acceptable.

To address the fanboy comments.

For those who freely excercise the rights to call people "fanboy" I would strongly suggest that you refrain from using that term; because no body likes a hypocrite. This is a Canon forum, one would assume you are going to run into a few Canon biased members. Afterall, it is a CANON forum :) Lets go to the Nikon forum and call everyone a Fanboy :p

[M Powered]

Then it appears some want to make excuses for "motion blur" when the Nikon photo clearly shows "RUNNERS" instead of some minimal case of some feline movement.

Are you comparing my shots to the Nikon D3 high ISO release of the 3 black runners?

[TNB]

To address the fanboy comments.

For those who freely excercise the rights to call people "fanboy" I would strongly suggest that you refrain from using that term; because no body likes a hypocrite. This is a Canon forum, one would assume you are going to run into a few Canon biased members. Afterall, it is a CANON forum :) Lets go to the Nikon forum and call everyone a Fanboy :p
Myself, I don't think I've ever used the comment until a certain Canon owner who trolls the Nikon forums on a regular bases used it on this thread. Also, I would have probably never even posted on this thread if it weren't for the OP's original comments.
Are you comparing my shots to the Nikon D3 high ISO release of the 3 black runners?
Not necessarily, but isn't that what you wanted--A comparison of your photos with a Nikon camera?
Curious to see how Nikon would hold up in the same situation?

[M Powered]

Myself, I don't think I've ever used the comment until a certain Canon owner who trolls the Nikon forums on a regular bases used it on this thread. Also, I would have probably never even posted on this thread if it weren't for the OP's original comments.

So I did struck a nerve :)

Can't base a cameras high ISO success based on a couple of pictures. However, one can comment the initial release photos to a slew of pictures that are currently circulating on a RELEASED camera. The comment I posted was that I am not impressed.

The Nikon community has stired up a class 4 hurricane approaching class 5 with this 25,600 ISO marketing gibberish. So based on that, the release ISO 5000 is not impressive. One can fathom the image results when the ISO is cranked up to 25,600.

[TNB]

So I did struck a nerve :)

Can't base a cameras high ISO success based on a couple of pictures. However, one can comment the initial release photos to a slew of pictures that are currently circulating on a RELEASED camera. The comment I posted was that I am not impressed.

The Nikon community has stired up a class 4 hurricane approaching class 5 with this 25,600 ISO marketing gibberish. So based on that, the release ISO 5000 is not impressive. One can fathom the image results when the ISO is cranked up to 25,600.
Again, no nerve, just making a point. Myself, I hope to never have to use such high ISOs, but it's nice to have the option just in case since a grainy shot may be better than no shot at all. Either way, both companies produce nice products and the photographer can either make or miss the shot with whichever product he or she prefers to use. To me, the only real downside about shooting Nikon is that I can't borrow some of the longer Canon lenses from the sponsored photographers whom I know.

[coldrain]

I never troll, it is you who always trolls. And flames. Your reason is just my nick, the moment you see my nick is the moment you start trolling. Now stop it, please.
Thank you.

And you seem to lack any photographic knowlegde, what do the model shots have to do with sports shooting?

Totally different light conditions. Totally different reasons for the use of high ISO.

Motion blur only has to do with the speed of the exposure, and that is not hard to understand.

Feline movement? I have not seen any cat in any frame.

I have had Nikon way before you most probably, and I still own it. It is my most dear camera, a SLR from the 1970's. I have 5 lenses for it. and 1:2 50mm macro, a 35mm wide angle, a 50mm, a 80mm portrait and a 135mm (I think).

Furthermore I have a Kodak Retina IIc, a Canon EOS 300 and a Canon EOS 350D.
Whatever me owning a Nikon camera has to do with anything is beyond me.

[swgod98]

Hey guys, argument is all good and fair game...but, no need to throw accusations at each other.

Personally (and I'm not trying to get under anyone's skin by saying this), it seems Canon users are more (openly) concerned about Nikon's noise performance than anyone else. And based on many Canon users posts (not only in this forum), they seem worried. They don't want Nikon to have better performance. Personally, I don't think that will be the case...but, what if? We haven't determined that yet. And many people seem to be dying to prove Nikon is still second best.

Obviously Nikon users are curious too, because this is a huge breakthrough for them. So they come here to read the posts and make comments of their own.

And so the fight begins...

