Should I get the Nikon D3s or the Canon 1D Mark IV?

[schumionbike]

What is hard to understand about that? It appears that once Canon fixed the issues, most folks are very happy with the 1DmkIII. And I think the mkIII may be a tad more forgiving.

If D3=D3s and if D3s~1DIV and if 1DIV> 1DIIII then D3>1DIII. That's what's he trying to say and that should be a true statement unless you're assuming that there isn't much different then 1DIII and the 1DIV. Even if there isn't much different between the 1DIV and the 1DIII, there's no reason that the 1DIII would be significantly ahead of the D3 if the D3s and 1DIV are fairly similar in term of perfomance on the field.

 

[inTempus]

The one you posted here some months ago may have been "independent" by your definition, but was in fact written by (what appeared to be) a Canon fanboy. (He listed all his L glass in his sig (on that website), the vast majority of his posts were about Canon, didn't seem all that familiar with Nikon, etc.)

Try this one.

AF-C comparison test plus K20D and K200D test in german "fotoMAGAZIN": Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The D3 had the same percentage of in focus shots as the 40D. I've yet to find one test where the D3 produced more in focus shots than the 1D3. If you can find one, I would enjoy reading it.

 

[Montana]

What is hard to understand about that? It appears that once Canon fixed the issues, most folks are very happy with the 1DmkIII. And I think the mkIII may be a tad more forgiving.

If D3=D3s and if D3s~1DIV and if 1DIV> 1DIIII then D3>1DIII. That's what's he trying to say and that should be a true statement unless you're assuming that there isn't much different then 1DIII and the 1DIV. Even if there isn't much different between the 1DIV and the 1DIII, there's no reason that the 1DIII would be significantly ahead of the D3 if the D3s and 1DIV are fairly similar in term of perfomance on the field.

Okay I get it.

Here is my take.......1DIII, 1DIV, D3, D3s= heaven. Any real difference between the four is likely very negligible. Hair splitting differences for the most part. If not, then there is a problem. I believe that Canon did have a problem with the mkIII, thus all the fixes. But should a person expect better performance in autofocus in each generation? I don't know. I would a assume that there will be a limit eventually. Have we reached it? Is 100% keeper rate ever gonna be obtainable (discounting user errors of course)?

Heck, you could prolly darn near throw the 1DmkIIn in the mix as well. Technology has come a long way in other areas such as ISO performance, pixel densities, deeper buffers, faster write speeds, but perhaps we are hitting the rev limiter on autofocus. Who knows? I know what my shooting requires and thats all I honestly care about. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the above mentioned camera bodies though.

Both the D3s and mkIV have had firmware updates already. So long as Canon and Nikon find/rectify problems we are good. Not that the majority of us would ever see those limitations in our shooting though.

 

[schumionbike]

I agree. When I was working as a fanfoto phographer at Minutemaid Park last summer, the AP guys were using Canon 1D Mark II n and they get the shots and get them published. No one was doing AF tests

 

[MrLogic]

The one you posted here some months ago may have been "independent" by your definition, but was in fact written by (what appeared to be) a Canon fanboy. (He listed all his L glass in his sig (on that website), the vast majority of his posts were about Canon, didn't seem all that familiar with Nikon, etc.)

Try this one.

AF-C comparison test plus K20D and K200D test in german "fotoMAGAZIN": Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The D3 had the same percentage of in focus shots as the 40D. I've yet to find one test where the D3 produced more in focus shots than the 1D3. If you can find one, I would enjoy reading it.

Thanks. That's embarrassing, if true. The 40 ****ing D. I mean, I really like the 40D... but damn. :thumbdown:

Would be nice if the actual test was online somewhere, though. LOL

 

[Montana]

FWIW, my 40D averaged about a 75% keeper rate in Servo. Thats not bad at all really. 100% is pretty much unobtainable. 90% is a great camera.

 

[inTempus]

I searched and searched and searched when considering buying my 1D4 or a D3s to find a comparison where the D3 out performed the 1D3 in AF. I never found a single test that showed the D3 having the advantage. I've read countless opinions by people saying they felt the D3 was superior, but not once could anyone back it up.

I still can't find anything. It's always the 1D3 on top.

Which I find kind of amusing. Everyone ran away from the 1D3 to the D3 because of the original article by Rob... yet the 1D3 still produced more in focus shots than the D3.

Here we are today and he's claiming the 1D4 has problems and the D3s is superior. He's the only one I can find saying this... and I've found plenty of comments saying the D3s is really no different than the D3 in performance by those that own them. Some say they "think" it's a little snappier despite the fact it has the exact same Multi-CAM 3500 FX AF system the D3 has according to Nikon.

Other sports photogs are saying the 1D4 tops the 1D3, especially in straight on action, and is faster focusing. So it would appear Rob is the only one that can work the D3s and who can't work the 1D4.

Interesting indeed.

Toss in the Nikon ads on all four corners of his website and I think most rational people would say "hummm".

I'll continue to see what others using the 1D4 for a living have to say about it, people who aren't taking advertising money from Nikon. Right now I've yet to read a single report from any of the big time sports photogs using 1D4's saying they feel there is a problem with the body or that it's "unpredictable". Conversely, I'm reading comments like "Canon got this one right".

 

[Montana]

Mojo?

