D3s and Mark IV side by side with pro's

What are you comparing to? It's never been better. Try and find me a film that is capable of this performance at that ISO level. You won't. No earlier cameras, other than the D3 and 5D Mark II can give this a run for the money. The 5D Mark II lacks the AF performance to give a 1 series body a run for its money in sports/action photography imho. The D3 is about a stop worse than the D3s noise wise, especially at the really high ISOs that these shots were taken at.

Yes, the D3s is better noise wise, but the Mark IV isn't a slouch thankfully.

Dave

I'm looking at the amount of noise in these shots. They are not clean by any means as they have been touted (D3S for up to 6400). Certainly ISO 4000 shots don't look any cleaner than D700 when I had it. The shadow noise is quite nasty.

your observation is totally irrelevant because the different noise reduction is so evident even my cat can see it

teodorian2 said:

cityphotographer said:

but if we go a little lower in that shot we'd see something interesting



100% crop , IV on the left and D3s on the right. the canon shot was processed with neat image (only chroma reduction).

the canon shows a lot of chromatic noise at 25,600 indeed)

now, even lightly processed the IV holds way more details : the truth must be said

I still like the colors of the D3s

now let's don't forget that on the IV thjere was the excellent 300 2.8 IS and on the nikon the equally excellent 400 2.8VR (that will cost around 5K more than the canon by the way)

my crops courtesy of uniquephoto , photos copyright David Bergman and Robert Caplin
(both talented photographers in the NYC area)

http://uniquephoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/unique-photo-shootout-featuring-david.html

Brian Aitkenhead said:

impressive from both cameras to be honwat, the D3S is better indeed but at newspaper print sizes, both would be usable in my eyes.

http://www.pbase.com/applebear1976

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Your observation about the details in the glove is a totally irrelevant find since it can most certainly be attributed to differences in focusing and not in actual resolution.

Click to expand...

One thing that seems to have escaped comment until this post: A new sports photographer would have to shell out only $9300 for the Canon system but all of $14,200 for the Nikon system with comparable reach. That's a whopping difference of $4900. One has to ask if the Nikon's marginal edge in high ISO performance is worth this extra cost. When the Canon's marginal edge in tracking is taken into account, this cost difference becomes even more problematic.
--
Mike S

Mike Stratil said:

One thing that seems to have escaped comment until this post: A new sports photographer would have to shell out only $9300 for the Canon system but all of $14,200 for the Nikon system with comparable reach. That's a whopping difference of $4900. One has to ask if the Nikon's marginal edge in high ISO performance is worth this extra cost. When the Canon's marginal edge in tracking is taken into account, this cost difference becomes even more problematic.
--
Mike S

Click to expand...

I think about it every time I want to move from Canon to Nikon.

--
Bob

Bob Howland said:

Mike Stratil said:

One thing that seems to have escaped comment until this post: A new sports photographer would have to shell out only $9300 for the Canon system but all of $14,200 for the Nikon system with comparable reach. That's a whopping difference of $4900. One has to ask if the Nikon's marginal edge in high ISO performance is worth this extra cost. When the Canon's marginal edge in tracking is taken into account, this cost difference becomes even more problematic.
--
Mike S

Click to expand...

I think about it every time I want to move from Canon to Nikon.

--
Bob

Click to expand...

me too.. if the difference was say a few grand less, I might already be a Nikon user.

--
Johnny

Could it be that Canon actually took that into account (and/or the shooters they asked told them that) when it was decided the 1D should remain 1.3X?

Did the shooters who rely on their 300's want to go buy a more expensive and heavier 400 f2.8?

And did the shooters who rely on their 400s want to lose a stop with the 500f4?

Nah, they left it 1.3X to pi$$ off everyone that wanted FF! ;-)

Anyhow that jumped out at me too, just maybe there's some method to Canon's madness?

yes but this is what we get if we keep asking for more and more noise reduction in the chips.

the ability to capture more detailed details is the reason why we spend so much money on good lenses

so details come first

even on a camera with small files as the natural destination

for other kind of photography there are other better cameras already.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

colors are subjective...

still think noth are impressive. especially the mkIV which has more, smaller pixels on a smaller sensor

competition is good

Click to expand...

Brian Aitkenhead said:

impressive from both cameras to be honwat, the D3S is better indeed but at newspaper print sizes, both would be usable in my eyes.

http://www.pbase.com/applebear1976

Click to expand...

Agreed, both are excellent for sports photography and both can be used well beyond the quality needs of newspapers. Even magazine spreads can be shot with both.

Where I see some advantage on behalf of the Canon is the price point of the equipment. Which, in my opinion, can be a decisive factor at agencies and freelance photographers when they replace their equipment.

Since image quality is kind of in the same ballpark the Mark IV can produce the goods way cheaper than the D3s. The Canon body is a bit cheaper than the Nikon, however, the big saving kicks in at the telephoto lens end. Since the Canon has a 1.3 crop factor it will utilise the 300 mm lens as a 390 mm one. The Canon lens costs $4299.00 whereas the 400 mm Nikkor is 8999.95. Well, that is quite a bit of difference I must say.

I am a Nikon user and I just wish if the maths would be in my favour. I could use that over four thousand bucks difference to get some other goodies.