But, the bottom line is that Nikon's ISO performance looks to have improved much more so than Canon's (obviously, Canon didn't need much improvement). Whether or not Nikon can claim the crown (which I doubt) or not shouldn't be a factor for anyone, other than those looking for bragging rights.

So you can rest assured that if the D300 proves to outperform the 40D in noise performance, I will have something to say about that to certain "Canon has better ISO performance" users :p

And let me just say this in regards to the flash issue mentioned. Anyone who says flash kills shots doesn't know how to use one! Sorry! But, that is the truth. I agree that many shots are better taken without a flash. But, used correctly, flash can enhance just about any shot.

The problem lies in learning the flash. And that's another thread (actually, another forum!) in and of itself.

[Ray Schnoor]

Look at the red car, and its position. The girl's leg is against it, look at the shadow. So, the red car is diagonally at the side, not behind her.

furthermore, the face of the girl in white is less blurry than the face of the girl in black.
And as you se yourself, the guy behind the girl in black is more sharp too. So...
How on earth can it not be movement blur?
As I said, we will just disagree. You are correct that "part" of the car is next to her. "Part" of the car is also behind her. I am saying that the part of the car behind her is in better focus.

How on earth is just part of the car having movement blur?

A lot of the softness of this photo may well be movement blur. I can see a couple of areas that I would agree is definitely movement blur. I can also see many areas where it is probably missed focus.

Ray.

[M Powered]

I for one actually HOPE Nikon out performs canon in ALL departments.

This way Canon can get off their ass and start beefing up their R&D! The 5D II is long over due, mainly because there are no competitors. The Mk III release is a disaster with the focusing issue. With the 1DS Mark III soon to be released, I have no doubt Canon will fix and squash the focusing issue permanently.

In any market, competition is what drives technology. Imagine if there was no War or competition, civilization would be at a complete stand still.

After all this bickering and flaming; end of the day we all share the same passion, photography and thats important.

Let me end by saying Canon still rules :p

[coldrain]

As I said, we will just disagree. You are correct that "part" of the car is next to her. "Part" of the car is also behind her. I am saying that the part of the car behind her is in better focus.

How on earth is just part of the car having movement blur?

A lot of the softness of this photo may well be movement blur. I can see a couple of areas that I would agree is definitely movement blur. I can also see many areas where it is probably missed focus.

Ray.
but ray, you can see where her quite sharp leg is against the car. hwne you go up vertically, you see the fuel cat being sharp.

And aslo, still, there is teh FACT that he front girl's face is sharper, the middle girl's face is less sharp, and the guys face in the back is sharper.

THAT can nt be due to misfocussing, it jut can not. Logic.

And then still there is the sharp hair on the left of the middle girl's face, that clearly is sharper again. Which suggests she is moving (and the inertia of teh hair making it appear sharper).

[TNB]

I never troll, it is you who always trolls. And flames. Your reason is just my nick, the moment you see my nick is the moment you start trolling. Now stop it, please.
Thank you.

Your the one who appears to spend an abundance of time in the Nikon forum, yet you appear not to like it over here when someone does it "back" to you. Figures. Of course, my posting on this thread after you has nothing to do with your post. If you notice or take the time to notice, my first post was a question to the OP (Post #9). And if you really must know, the reason I originally checked this thread out was because of the title--CAR SHOW. In other words, you shouldn't feel flattered or offended because I posted on this thread. As a mater of fact, it was YOU who responded to my latter post and made the original fan boy comments (Your Post #22).

And you seem to lack any photographic knowlegde, what do the model shots have to do with sports shooting?

Could it be low level lighting and ISO? Could it? Hey, I take action photos at night with high ISO when needed. What about YOU? Of course, "sports shooting" may actually have more "rapid" movement as well when compared to a model walking around inside a car show. Ever been to SEMA? Could it be a car show? You'd know if you've ever been to SEMA.

Totally different light conditions. Totally different reasons for the use of high ISO.

I guess you really didn't read my prior post, again.

Motion blur only has to do with the speed of the exposure, and that is not hard to understand.

Motion blur or subject blur or camera shake or camera problems? A flash really could come in handy at times. See also the post by other members regarding focus--oh wait, you probably have since you've been responding.

Feline movement? I have not seen any cat in any frame.

Feline is also a reference to females, duh. Then again, you wrote about a "fuel cat being sharp"--claws I guess.
but ray . . . you see the fuel cat being sharp.


I have had Nikon way before you most probably, and I still own it. It is my most dear camera, a SLR from the 1970's. I have 5 lenses for it. and 1:2 50mm macro, a 35mm wide angle, a 50mm, a 80mm portrait and a 135mm (I think).

