Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 20 Oct 2009 (Tuesday) 23:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1D MK IV vs. D3s - Final Showdown!

 
this thread is locked
Yeoer
Senior Member
Avatar
804 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: The sharp end of the UK.
     
Oct 21, 2009 06:49 |  #16

radiohead wrote in post #8863903 (external link)
You missed a crucial point for a lot of people - a FF sensor.

Yes but in a highspeed sport/reporter/wildlif​e camera you don't want it... i know the D3s has DX mode but at only 5 or so MP so really i see in this type of camera the FF as a bit of hinderance rather than a plus.


Canon 5D MarkII, 40D, 350D, EOS100, G10. Canon 24-105 F4 L, 85mm, 400mm F5.6, 50mm F1.8, 18-55mm, Sigma 10-20, 100-300mm, Canon 28-105 F3.5-F4.5, Kenko x1.4, Tubes and a bunch of Elinchrom Lights, flashes, reflectors and triggers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
GBRandy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,935 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Green Bay, WI
     
Oct 21, 2009 07:10 |  #17

The hardest thing to overlook is the FF sensor with a 1.2 crop mode. The D3 is essentially a souped up 1DMKIII (without AF issues) & a 5D MKII all in one camera for $200 more (list).

If Nikon updates their prime lenses to be AF-s instead of that damn screwdriver AF system, the Nikon system is darn hard to turn down.

The MKIV is either way over priced or the Nikon D3 is too cheap.


GBRandy
---------------
GearList | Nikon 1977 - 2007 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yeoer
Senior Member
Avatar
804 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: The sharp end of the UK.
     
Oct 21, 2009 07:38 |  #18

GBRandy wrote in post #8864457 (external link)
The hardest thing to overlook is the FF sensor with a 1.2 crop mode. The D3 is essentially a souped up 1DMKIII (without AF issues) & a 5D MKII all in one camera for $200 more (list).

If Nikon updates their prime lenses to be AF-s instead of that damn screwdriver AF system, the Nikon system is darn hard to turn down.

The MKIV is either way over priced or the Nikon D3 is too cheap.

1D MK4 - £4499 (warehouse express)
D3s - £4199 (warehouse express)

not that much in price wise...


Canon 5D MarkII, 40D, 350D, EOS100, G10. Canon 24-105 F4 L, 85mm, 400mm F5.6, 50mm F1.8, 18-55mm, Sigma 10-20, 100-300mm, Canon 28-105 F3.5-F4.5, Kenko x1.4, Tubes and a bunch of Elinchrom Lights, flashes, reflectors and triggers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
exodusfman800
Senior Member
649 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: IUPUI - Indianapolis, IN
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:11 as a reply to  @ Yeoer's post |  #19

I kind of think the biggest difference between these two is noise and low-light performance IMO. Nikon has always had much better noise and low-light performance, but I'm really hoping this is where Canon make's its "Mark" (no pun intended ;)) and either match or even beat Nikon in this aspect. I think we all saw a light at the end of the tunnel when Canon released the 5D2, but will this be the one to break the dreaded curse? Hope..fully...

Aside from that:

-Canon has one more fps...woo hoo! :rolleyes:
-Movies makers...you know where to go...hint...not Nikon
-Nikon has a FULL FRAME SENSOR flipping at 9fps. Just a personal preference on my part :cry:.
-So far, Nikon's AF on the Dx Series has stomped the 1D's :confused:
-D3s is $200 more...but seriously...who cares when you're chucking more than $4500+ at a camera body.

I'm a die-hard Canon fan, so I really hope this new, redesigned 45-point AF system and noise performance all match up or beat the competition. We shall have to see...


-Jon

Canon 1D Mark II, 24-105 f/4L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 135 f/2L, and Elinchrom Lighting Equipment

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
exodusfman800
Senior Member
649 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: IUPUI - Indianapolis, IN
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:13 |  #20

GBRandy wrote in post #8864457 (external link)
The hardest thing to overlook is the FF sensor with a 1.2 crop mode. The D3 is essentially a souped up 1DMKIII (without AF issues) & a 5D MKII all in one camera for $200 more (list).

If Nikon updates their prime lenses to be AF-s instead of that damn screwdriver AF system, the Nikon system is darn hard to turn down.

The MKIV is either way over priced or the Nikon D3 is too cheap.

Very good point. I'm one that thinks Canon IS capable to doing this...they just haven't chosen to...


-Jon

Canon 1D Mark II, 24-105 f/4L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 135 f/2L, and Elinchrom Lighting Equipment

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
foxesamu
Senior Member
507 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:21 |  #21

exodusfman800 wrote in post #8864674 (external link)
I kind of think the biggest difference between these two is noise and low-light performance IMO. Nikon has always had much better noise and low-light performance,

Uh... Maybe I'm missing something but the first Nikon to have better low light performance than its Canon equivalent was the D3.

The fact that the D3(s) can pretty much match the 1D4 spec for spec when it came out a couple months after the 1D3 is pretty impressive.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,833 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:28 |  #22

foxesamu wrote in post #8864730 (external link)
Uh... Maybe I'm missing something but the first Nikon to have better low light performance than its Canon equivalent was the D3.

This is true. Before the D3 & D700 came out, Nikon was severely lacking in the high ISO dept.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wernersl
Goldmember
Avatar
1,944 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:36 |  #23

exodusfman800 wrote in post #8864674 (external link)
I kind of think the biggest difference between these two is noise and low-light performance IMO. Nikon has always had much better noise and low-light performance, but I'm really hoping this is where Canon make's its "Mark" (no pun intended ;)) and either match or even beat Nikon in this aspect. I think we all saw a light at the end of the tunnel when Canon released the 5D2, but will this be the one to break the dreaded curse? Hope..fully...

