Switch now or wait for 1DMK4

Ok bit of a dilema, im seriously thinking of making the switch to Nikon purley for the high ISO capabilities, ive owned a 1DMK1, MK2 and currently a MK3 and at the time of introduction they were better than their Nikon counterparts but this year has seen a massive swing to Nikon.

Bear in mind i shoot field sports and sometimes at ISO 3200 and underexposed 1-2 stops just to get 1/320th sec and you can see what im up against.

Im disappointed at what the MK3 produces at 3200 but the Nikon is amazing.

Question is, do i jump ship now or wait a while in the hope that Canon bring out a MK4 to at least match the D3 (I DONT LIKE THE CROP THINGY AND LOSING PIXELS ON THE D3)

Ive got a fair amount of money tied up in Canon including a 1d3, 1d2, ef400 LIS F/2.8 ef 70-200 l f/2.8, ef 24-105 L IS F/4 so would be a little miffed if i switched now and Canon brought out a D3 beater in February.

What is the likelyhood something new will come along in the new year given the MK3 id probably due to be replaced as a matter of course anyway, i personally thought they would have brought out a MK3 N a long time ago.

i would say hang in there with Canon. competition will always result in one ahead of the other but neither that far behind. Once you invest in quality glass (like you have), I say stick with it. both Canon and Nikon have been around too long to just buckle and call it quits.

Give me your 400IS and switch to Nikon

Nah... really stick with canon, they will come back soon enough, and you will kick yourself for going to nikon
then two years after that you will kick yourself for not switching to nikon, then it will reverse agian and so on... Just the electronics industry

pendulum15 wrote in post #6777922
Nah... really stick with canon, they will come back soon enough, and you will kick yourself for going to nikon
then two years after that you will kick yourself for not switching to nikon, then it will reverse agian and so on... Just the electronics industry

That is so true

Buy a 50D or 5D mkII if you really need high ISO's. I'm sure either of those bodies would be capable to fill in for your super low light work until the 1D MK4 comes out.

If you are a photographer that is so good that you can push your current body to its limit and really need the couple of specs that Nikon offers that are better then switch if you have the money. But if you are like 99.99% of us, you are not. Don't get hung up on numbers. The 1DM3 is a great body. The Canon / Nikon thing comes and goes - I've seen it swing back and forth over the years. Both brands offer a great line-up. There guys out there shooting both brands that are making great livings.

If switching will increase your income, then do it.

;}

If you are disappointed with the 1D Mark III produces at 3200, switch.

nick400d wrote in post #6777961
Buy a 50D or 5D mkII if you really need high ISO's. I'm sure either of those bodies would be capable to fill in for your super low light work until the 1D MK4 comes out.

Uh, the 50D is going to be worse than the 1D3 for noise.

And I bet the AF performance of either 50D or 5D2 is probably not going to satisfy the OP if he is shooting very low light sports.

If you are going to replace your entire camera system every time some company comes out with a model with a very tiny advantage over the competition, you will be the most broke photographer in the country.

uh....maybe I am missing something here, but I thought the Mark III was able to crank the ISO to 6400? That is one of the reasons I'm contempating getting one in the not to far off future!?

CatchingUp wrote in post #6778417
uh....maybe I am missing something here, but I thought the Mark III was able to crank the ISO to 6400? That is one of the reasons I'm contempating getting one in the not to far off future!?

It can go to ISO 6400. You need to set ISO expansion to "ON".

The Nikon D3 is pretty sweet machine at ISO 6400 and beats the MKIII by a little.

However, if you shoot indoor sports like the OP (and me) that is not always enough and fast primes become the second source of increased SS. Nikon's line-up of fast primes is awful. None (200 f2 aside) are USM (or AF-S in the their line)...they use an old "screwdriver" mechanism.

I am waiting to see who comes out with what first. If Nikon upgrades the primes...see ya'll. If Canon burps up an MKIIIn or MKIV I'll hang around.

Somebody do something.

I don't think the D3 or the D700 will offer up any miracles over the 1D MKIII. According to folks who have used both, the ISO performance isn't really that different, with the slight edge going to Nikon. And yes, once Canon releases the next gen 1 series bodies, you will be intrigued by it, much like you are intrigued with Nikon now.

It's a never ending cycle...some people like to switch to the bleeding edge, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I know I was looking at the D3/D700 even just a few weeks ago! But ultimately, Canon wins out with its lens lineup...

Beside the body, have you notice abou the cost of nikon long lens yet? if you don't mind spending $8500 for nikon 400VR (and if you can find them available at BH) then make the switch.

If I were shooting as a business, then first I would ask myself "would the images out of the Nikon be superior enough to allow me to make more money?". If I thought the answer is yes, then I would call my tax accountant and get his take on it.

I'm glad I don't shoot for pay....I have enough of those kinds of decisions in my real job !!!

regards, George W