-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Will we win this pro-body-round and best Nikon's D3s?
- Thread starter Decurion9999
- Start date
Jim Levitt
Well-known member
Build quality and AF, especially AF, are definitely NOT secondary! A properly focused 12mp photos beats an out-of-focus 21mp photo every time.
For the work I'm doing most of the time nowadays - low light, indoors - the D700 does a better job than the Canon offering in the same price range, the 5D2. I have a ton of Canon lenses. The lack of a Canon competitor to the D700 (an all-around camera, good for photographing people and other things that move, as opposed to landscape and product) bugs me no end.
For the work I'm doing most of the time nowadays - low light, indoors - the D700 does a better job than the Canon offering in the same price range, the 5D2. I have a ton of Canon lenses. The lack of a Canon competitor to the D700 (an all-around camera, good for photographing people and other things that move, as opposed to landscape and product) bugs me no end.
Are your images based on being "at the side of the company", or your talent and skill?
You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.
Owning the best scalpel or being at the side of the company that makes the best scalpel doesn't make someone a surgeon.
That's putting it mildly.
Short answer, no.
You cannot buy a Canon with the following requirements:
-> is FF.
-> has a good AF system.
-> has high shoot rate (> = 8fps).
I'm talking about specs, since I haven't tried any Canon FF or any Nikon.
Further from the specs, there are other questions that I can only speculate about:
-> high ISO: for the samples seen as of today, D3s is the best
-> dynamic range: DxOMark, to start with (and I'm not a big fan of their methodology as I don't know how they perform their tests) states that Nikon sensors beat Canon's in this department.
That being said, I think that you don't buy a body but a system; and you can choose a system because of the lenses set. And then again, a cam is just a tool for photographers.
But overall, D3, D3s... seem way too good to my eyes to be beaten by the 1D4 (as good as it may/will be).
Just IMHO!
Regards
--
Jaime
http://jaimsthesweetspot.wordpress.com/
MM1
Senior Member
To be honest, I am not interested in Canon being currently better than Nikon in pro line. I can't afford that. Yes, I bought 1D2N. 2 weeks ago, cheaply, solely because of AF.
The lower pro and prosumer classes just aren't even on par with Nikon, apart from 7D, latest one, which still has no 1D-like AF and other features come not from Canon being a leader, but just to counter the competition.
There is no brand loyalty, if I only hear "Canon is here to make profit, not to fulfill your wishes."
--
Cheers,
Martin
The lower pro and prosumer classes just aren't even on par with Nikon, apart from 7D, latest one, which still has no 1D-like AF and other features come not from Canon being a leader, but just to counter the competition.
There is no brand loyalty, if I only hear "Canon is here to make profit, not to fulfill your wishes."
--
Cheers,
Martin
Gweeds
Forum Enthusiast
Don't waste your time with Taikonaut.
He's a childish Canon fanboy who's never used a Nikon so has no idea what he's talking about.
He's a childish Canon fanboy who's never used a Nikon so has no idea what he's talking about.
MM1
Senior Member
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I feel that Canon is behind in some ways, but not just behind Nikon, and Canon has a long way to go with quality control, but I also don't care who 'wins'. Nikon is also behind in some ways. They're both behind the times in some important ways.
By behind, I mainly mean that they are excluding many features (like in body IS), have too many defects or design issues (especially Canon), and are charging way too much for their gear.
Canon had the opportunity to go with full frame on their sports cameras long long ago and rejected it, because the resulting camera would be less capable. Within the constraints of $5k and 10 fps, the most capable camera with today's technology is a 1.3x crop.
Nikon has not taken the lead here, since they took Canon's rejected path. They just exploited a less-capable niche that Canon wasn't interested in (low-rez FF).
The only improvement I really desired in the 1D Mark III was more pixels. The 1D Mark IV provides that and more (improved ISO, AF, etc.). They had me at more pixels.
But, really, Canon has no need to try to "win" here. They are way out front, pulling away, and not even interested in less-intelligent paths (low-rez FF) of other brands. Those who like the rejected path are welcome to follow it. You will be missed.
--
Tacksharp
Nikon has not taken the lead here, since they took Canon's rejected path. They just exploited a less-capable niche that Canon wasn't interested in (low-rez FF).
The only improvement I really desired in the 1D Mark III was more pixels. The 1D Mark IV provides that and more (improved ISO, AF, etc.). They had me at more pixels.
But, really, Canon has no need to try to "win" here. They are way out front, pulling away, and not even interested in less-intelligent paths (low-rez FF) of other brands. Those who like the rejected path are welcome to follow it. You will be missed.
--
Tacksharp
woolcan
Forum Enthusiast
I'm a We! Now I am complete!
Aren't you being premature? There's no proof of anything being "improved" yet.
They had me at more pixels.
But, really, Canon has no need to try to "win" here. They are way out front, pulling away, and not even interested in less-intelligent paths (low-rez FF) of other brands. Those who like the rejected path are welcome to follow it. You will be missed.
--
Tacksharp
MM1
Senior Member
Well, the 1D4's AF has been improved, on paper at least. But so was the 1D3's AF too :-D
[snip]
--
Cheers,
Martin
Gweeds
Forum Enthusiast
For any of that to be true you make 2 assumptions:
1) That Canon originally intended to go FF and rejected it
2) That Nikon waited for Canon to 'reject' before filling that niche
Even if 1) is true I somehow doubt 2) is.