Wow, you finally answered the Nikon question and here someone else (not me) mentioned that you might actually own a D40 (not a 40D).

Furthermore I have a Kodak Retina IIc, a Canon EOS 300 and a Canon EOS 350D.
Whatever me owning a Nikon camera has to do with anything is beyond me.
Could it be because of all the trolling you do in the Nikon forum? It's possible. Then again, the subject of Nikon was originally brought up in the original post.

[sunnythepsychocat]

1st off, I can't do 5000 only 6400.


I think you maybe can. Go to CF I-2 and change the ISO speed setting increments from 1 stop to 1/3 stop to see if ISO5000 is available.

[Ray Schnoor]

but ray, you can see where her quite sharp leg is against the car. hwne you go up vertically, you see the fuel cat being sharp.

And aslo, still, there is teh FACT that he front girl's face is sharper, the middle girl's face is less sharp, and the guys face in the back is sharper.

THAT can nt be due to misfocussing, it jut can not. Logic.

And then still there is the sharp hair on the left of the middle girl's face, that clearly is sharper again. Which suggests she is moving (and the inertia of teh hair making it appear sharper).
I do not think that her leg up against the red car is sharp at all, or the car in that area either. I will agree that the fuel cap is sharper, but that looks to be further back in the photo.

I also do not think that her hair looks all that sharp. Are you saying her face is moving but her hair isn't? I doubt it.

I don't understand why it is so important to you for everyone to agree that this photo is in focus. He wasn't showing off the focusing capabilities of the camera, but the high ISO capabilities of the camera. The majority of the photos the OP posted were in quite good focus. You don't think that there is a chance any of the photos he took were out of focus? You also don't think that it is possible "some" motion blur could be enhancing the missed focus? Nothing is definite about this photo. It just looks more likely, at least to me and several others, that this photo missed focus.

Ray.

[coldrain]

I do not think that her leg up against the red car is sharp at all, or the car in that area either. I will agree that the fuel cap is sharper, but that looks to be further back in the photo.

I also do not think that her hair looks all that sharp. Are you saying her face is moving but her hair isn't? I doubt it.

I don't understand why it is so important to you for everyone to agree that this photo is in focus. He wasn't showing off the focusing capabilities of the camera, but the high ISO capabilities of the camera. The majority of the photos the OP posted were in quite good focus. You don't think that there is a chance any of the photos he took were out of focus? You also don't think that it is possible "some" motion blur could be enhancing the missed focus? Nothing is definite about this photo. It just looks more likely, at least to me and several others, that this photo missed focus.

Ray.
Why do you dodge that fact that the person in the middle's face is least sharp?

That DOES tell you that there is motion blur of that girl.

I don't need any photo to be in focus. But you brought this photo as example, and the middle girl having the most blurry face just spells out: motion blur.

Or do you really think that there are lenses that are sharper in front and back, and less sharp in the middle ground.

[Ray Schnoor]

Why do you dodge that fact that the person in the middle's face is least sharp?

That DOES tell you that there is motion blur of that girl.

I don't need any photo to be in focus. But you brought this photo as example, and the middle girl having the most blurry face just spells out: motion blur.

Or do you really think that there are lenses that are sharper in front and back, and less sharp in the middle ground.
I am dodging nothing. Neither girl is in focus. Motion blur probably makes the center girl seem less in focus than the girl on the left. This does not mean that the focal plane in this photo isn't somewhere behind the center girl.

As to your last comment, that is just silly. I couldn't possibly think that there is more motion blur on the center girl than on the girl on the left, making parts of her seem "softer". No, I must think that it is the lens. I wish I had your eye to be able to distinguish that the 2 girls were moving exactly the same to have the exact same amount of motion blur.

Looking at the photo, I would say the girl on left is just out of focus, maybe a little motion blur. The center girl is more in focus with a little more motion blur in and around her face/upper body. Focal plane is a bit behind the center girl. But, no, you are probably right. It has got to be that special lens you were talking about.

Ray.

[noyjimi]

Well, I have some good news (besides saving a bunch of money on car insurance).

Both of my 5D bodies appear to be working just as well now as before the D3 and D300 were announced. I've also checked with the last client I shot and they didn't give a frig what brand of camera I use.

Woohoo! ;):p:D

[Rooz]

Well, I have some good news (besides saving a bunch of money on car insurance).

