1D MK IV vs. D3s - Final Showdown!

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

True - worse than shocking.

Folks need to keep in mind that Nikon "cracked" the high ISO thing with the D3 with an sensor that had fewer pixels than the original 5D and with a 3 year technology advantage. This and every conceivable feature were the things that got them back in the game. If I remember it was 2:1 Canon in DSLRS before that camera and the D300.

With the 5D II until now, you're getting almost the same low noise in a Canon from sensors with much more resolution. I am expecting the D3s to have lower noise at 102,800 than the Canon, but probably not by much. I would use 102,800 too...once, just for a peak. Personally, it's an idiotic option unless your flash batteries die while you are spelunking in Mammoth Cave.

...you know the video on the Canon will be better.

I'll go along with Ed on this one, if the MKIV actually does what it's designed to do without all the initial problems "on paper this mark IV looks like the ultimate sports camera....maybe the ultimate camera."

I'm pretty excited about this.

if nothing else...emergency situations shooting in a cave for images destined only for the web....not bad.

radiohead wrote in post #8865354
Anyone would think you're spoiling for a fight.

Good luck with that.

Love the new(ish?) site Guy - and your gallery shots are just great, nice work. To the thread, the 1DMk IV looks fantastic; really exciting camera. And the D3s looks to be a fantastic camera, although not one that Nikon shooters were waiting breathlessly for (the D700/D3 crowd seems pretty content) but a little higher ISO and video options for those who are packing stills / video together for weddings and engagements is nice.

And there we have it...in a nutshell.

blonde wrote in post #8864849
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.

timnosenzo wrote in post #8865457
Passive-aggressive behavior via smileys.

this is a canon forum so you'd have to expect enthusiasm from the faithful for a new camera, especially for the flagship sports model.

now, if that bothers you you're probably in the wrong place .

ed rader

thatkatmat wrote in post #8865605
And there we have it...in a nutshell.

yeah yeah yeah .... i think anyone who spends this much for a camera has already taken system into consideration. if they haven't all they need to do is hang out here for awhile and let the other volunteers do the research with their wallets .

ed rader

Then what is all the bickering over Ed.....Why is this thread even here? I think the 1Dmk4 looks great, but debating which one is better on paper.....It really depends on what you want...
And to address the passive-aggresive comment....He's right...good or bad....we live on the west coast...that's how we roll.

thatkatmat wrote in post #8865682
Then what is all the bickering over Ed.....Why is this thread even here? I think the 1Dmk4 looks great, but debating which one is better on paper.....It really depends on what you want...

i know what i want. you're not going to see the wild gyrations in my gear signature .

ed rader

Not that I'll be buying either one any time soon but it will be interesting to see what Canon releases when their Flagship 1Ds Mark IV is released.

I see lots of comparisons between the 1.3 crop 1DmIV and the FF 3DS but I thought that the 1Ds series were the "Flagship" models. I think it was calculated that the potential resolution on a full frame 1Ds, using the pixel pitch as the 7D would, translate to a 45MP. They could probably use a quad core processor for throughput and still go full HD video as well. Not sure what the other specs could be but it could be a true "medium format" level camera.

Who knows, either way, they are all great cameras that I would love to have.

ed rader wrote in post #8865701
i know what i want. you're not going to see the wild gyrations in my gear signature .
ed rader

Yeah Ed, you're the man, 'cause you keep your gear longer than me or others, you've stated this to me a many times....Just want you to know....You are a better man than me because you've found your holy grail in the 1 series bodies...Does that make you feel superior...good

insert passive aggressive smiley.......here

BlueFalcon wrote in post #8865724
Not that I'll be buying either one any time soon but it will be interesting to see what Canon releases when their Flagship 1Ds Mark IV is released.

I see lots of comparisons between the 1.3 crop 1DmIV and the FF 3DS but I thought that the 1Ds series were the "Flagship" models. I think it was calculated that the potential resolution on a full frame 1Ds, using the pixel pitch as the 7D would, translate to a 45MP. They could probably use a quad core processor for throughput and still go full HD video as well. Not sure what the other specs could be but it could be a true "medium format" level camera.

Who knows, either way, they are all great cameras that I would love to have.

"...flagship sports model."

ed rader

thatkatmat wrote in post #8865757
Yeah Ed, you're the man, 'cause you keep your gear longer than me or others, you've stated this to me a many times....Just want you to know....You are a better man than me because you've found your holy grail in the 1 series bodies...Does that make you feel superior...good

insert passive aggressive smiley.......here

the guys who are talking about "it's the system that matters" really should be talking into the mirror. i'll bet 99% of canon users already have taken that into consideration.

but thanks for the research... .

ed rader

Tough choice.
Comes down to FF vs. Crop, Video implementation (Canon wins), and 12MP vs. 16MP.

I've stuck with Canon because of the system. Nikon's offerings are certainly difficult to ignore. They've done very well for themselves.

ed rader wrote in post #8865779
the guys who are talking about "it's the system that matters" really should be talking into the mirror. i'll bet 99% of canon users already have taken that into consideration.

but thanks for the research... .

ed rader

the guys that are talking about "its the system" are often guys that actually tried both for themselves instead of using forum quotes and other's people's opinions. These are the guys that actually put their money were the mouth is and went out and tried the different options and actually learned first hand what the differences are.

as for your bet, i think that i will take you on that one. i will bet that 99% of the people that are in this thread right now talking **** back and forth haven't used a Nikon at all and don't know much about the Nikon system. Go look at the "official release" thread and you will see why you would lose this bet. people that are calling the mkIV the great messiah are asking if the Nikon has features like High Light Tone priority. People that hail the canon never even used a Nikon lens in their life and yet they will harp on the "canon makes better lenses" which is a completey crock of #$%. they make more lenses and they make cheaper lenses. yes they have some better lenses but they also have some worse lenses.