Nikon D-3 vs Canon 1Ds MKIII

dpastern wrote in post #4055939
I respectfully disagree. *most* users don't pixel peep, and most users rarely shoot above ISO 800, so noise is irrelevant. Up to ISO 800 the Nikon/Canon cameras are pretty damn even in terms of performance.

And yes, the 5D/D3 do compete with the 1Ds II and 1Ds III imho. Why are so many 5D's selling for wedding photography etc, and not so many 1Ds Mark II units? Because quite simply, the Mark II is very expensive, IQ wise is not as good as the 5D. mp count is not everything when it comes to cameras. This reminds me of the old mhz BS from a few years back, where my CPU is better than yours cos it has a faster mhz rating. It's marketing hype, nothing more and nothing less. An 8mp camera will print very nice A3 sized prints, how many people really print at that size, or above? Probably very few, even counting the working pros.

And I would really disagree with your comments that the D2Xs is a crap camera. It isn't. I remember a post about six months or so ago (I think it was GyRob) who said he was surprised that the Nikon D200 had much better low light focusing than his much more costly Mark IIn. Does that mean the Mark IIn is crap? No.

Oh, and a f2.8 lens isn't always better than a f4 lens. Most lens sweetspots are around f8 anyways, whether they're a L series lens or not. Wide open lends to various distortions and generally lower resolving power of the lens. Of course, if you want a nice bokeh, and nothing else it does come in handy. Or, if you're shooting wide open in low light conditions to avoid bumping up the ISO, it's also handy.

One does not really need a 16mp camera or a 22mp camera, and I'm glad Nikon has realised that it's just a pi$$ing contest. I'd rather a 8mp full frame 1 series camera, with the AF performance and buffer performance and fps performance of the non full frame 1 series cameras. Canon could do such a beast, but they're convinced that more mp means a better camera, and that's not always the case.

I'll be interested to see if the D3 AF trounces the Mark III AF (which I suspect it will in all honesty). Can I then say that the Mark III is a crap camera?

Dave

You often will have the wider lens just so you can spot down to the sweet spot of the lens. I *guarantee you* that my 24-70mm 2.8 is sharper at 4.0 than 24-105 wide open at 4.0. I also regularly use my 85mm prime just so 2.8 is nice and sharp... How does that fit into the puzzle?

Doesn't make much sense to me some of the arguements in this. Also, while many don't use need the higher megapixels, some DO. Your viewpoint seems to be very short-sided. Not everyone has your needs, others have different needs.

The images I'm comparing are offers made by its repective manufacture and shot by renown Pros in field of their specialty using what they deem as the best the manufacture has to offer.

lostdoggy wrote in post #4053036
Currently the only thing that we can rely upon to make a subjective evaluation is with images provided by the manufacture to examine. So therefore within reasonable evaluation of these image, Canon surpass those provided by Noink (by the way this is the accepted name used in this forum for Nikon).

Can you let me know where the comparison images are?

lostdoggy wrote in post #4050295
Here are links for image posted by their respective Manufacture (feel clearly represent their product):

Noink:
http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …_page.asp?cid=7​-8743-9108
&
http://nikonimaging.co​m …lcamera/slr/d3/​sample.htm

Canon:
http://web.canon.jp …m3/eos1dsm3_sam​ple-e.html

From brief examination of the images Canon wins hands down. D3 was disappointing.

Has anyone noticed that the sample images provided by Canon are all shot at ISO 100 and 200 where as the Nikon samples are shot at a good variety of ISOs. No wonder the Canon pix look better than a ISO 3200 pic with a D3

Dellboy wrote in post #4057150
Has anyone noticed that the sample images provided by Canon are all shot at ISO 100 and 200 where as the Nikon samples are shot at a good variety of ISOs. No wonder the Canon pix look better than a ISO 3200 pic with a D3

Yes, and the D3 images at 1600 and 3200 look really quite fantastic. I wonder if all the fanboys here even noticed the ISO differences when they were comparing?

I think the d3 is a superb. Why did they only make it 10megapixels though.

D3 is now instock :O --> Click Here

jj_photography wrote in post #4061040
I think the d3 is a superb. Why did they only make it 10megapixels though.

I believe it is 12MP.

And if I was starting afresh then the D3 and the new Nikon lenses would make a very compelling case. I shoot sports, weddings, portraits, general events etc and the D3 is an all in one camera. Canon forces me to buy two cameras for the same purpose.