Now we know you can't wait for the 1DIV but you'd do well to actually use it before making such proclamations from the rooftops.
1) That Canon originally intended to go FF and rejected it
2) That Nikon waited for Canon to 'reject' before filling that niche
Even if 1) is true I somehow doubt 2) is.
Now we know you can't wait for the 1DIV but you'd do well to actually use it before making such proclamations from the rooftops.
Canon had the opportunity to go with full frame on their sports cameras long long ago and rejected it, because the resulting camera would be less capable. Within the constraints of $5k and 10 fps, the most capable camera with today's technology is a 1.3x crop.
Nikon has not taken the lead here, since they took Canon's rejected path. They just exploited a less-capable niche that Canon wasn't interested in (low-rez FF).
The only improvement I really desired in the 1D Mark III was more pixels. The 1D Mark IV provides that and more (improved ISO, AF, etc.). They had me at more pixels.
But, really, Canon has no need to try to "win" here. They are way out front, pulling away, and not even interested in less-intelligent paths (low-rez FF) of other brands. Those who like the rejected path are welcome to follow it. You will be missed.
--
Tacksharp
MajStriker
Leading Member
That's ridiculous. Switching systems is NOT impossible and can be done with minimal loss providing you bought good equipment at fair prices. I've switched before (Nikon to Canon) and came out roughly even in the exchange. Maybe if you overpaid for your equipment then you will lose money but then if you overpaid then you've already lost money. The only item you would probably take a bit of a hit on would be the camera body itself which is natural. The other equipment you should be able to get a pretty decent price using Craigslist or one of the many popular photography exchanges. To say its impossible to switch systems is silly, perhaps you've never tried?
--
http://www.photopurity.com
Very nice summary, as a dual system user, I see exactly the same thing.
Correct. I’ve never tried; and I don’t want to try it unless I have to. You are the first person I’ve seen saying it’s easy. Even people with only two quality lenses told me it was difficult.
I do not have the time, patience and dedication required to follow up a sale or arguing about a price. Perhaps my fault, I’m not a salesman, I don’t like it.
All my equipment is from B&H and Adorama, so I think I paid a fair price and I take extremely care about it (I even have all the original packing of everything) but I still believe it would be too much of a hassle
--
Jorge
Topaz Group
http://www.flickr.com/groups/topaz/
atncentral
http://www.atncentral.com/
Kristian Dowling
Forum Enthusiast
Given Canon's recent offerings with the mark III and 7d being below expectations, and looking at pre-production samples, it looks like it might fall below in terms of high iso performance, but that's with 4MP more and a crop sensor with extra reach for sports photographers - who it was originally made for.
As an all round camera, I think the D3s is a better camera, allowing full frame use (fisheye for example), great solid reliability and best noise performance to date, being 2 stops better from ISO 3200-12,800 compared with my previous D3. Originally I was hesitant to use 6400 and refused to use 12800, and now I use 6400 like it's 2000 and 12800 is better than the old 6400. A very big improvement over the D3, but it receives less enthuisiasm because of the 's' and not adding a '4'.
That being said I am hopeful the Canon at least reaches a stop below. Usable 6400 and a 1.3 crop sensor with 16MP is perfect for a sports shooter. I really do hope Canon doesn't use it's early adopters (mostly Pro's) as beta testers........again.
As an all round camera, I think the D3s is a better camera, allowing full frame use (fisheye for example), great solid reliability and best noise performance to date, being 2 stops better from ISO 3200-12,800 compared with my previous D3. Originally I was hesitant to use 6400 and refused to use 12800, and now I use 6400 like it's 2000 and 12800 is better than the old 6400. A very big improvement over the D3, but it receives less enthuisiasm because of the 's' and not adding a '4'.
That being said I am hopeful the Canon at least reaches a stop below. Usable 6400 and a 1.3 crop sensor with 16MP is perfect for a sports shooter. I really do hope Canon doesn't use it's early adopters (mostly Pro's) as beta testers........again.
jim stirling
Veteran Member
Hi there , not seen you daft posts for a while , I am still awaiting you posting images , in response to you asking me to post mine from a number of cameras which I did including my Canon and Nikon bodies. As a user of both systems here is the bottom line , for ultimate low iso quality the D3x is at the moment the best dslr money can buy, for low noise performance the D3 and now even better D3s are the best , the Nikon AF and build quality are at least as good as Canons and the quality control seems better.
As an owner of the 5DmkII and D3/D700 I can assure you in real low light scenarios with shadows the 5DmkII is not anywhere near as good in fact the 5DmkII shadow performance is quite poor and it does not matter if you use sraw. For my low iso use the 5DmkII is a great camera and delivers excellent bang for the buck and I am getting very good results using it with the 35L,85L and my favourite 135L . The Canon L primes that I own are indeed lacking in Nikon land but all the pro range of zooms 14-24,24-70,new 70-200 and 200-400 are better than the Canon counterparts , the ultra teles by all independent reviewers are neck and neck. It does not matter how many times you post your lies it does not make them true , and I think few folk with any sense take you seriously.
However , I look forward to seeing your images especially with those L primes you talk about, you do have them don't you ?
Jim
Ali moore
New member
Do you kno when it will be become available to buy and will the d700 come down in price??
--
Alastair moore
--
Alastair moore
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum