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

[FrankLamont]

I've been waiting a few days for someone to say it.

But I'll say it if no one wants to: who cares?

Offer me a free D3s with several Nikkor pro lenses, I'll gladly accept. But for now, I stick with Canon and upgrade to Canon, in keeping with my lens investments.

 

[IgsEMT]

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S

 

[inTempus]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/igsemt.htmlIgsEMT, that link was posted back on page 2 (post 25).

 

[IgsEMT]

IgsEMT, that link was posted back on page 2 (post 25).

oops,
I stopped reading about 10posts in
thanks for heads up

 

[inTempus]

IgsEMT, that link was posted back on page 2 (post 25).

oops,
I stopped reading about 10posts in
thanks for heads up

You missed all the good stuff!

 

[schumionbike]

As long as he saw the video, he's good to go

 

[gsgary]

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S

The one thing that would sway me is the $4000 difference in price to shoot at that distance

 

[schumionbike]

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S

The one thing that would sway me is the $4000 difference in price to shoot at that distance

You know you can switch on the 1.2 or the 1.5 crop on the D3s if you want to shoot with shorter lens. At 1.2 crop, it's still 8.9 megapixel which is plenty. At 1.5 crop, it's 5.1 megapixel is probably not enough for stock images but it's enough for other situations.

 

[gsgary]

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S

The one thing that would sway me is the $4000 difference in price to shoot at that distance

You know you can switch on the 1.2 or the 1.5 crop on the D3s if you want to shoot with shorter lens. At 1.2 crop, it's still 8.9 megapixel which is plenty. At 1.5 crop, it's 5.1 megapixel is probably not enough for stock images but it's enough for other situations.

No thank's i'll keep my Canon, used a D2x once and hated it with a passion

 

[Derrel]

Well, if you want to actually see side-by-side image comparisons between the two bodies, there are some comparisons located at http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/.


Bottom line: the D3s is the high-ISO champion of all d-slr cameras on the market. Bottom line: The Canon 1D IV is the fastest-shooting camera in the sports/action class, at 10 frames per second. I think it is interesting to actually "See" the different way the larger sensors from both Nikon and Canon handle noise,and the above comparisons compare the 1D IV to both Nikon,and Canon, full-frame sensor technology. When the shoe was reversed and the Canon 1D Mark II was bettering Nikon's lame D2h as the top sports/action camera choice, and everybody knew that the Canon was the vastly better camera in terms of noise handling,all the web fora were abuzz with how great Canon was and how bad Nikon was. But now with the situation arguably reversed, it seems the Canon faithful have a hard time accepting the fact that it is no longer 2004 or 2005. Today I saw an indoor photo of two baseball caps hanging off of a chair as "proof" of how great the Mark IV is at high ISO settings, and yet, side-by-side comparisons above would indicate that the "proof" would not hold up in a side-by-side, apples to apples comparison. One shot, without any context, doesn't prove much.

The two camera makers have had a history of leapfrogging one another. Nikon changed the game by going to a larger sensor, with larger pixels, in order to maximize image quality at dramatically elevated ISO settings. Sports and action shooters would often prefer better high-ISO performance over higher megapixel counts. Canon and Nikon seem to try not to compete exactly head-to-head with one another, so the two cameras are not quite comparable. Most people answer the question of which to get based on familiarity or system commitment. The people that actually make the choice between these two cameras usually are professional sports/news shooters or the buyers for large organizations, like newspapers with pools of 10 or 15 or even 20 shooters. Looking at the current Vancouver Olympics, it seems like the sports shooters of the world have realized that it is no longer 2004 or 2005. I find it amusing that after such a long period of white lens dominance at major sporting events around the world, that the white lens set comes up with all sorts of excuses for all those big, black Nikon supertelephotos the top pros are using at major sports events.

Seriously though, for the majority of the people reading this forum, the question, "Should I get the Nikon D3s or the Canon 1D Mark IV?" the answer is ,"NO! Buy a camera you'll actually want to carry and use!" The cameras in this class are big, and heavy, and obnoxious. MOST people should buy a smaller,lighter camera like a Canon 50D or 7D or Nikon D300 or Nikon D90, or a somewhat smaller Nikon D700 or Canon 5D-II for full-frame imaging for those who want to use traditional focal length lenses at traditional shooting distances for weddings or portraiture work, in which shallower depth of field and a larger degree of background control is what separates true professional work from that done with cameras that Uncle Bill or Aunt Cathy also has access to. When one really comes right down to overall, total image quality, Canon's original 5D, the 12.8 MP model, is actually a very slight bit better than the original Nikon D3 up to about ISO 1600. Currently, the 5D Mark II has image quality that is basically the same as Canon's flagship, the 1DS Mark III, the 21 megapixel, rugged FF body.

It could be argued that for many people here, on *this forum*, the $2,400 Canon 5D-II is the best choice for image quality, scoring extremely well against cameras that cost over twice as much,from both Nikon and Canon. Big sensor, superb high ISO performance, high-quality video....the 5D II is actually a heck of a camera for many people. You can buy two 5-II's for the price of one Nikon D3s,and have almost $400 left over.

 

[schumionbike]

The one thing that would sway me is the $4000 difference in price to shoot at that distance

You know you can switch on the 1.2 or the 1.5 crop on the D3s if you want to shoot with shorter lens. At 1.2 crop, it's still 8.9 megapixel which is plenty. At 1.5 crop, it's 5.1 megapixel is probably not enough for stock images but it's enough for other situations.

No thank's i'll keep my Canon, used a D2x once and hated it with a passion

I'm just giving the options available if you want more reach

 

[gsgary]

You know you can switch on the 1.2 or the 1.5 crop on the D3s if you want to shoot with shorter lens. At 1.2 crop, it's still 8.9 megapixel which is plenty. At 1.5 crop, it's 5.1 megapixel is probably not enough for stock images but it's enough for other situations.

No thank's i'll keep my Canon, used a D2x once and hated it with a passion

I'm just giving the options available if you want more reach

I'll keep my 1.3 crop for sport

 

[inTempus]

Today I saw an indoor photo of two baseball caps hanging off of a chair as "proof" of how great the Mark IV is at high ISO settings, and yet, side-by-side comparisons above would indicate that the "proof" would not hold up in a side-by-side, apples to apples comparison. One shot, without any context, doesn't prove much.

I'm supposed to be on your ignore list. What, you couldn't bare the thought of me saying something you couldn't read after all?

What you saw was proof the 1D4 can provide print quality ("photojournalistic") images at high ISO... something you claimed it couldn't do. It has nothing to do with "side by side", it has to do with "can the 1D4 deliver usable images at high ISO" and the answer is "yes, it can" despite what you try to tell people.

You're the one that can't seem to accept the fact that the 1D4 is a very capable body in the above ISO 6400 range. You live and die by Rob G and Thom Hogan articles and race to the boards once you find something (anything) that might cast Canon in a negative light. You take every opportunity to bust Canon's balls over anything you can possibly find, then you have the audacity to say Canon users can't stand it when the shoe is on the other foot?

 

[Montana]

Bingo! ^

 

[Derrel]

SportsShooter.com - 1D4 Thoughts After a Couple Games

A professional sports shooter, complaining about the "inconsistency" of the Mark IV on sports. I have to laugh about the fellows who have been shooting for 18 months and who do not know who robgalbraith actually "is". It's hilarious to hear a newbie photographer trying to badmouth a guy who has been a professional sports photographer in Canada for over 20 years, a professional photojournalist for over FOURTY years, and who has covered BOTH Gulf Wars! Also, Rob Galbraith wrote the first guidebook for professional photojournalists on digital cameras, back in 1994,and was one of the WORLD's first photojournalists to use the then-state of the art d-slr body made by Kodak....Rob is a FORTY YEAR veteran of photojournalism! Not some newbie part-time hobby shooter with a good day job and 2 cameras...

Sorry, but efforts to discredit Rob Galbraith are pretty pathetic attempts, all by novice shooters who simply do not "know" who the man they are trying to impugn actually "is" in the world of photography! It's kind of lame, since I know "who" Rob actually is--as do tens of thousands of working photojournalists....he's the guy that got Canon to finally admit there was a huge AF problem with their MARK III camera,after they denied it,vehemently.And then Canon spent months working with him--because of how much influence and experience he actually has among people "in the business". Trying to badmouth other people in order to justify one's own purchases is a reprehensible behavior--manifesting itself on many internet forums. Rob was one of the first-ever "experts" in d-slr use and workflow, and in this forum we have a novice shooter with less than 2 years experience trying to discredit the man,over and over and over. It's a case of internet fanboyism--trying to knock down long-time experts who teach other professionals how to handle digital camera operation,workflow,and processing. Thom Hogan has written 19 guidebooks on Nikon SLRs...and yet we have an individual in this forum that repeatedly bashes the guy, based upon no real qualifications, nor much experience. It's internet fanboyism...who does one trust these days? The guy who talks a good game, but has been into photography for a matter of months, of people in their 50's and 60's and with decades of experience?

Already, the people in the business, are reporting some problems with the Mark IV's **inconsistency***. Read closely, and it's clear--the camera has a very inconsistent pattern of behavior on peak action sports. THere is a blog post linked earlier here where the author goes through problems he is having with his new Mark IV, including a button already sticking...

The pro I refer to says, "I have to say that for me that set of parameters
was pretty inconsistent. Granted I was shooting
through the glass for hockey which had it's fair
share of puck marks and smudges but I was
hoping for a bit better out of Canons latest. The
basketball court was even more problematic in
my opinion. I would definitely not use expansion
there again. The AF simply grabs other players
too randomly. I'm going to try using the slow
sensitivity at some point but I don't have much
confidence in it. " and also "For whatever reasons it was just very inconsistent. There
were times when I thought I was locked onto a single player
with no one else around her yet the photos came out slightly
out of focus. Other times I thought I had acquired initial
AF tracking on a player yet as I followed the player for
a few frames it was in and out of focus. These were not
very fast motions either, simply players dribbling from one
side of the court to another. You would think that in
standard sensitivity it could keep up. "

Other working pros who are **honest** are reporting issues with "inconsistent" AF performance in the Mark IV. Not people shooting static stuff, but actual,working professional sports and news shooters.

The camera is barely out on the market yet.

I challenge anybody who thinks the camera is without problems to go and download and looka t the 900+ pictures here: Rob Galbraith DPI: Seeing for yourself

It's free to download the zip files, and it gives a good example of sequential AF problems and inconsistency across a wide spectrum of actual sports shooting, not carefully hand-picked one day set-ups conducted by Canon at Canon's behest. Not at NFL stadiums with killer lighting, but "real world" college and HS sports.