Heck it will probably even focus reliably...

thitipong wrote in post #4061140
D3 is now instock :O --> Click Here

Not really. It is for pre-order, and "ships approx. mid-November".

cwphoto wrote in post #4061909
I believe it is 12MP.

And if I was starting afresh then the D3 and the new Nikon lenses would make a very compelling case. I shoot sports, weddings, portraits, general events etc and the D3 is an all in one camera. Canon forces me to buy two cameras for the same purpose.

Heck it will probably even focus reliably...

Although I am a Canon user, but I do agree that Nikon finally made a very good pro level camera (that is, the previous D2 series cameras are craps, which is why D300, which is better than D2's according to a lot Nikon users, are selling only for $1800 instead of the D2's $4-5k).

But in the near future (1 year), when 5D Mk II comes out, I am quite sure its high ISO noise will be significantly lower than Nikon's D3. Why? Because the 1.3x crop 1D Mk III is comparable to D3, and 5D's sensor is 70% larger than that on 1D, so 5D Mk II should perform 70% better in terms of noise.

I disagree about the noise performance increases from a 5D Mark II. Pixel peeping at images from the 400D and 40D and Mark III, I notice a *slight* improvement in noise over previous models that they replace, probably around a stop. The new cameras are not that much better noise wise than the 5D. Noise will always be dictated by sensor size/pixel size/amount of amplification. You can bend the laws of physics, but you can't break them. Bending usually is only a very small amount.

I find lens resolution a more important issue than camera resolution for *most* subject shoots (providing you are NOT cropping). The mp race is *just* a pi$$ing contest, nothing more and nothing less. Pros used the 4mp 1D for many years before the arrival of a Mark II, and they were happy with it. They also did A3 prints quite OK. Noise was higher on the original 1D as it was pre-Digic technology, and used CCD technology, which is generally regarded as noiser than CMOS.

A good lens on a crap camera will still provide a reasonably good image. A bad lens on a good camera will generally not...

As to the higher speed lenses, if you shoot a lot of wide open shots, then fast primes/zooms are a boom, and AF will generally be faster/more accurate to boot. If you want the best resolution from the lens (which ultimately will dictate the resolution that the sensor can see), then f8 is usually a good bet.

jj_photography - in answer to your question, I think it's because Nikon is not going to get into a mp pi$$ing/marketing match with other marques. It's smart enough to realise that there's more to a digital camera than outright mp.

Dave

There is something to be said for lots of pixels.
The more you have, effectively increases the length of your lenses without detriment to the wide angles.

Note the use of the word "effectively".

Sadly Neither Canon or Nikon have everything I want in a system so I may well have to buy both. (in my dreams)

dpastern wrote in post #4062435
I disagree about the noise performance increases from a 5D Mark II. Pixel peeping at images from the 400D and 40D and Mark III, I notice a *slight* improvement in noise over previous models that they replace, probably around a stop.

A stop is a fair amount of noise! I wouldn't call that "slight".

dpastern wrote in post #4062435
I find lens resolution a more important issue than camera resolution for *most* subject shoots

Definitely agreed. Some current lenses sometimes fail even on the 5D.
Canon needs to develop it's Optics tech now (it'd also be nice to have newer generation IS on the older lenses - like the 100-400)

fordmondeo wrote in post #4062843
There is something to be said for lots of pixels.
The more you have, effectively increases the length of your lenses without detriment to the wide angles.

Note the use of the word "effectively".

You just need a lens to resolve the crop adequately, and as mentioned, a few lenses sometimes fail at that.

Personally I reckon I could make a complete mess of a picture with either camera !

First let me state that I have an obvious bias...
And then let me state that I have a 1DsMkIII on order (expected in two weeks apparently according to my local store - we shall see)

I was a bit nervous and reconsidering when I first saw the D3 pics (especially in light of a rumored 22MP Nikon next spring. So I did a comparison of the official Nikon images and some others found about the web versus MY 1DsMkII shots done in real world conditions (bad-light - no flash allowed - ISO 1600, f1.2, 1/80th) - I will take my 1DsMkII with a 85/f1.2 lens on it over the D3 using whatever they used, thank you very much and my money is voting.

I can't wait to see how much the 1DsMkIII makes a difference with 14-bit and improved noise reduction of 3-years of technology advance.

Oh and I rarely if ever use anything above ISO 100 if I can help it, so 21.1MP beats 12MP almost any day. 8)