 

[Derrel]

Yes, Rob says Canon has lost its autofocus mojo. Yesterday I went to the Rob Galbraith web site and downloaded the six zip files with the more than 900 images. I looked at ALL the images, for over 2 hours. I looked closely at the sequential shots, and the Mark IV performed very poorly under situations where I would expect a pro sports camera would excel. Considering that Canon provided Rob with a calibrated 1D Mark IV body and multiple calibrated lenses, and Rob bought a body, and also used two borrowed 1D IV's, the results are hard to stomach.

Each photo has the AF points selected in red overlayed, and the blue ancillary "assist points". Each image has pertinent EXIF info overlayed on it. As a poster above said, with his 40D in AI servo he was averaging a 70% keeper rate. Well, the one-month-long test across multiple sports has nowhere near the kind of keeper rate I expect from my D2x and 70-200 VR, 200mm f/2 AF-S, and 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. Seriously...I thought Rob was exaggerating and being extremely hyper-critical when he wrote the conclusions. But then I looked at the images; he was not overly-critical.

The thing is--the blogger reviews are all ONE-event, one-off deals, in lower light levels--San Francisco afternoon football the third week in December, indoors one night at a dingy, really dingy sports center with athletes wearing walking autofocus targets in the form of lacrossse uniforms with a 6 foot long stick, plaid side panels, gloves with cross-hatching on the sides, a white helmet with facemask: in other words, walking,running High-Contrast targets. Let's be honest: the 1D Mark III was lauded by Rob Galbraith as being the FASTEST-EVER LOW-LIGHT one-shot INITIAL AF acquisition. That is what Rob said when he tested the 1D Mark III in 2007--truly superb, class-leading world-class initial acquisition, especially in low-light. But the Mark 3 had problems with sequential autofocusing,and as light levels went up, the Mark 3 got worse and worse in terms of AF performance in sequential shooting and on STATIC targets.

I downloaded the 900+ files in zip form, and went through them last night. Unlike a one-hour "test" at one or two low-light venues or on baseball, which is a DEAD-easy AF sport, with action occurring at pre-determined locations, the sample sports assignments Rob and Mike Sturk shot were designed to keep the AF point on the athlete and see how well the camera can acquire and track focus...in all situations. Early morning slanting light; afternoon front lighting; back- and side-lighting, at night in the rain, indoor basketball, and indoor speed skating at the brand new Olympic venue. The 900 shots show many,many **Sequences** shot with pro-quality, Canon-serviced L-glass 70-200,300/2.8,and three different 400/2.8's. It's one thing to see 1 or 2 or 3 "selects", but looking at sequential shots, many of them, in all types of scenarios over 30 days...with 1 Canon-calibrated body, 3 Canon-serviced lenses, and three "other" bodies, and THREE different 400/2.8 lenses, from both the 1 and II generation...being shown the entire sequences reveals a huge amount about the way the AF system works

But do not take my word for it. As Rob suggests, "see for yourself."

Rob Galbraith DPI: Seeing for yourself

 

[Montana]

Its not the shots in question, its the settings in the CF's that are question. From my playing around with mine, I can question some of his settings myself. There is a setting he left at default that would catch swinging arms, crossing players, or anything else that crossed between camera and subject. I think the camera is too damn fast at the default. I set mine to the slowest setting. Thats 2 stops down from default.

Still odd that Rob is the only one with issues. I still honestly don't believe he gave the mkIV a fair shake....and that is sad. All the other pros speak highly of the camera, but if Rob's experience turns out to be in error, he will have mucho eggo on his face. LOL

Where are all the sequential D3s comparison shots?

But I will say this....if I personally find a problem with my mkIV that Canon cannot fix.....I will jump to another company that can handle my shooting requirements. It would be costly as hell, but I don't care what gear I use to get my final product. No one will be able to tell outside of EXIF info anyways.

 

[gsgary]

Never mind the 1Dmk3 and 4 i don't miss many shots with the 1Dmk1 and mk2's in fact i get as many as my friend with his D3 if not more when you take into account what i paid for mine i'm on a winner

 

[Montana]

^ Thats really what its all about. I wish I was out taking photos rather than reading crap on the internet all day. LOL


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[inTempus]

Another very well known SI shooter, Peter Miller, who's been using the Canon 1D4 for over a month and is "thrilled with the results".

Peter Read Miller shares his Canon EOS-1D Mark IV secrets

He even shares his custom function settings. And unlike Rob, he's actually had a 1D4 image on the cover of SI. But then Peter shoots sports professionally and probably knows what he's doing with a 1D4.

"I have been shooting the Mark IV for over a month now and I have been thrilled with the results," said Miller when asked how he liked shooting with Canon’s new flagship professional camera.

All these pros actually using the body for a living and they love it. I wonder what Rob did wrong? Obviously something is amiss. How can everyone else be wrong and he be right?

 

[Montana]

I just got done trolling everything I could find online in regards to the mkIV. Shoot after shoot of every sport imaginable is coming in with rave reviews. Unbelievable. I sure wish i wasn't stuck at work right now.

Tim take a look on FM at the NCAA basketball game shots! Damn!

I think RG will have more than 1 egg on his face. Its the worst he could have done to himself. Total discredit in one day......wow.

 

[schumionbike]

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV - impressions - Ron Scheffler

Seem to be a fairly unbias review as he's a Canon shooter and doesn't seem all that well verse with Nikon. Take it as you will. His conclusion kind of support both sides which is kind of funny but whatever. I figure you guys would talk about the girl or something but here we're arguing about AF system. Not even ISO sensitivity but the AF system??? I don't remember arguing about that before the 1DMark IV show up. It was always about noise before.