As for shooting in the dark when you can’t see, personally I would say that you have over-exposed the samples, and thus made the noise worse than it could be.

If the scene is dark, make it look dark. It’s when you amplify light that really isn’t there that noise becomes an issue. You are in effect pushing the ISO a few extra stops, making it look worse than it would be if you exposed the scene as it really was.

I realize these are tests, but it’s very possible to shoot H1 and H2 and have them look very clean, even without noise reduction in post.

I may be “doe-eyed” about the camera… Well, I will admit that I am exceptionally happy! I guess it shows in my writing. My brother now has my 20D rig.

I’ve been a photographer for 36 years. The only time I pixel-peep is when it affects the presentation of the picture (I share Micheal Reichmann’s philosophy about this). I do it mostly to manage noise and sharpening artifacts. Okay, okay, I also pixel-peeped to assure myself the 5D Mark II would be substantially less noise than the 20D. OMG…

I have taken pictures all over the world (and at children’s parties, weddings, science fiction conventions, etc.). I captured over 60,000 frames with the 20D. More than a third were taken at ISO 1600. Many were taken in poor light and under challenging conditions, with L glass. I do have experience with this. I know what would look good in print (and I only print 8×10 and above). Yes, there is banding in the H2 images if you gather too much shadow area, especially with smooth, featureless regions. You must make the image bright and provide texture to prevent the worst banding. Go ahead, pixel-peep my full-res 25,600 ISO example. I’ve now added a fourth example to my web page, this one show how bad H2 can be (but its not “a joke”). Color is really not an H2 option (its badly blotchy and video-like), and it is marginal on H1. But you can make H2 work.

For photojournalists willing to capture monochrome, H1 and H2 is workable. The point about my high ISO film comparison is that 5D Mark II frames far exceed what you can get from a dark room in quality, not just the ISO reach.

Will I make art-prints from H2 or H1 frames? Maybe, rarely… for special subject or captures. It depends on the image! Nice, contrasty, grainy, crunchy, B&W photos have their own special aesthetic. Think back about those you have seen. Some are iconic. I am certainly going to try to make some.

I have no qualms about 3200, or 6400, though.

The D3 and D700 use a 12MP Nikon designed sensor. As for who’s producing it…. the assumption is Sony, but who the heck knows. The rumors of the 12mp sensor really being a 24mp sensor underneath were total bupkis.

The D3x and the A900 appear to use the same sony sensor with different hardware backing it. Nikon just took the “best” sensor sony had to offer and paird it with better noise handling and processing which made it outperform the heck out of what sony did in the A900.

HAHA, I apologize… that’s 3 Nikon posts in one week.

As for Film with ISO 25600, please publish one. That will be more convincing.

Yes, 5D Mark II ISO 25600 is bad, no one says it isn’t and the reviewer says so, so there is no need to trash his work. DPR is the place for those who like to trash others work.

DXO does not rate them anywhere near identical. The D3 has a ISO rating of 2290 versus Sony 1431. I don’t see how anyone could call this nearly identical.

As far as the other specs, the Canon sensors have similar parameters as well.

The 5DII is a great camera. I have compared mine to my Leaf Aptus 22 and it’s becoming harder to justify keeping the Leaf with the slower workflow, built in live view on the 5DII (costs an extra $1000 from Leaf), better AF on 5DII and so much more. That’s where inexpensive high res DSLRs have come.

Check out this two Links (5d, and 5d2)

http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_69817.html
http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_151006.html

1CHF= 0,82 US-Dollar