Aside from that:

-Canon has one more fps...woo hoo! :rolleyes:
-Movies makers...you know where to go...hint...not Nikon
-Nikon has a FULL FRAME SENSOR flipping at 9fps. Just a personal preference on my part :cry:.
-So far, Nikon's AF on the Dx Series has stomped the 1D's :confused:
-D3s is $200 more...but seriously...who cares when you're chucking more than $4500+ at a camera body.

I'm a die-hard Canon fan, so I really hope this new, redesigned 45-point AF system and noise performance all match up or beat the competition. We shall have to see...

WHAT? maybe i was dreaming in the days of the D1-D2/D100-D200. etc... it wasnt until the d300 and d3 that nikon figured out the noise issue. before that, it was almost laughable.


Shawn l Gear
Mamarazzi Photography (external link)
Wife owns the biz...I just shoot the weddings!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
radiohead
Goldmember
Avatar
1,372 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:36 |  #24
bannedPermanent ban

It wasn't even in the game. The D200 and D2x were shocking above 400.


Guy Collier Photography - Documentary Wedding Photographer (external link)
"All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
"It's no good saying "hold it" to a moment in real life." - Lord Snowdon
My kit

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,833 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:38 as a reply to  @ radiohead's post |  #25

They're clearly making up for it in spades now. :lol:


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blonde
Buck Naked Floozies
Avatar
8,405 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Boston, MA
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:46 |  #26

for me the answer is pretty easy: the better camera is the camera that has the better SYSTEM for your needs. Honestly, it is say to see how the forum deteriorate to 12 vs 16 MP, 9fps vs. 10fps and 51 points AF vs. 49 AF. Seriously, if that 4 MP/1fps or 2 points of AF is what going to make or break the shot for you, the camera body is the least of your concerns. With both cameras being so damn good (1DmkIII in canon's case and D3 in Nikon case) the camera body is the smallest part of the equation.

As some here already know, i made the full switch from a Canon 1DmkIII system to a Nikon D700/D300 system and came back to Canon after about a month. In my opinion, the Nikon cameras were better than the Canon's in almost every aspect BUT and that is a big BUT, the differences were not that great and at the end of the day, the lenses made way more of a difference and this is were Canon shines. Sure, Nikon has some lenses that seriously wipe the floor with Canon (24-70, 12-24 2.8 and the AMAZING 200-400) but due to my change in shooting subject, the Canon won at the end with its amazing primes.

again, instead of gushing over specs on a web page and hoping that the addition of 1 fps is going to make you the next Andy Rouse, take a step back and look at the entire system or better yet, go out there and actually try the competition.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
radiohead
Goldmember
Avatar
1,372 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:49 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

Well said blonde.

I wonder how many people here know that I spent 2 happy seasons with Canon.


Guy Collier Photography - Documentary Wedding Photographer (external link)
"All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
"It's no good saying "hold it" to a moment in real life." - Lord Snowdon
My kit

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
exodusfman800
Senior Member
649 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: IUPUI - Indianapolis, IN
     
Oct 21, 2009 08:50 |  #28

timnosenzo wrote in post #8864755 (external link)
This is true. Before the D3 & D700 came out, Nikon was severely lacking in the high ISO dept.

foxesamu wrote in post #8864730 (external link)
Uh... Maybe I'm missing something but the first Nikon to have better low light performance than its Canon equivalent was the D3.

The fact that the D3(s) can pretty much match the 1D4 spec for spec when it came out a couple months after the 1D3 is pretty impressive.

wernersl wrote in post #8864807 (external link)
WHAT? maybe i was dreaming in the days of the D1-D2/D100-D200. etc... it wasnt until the d300 and d3 that nikon figured out the noise issue. before that, it was almost laughable.

radiohead wrote in post #8864808 (external link)
It wasn't even in the game. The D200 and D2x were shocking above 400.

Sorry, I apologize if this shows my ages. I was about 9 years old when the Nikon D1 was released. I was probably playing Mario Kart on the old Nintendo 64. Not that I still don't, but you get the point. The only cameras I remember are like the 1D2, D200, and newer. So to correct my earlier statement, I hope Canon gets back on top to so to speak.


-Jon

Canon 1D Mark II, 24-105 f/4L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L II, 135 f/2L, and Elinchrom Lighting Equipment

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RiaGurl
Goldmember
1,857 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: somewhere south of the arctic circle
     
Oct 21, 2009 09:00 |  #29

Mastamarek wrote in post #8863122 (external link)
fixed that. lol. that was a lot of typing.

ummm...isn't the mark IV iso 100 at the low iso end normally? it shows iso 200-12800. even the rebel series has native 100 iso.


VictoRia:roll::D
Canon 20D,40D gripped,50D gripped,7D gripped
A flash for each^. 2x580EX II, 1x430EX II, 550EX
Bunch of glass.:)
Bunch of accessories.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wernersl
Goldmember
Avatar
1,944 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
     
Oct 21, 2009 09:09 |  #30

RiaGurl wrote in post #8864937 (external link)
ummm...isn't the mark IV iso 100 at the low iso end normally? it shows iso 200-12800. even the rebel series has native 100 iso.

yes...was a typo


Shawn l Gear
Mamarazzi Photography (external link)
Wife owns the biz...I just shoot the weddings!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

30,897 views & 0 likes for this thread
1D MK IV vs. D3s - Final Showdown!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Sheranne
917 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.