Both of my 5D bodies appear to be working just as well now as before the D3 and D300 were announced. I've also checked with the last client I shot and they didn't give a frig what brand of camera I use.

Woohoo! ;):p:D

best post in the whole thread.

[nqjudo]

Well, I have some good news (besides saving a bunch of money on car insurance).

Both of my 5D bodies appear to be working just as well now as before the D3 and D300 were announced. I've also checked with the last client I shot and they didn't give a frig what brand of camera I use.

Woohoo! ;):p:D

Amen to that!

[Gintaras]

looks like a war before the war?

i humbly think either Nikon or Canon are superb cameras. i also think for an amateur or semi professional both would do most of the job. and since i am here i noticed that people like doing PP no matter how good or bad their shot turned out. so what's the fuss?

as for ISO, yes it's important but is not the only issue, someone rightly mentioned camera IQ whatever it means. tons of other issues might pop... remember with D40 this was no AF motor, no matter good ISO samples. And so on...after all anyone buying this or that camera will put his criteria forward.

and honestly speaking i do not believe an average consumer or prosumer will throw all monies on MarkIII or D3 bodies...rather this will be D300 or 40D maximum, or D80 and 400D, or D40 or Olympuses with Pentax... you name them.

and someone also RIGHTLY mentioned the GLASS!!! good lenses matter as much as a good body if not more.

so WHY all this rambling here? IMO both Canon and Nikon stand at a top of DSLR league, the rest is a matter of personal choice. Besides neither D300/D3 nor 40D got reviewed, so it's still a "blind date" :o

[Gintaras]

i better would ask you some Q about pix taking, but for this i will create a new thread. today did some shooting in forest and found lighting so tricky. also focus was more often hit and miss compared to normal situation. will post some pix tomorrow so you can see what i mean. :confused:

now good night, in europe it's already too late for a chat.

[jcon]

Hmmmmmm. Interesting. I guess some people can say things while others can't. Interesting.

Coldy must know something we all don't.

I very rarely post a negative statement about another member, while there are others here that do it on a daily basis and seem to get away with it. Just doesnt seem fair to me, but then again, I dont run this site, but I also didn't think Coldrain did either....

I guess myself calling him a troll was in bad taste, although a few posts prior to mine that aforementiond Coldrain did the exact same thing, and his post is still on here.

Interesting indeed!:confused::confused::confused:

[cwphoto]

I guess that we will have to disagree then. It looks as if the background such as the part of the red car directly behind the girl on the right is most in focus. Even the guy on the left in the back seems to be more in focus than the girls. Shouldn't be the case with f/3.2 from the exif. Looks like a case of back-focus to me.

Ray.

Agreed Ray. Classic back-focus.

Coldy, you been smokin' the pipe again?! :D There is no part of any of those two girls even close to being focused. :confused:

[cwphoto]

CW, why do you wish your MK III was full frame, in connection to a sports photograph? For your wedding photography I can understand that... but I have never heard you think about even a 5D for FF stuff?
FF for sports is not exactly a requirement, is it?

I have enough reach (sometimes too much) and I would enjoy getting my ultrawide back and the additional subject isolation one gets with FF.

To me it's almost the perfect camera for my varied assignments.

[cwphoto]

I think you maybe can. Go to CF I-2 and change the ISO speed setting increments from 1 stop to 1/3 stop to see if ISO5000 is available.

Not on the Mark III. Fractional ISOs only go to 3200.

[XaiLo]

The Nikon community has stired up a class 4 hurricane approaching class 5 with this 25,600 ISO marketing gibberish. So based on that, the release ISO 5000 is not impressive. One can fathom the image results when the ISO is cranked up to 25,600.

Exactly what Nikon community are you refering to :confused: 25,600 ISO wasn't conjured up by the community that was from a Nikon press release. Concerning the Nikon community (here) nobody that I'm aware of is going around bragging about Nikon's yet to be seen ISO performance. And the word is from anyone who has actually handled the camera that ISO preformance is good. Personally I'm happy if they get ISO 6400 right. That and a 200mm f/2 and I'm a happy camper.

You're more than welcome to slide down to the Nikon DSLR section most of the guys are just taking this news release in stride. Even the guys who are intending to upgrade are not even making a big todo of all this.

My experience as of late is more Canon users are talking about the D3/D300 than Nikon users. Personally I don't get the love/hate relationship last time I checked Canon/Nikon were taking my money. Ultimately we're all consumers and it's our dollars that do the real talking. Everything else is pretty much a waste of time.