All the best,
AIK

cityphotographer said:

but if we go a little lower in that shot we'd see something interesting



100% crop , IV on the left and D3s on the right. the canon shot was processed with neat image (only chroma reduction).

the canon shows a lot of chromatic noise at 25,600 indeed)

now, even lightly processed the IV holds way more details : the truth must be said

I still like the colors of the D3s

now let's don't forget that on the IV thjere was the excellent 300 2.8 IS and on the nikon the equally excellent 400 2.8VR (that will cost around 5K more than the canon by the way)

my crops courtesy of uniquephoto , photos copyright David Bergman and Robert Caplin
(both talented photographers in the NYC area)

http://uniquephoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/unique-photo-shootout-featuring-david.html

Brian Aitkenhead said:

impressive from both cameras to be honwat, the D3S is better indeed but at newspaper print sizes, both would be usable in my eyes.

http://www.pbase.com/applebear1976

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

To be fare MKIV should be 100% crop x 70%. Then Mk IV noise will be further reduced.

--
KW Phua

Canon images are typically rendered with a more linear tone curve than the more sigmoid-shaped Nikon "standard" curve. The low-mid tones are a little more prominent on the Canon, and it gives the feeling of dynamic range. But you can change the tone curve at the time of capture, and achieve a slightly more Canon look with the Nikon using a "neutral" or "linear" setting.

In side-by-side comparisons, probably both cameras should be tested with linear captures.

Gerald A Naus said:

Could someone explain to me why the Canon images are always brighter ? Test after test, Nikon pics are "hiding" in the shadows. Make the Canon pics as dark. Btw, Canon shots show more detail. In-camera NR has to be considered as well. Anyone can totally skew any test, and apparently Nikon fans are good at it. Why they feel they have something to prove on a Canon forum is a question for shrinks.

Click to expand...

What you've stated below has always been obvious to me. Why would a sports shooter want FF if they could get similar ISO performance and resolution from 1.3 or 1.6 crop? The lens factor IMO is huge. I remember reading an interview with Peter Read Miller who stated that he loves the crop factor of the 1D's because he can use his 400f2.8 for field sports.

Bob

Rich Dykmans said:

Could it be that Canon actually took that into account (and/or the shooters they asked told them that) when it was decided the 1D should remain 1.3X?

Did the shooters who rely on their 300's want to go buy a more expensive and heavier 400 f2.8?

And did the shooters who rely on their 400s want to lose a stop with the 500f4?

Nah, they left it 1.3X to pi$$ off everyone that wanted FF! ;-)

Anyhow that jumped out at me too, just maybe there's some method to Canon's madness?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Look at lettering on chin strap in right person amongst others. Pro's choice today: Less noise or more detail and reach - I know which one I'll take.

teodorian2 said:

Your observation about the details in the glove is a totally irrelevant find since it can most certainly be attributed to differences in focusing and not in actual resolution.

Click to expand...

Look again. It's not a difference in focus, it is a difference in DOF. This is another example of why a 1.3 crop is best for sports. The 1DIV has completely captured the subject within DOF, while the FF D3s has not.

Toggle between the two and see how the front glove is soft and the rear player is not quite within DOF in the 3Ds shot, while the 1DIV has both completely within DOF. For the d3s to have properly gotten this shot it would have needed to have been stopped down, loosing a stop in ISO.

This is another reason why it is meaningless to compare noise performance of crop and FF cameras using the same ISO. You have to compare ISO performance at equal DOFs, which allows crop cameras to shoot lower ISO for the same DOF.

"It is safe to say that the Canon 1D Mark IV has the best performing autofocus of any camera to date."

The new firmware will make it even better.

I have a question and forgive my ignorance, but just a thought.

What would be the difference in the sharpness, noise, CA, ie, anything that is part of the electronic capture, so not things like DOF, lens attributes, if both these cameras made a RAW capture and then both images were processed by their respective Raw conversion software? Or even ACR? I'm NOT talking about using a specialized software to reduce noise, like Noise Ninja, etc... Just a good solid Raw file conversion with reasonable adjustments made to exposure, curves, CA, noise, etc... Would there really be a noticeable difference or is that really just apparent in jpeg captures because it's using the camera's processing power which affects the way the files are saved?

I know for sports Raw probably is too slow to get highest frame rates, but I'm just wondering would there really be any big difference in the final image? Of course I ask this as a NON-Sports shooter. If anyone could answer, I'd be very interested. Because I shoot Raw only and wonder if this whole argument is moot for someone like me?

I also really never shoot higher than 800 or 1600 ISO and when I do it's rare, but I'm using a 1Ds3 and it performs nicely. But it would be great to go much higher and still get great images and not just okay images at much higher ISO.

Vivid1 said:

Look at lettering on chin strap in right person amongst others. Pro's choice today: Less noise or more detail and reach - I know which one I'll take.

Click to expand...

For IQ the 1DMk4 beat D3s at ISO 50-1600. ISO above 1600 to 12800 the 1DMk4 maintains more details while the D3s has less noise, a draw. ISO above 12800 to 102400 D3s beat 1DMk4.

Having the better high ISO noise control at full resolution does not automatically means it produces better image quality at low ISO, it is clearly the case here. If lowlight work is important to you and you need to shoot at ISO 6400 and above then it is a no brainer get the D3s. If you shoot mainly at normal lighting and don't need to go beyond ISO 12800 it is an easy choice get the 1DMk4.

it's not a big deal if it wasn't for the big difference in price between canon and nikon (price of the 400-600 against the 300-400 for the canons 1.3FOV)

that's a detail many don't consider but if they switch they will have to, and right away.

a quick accounting can bring a big surprise.

and I too believe that the 300 2.8 on a 1D can do a lot of field work without driving the photographer crazy (with the money to spend). a 1.4x will cost only a stop and 200 bucks after all.

rwbaron said:

What you've stated below has always been obvious to me. Why would a sports shooter want FF if they could get similar ISO performance and resolution from 1.3 or 1.6 crop? The lens factor IMO is huge. I remember reading an interview with Peter Read Miller who stated that he loves the crop factor of the 1D's because he can use his 400f2.8 for field sports.

Bob

Rich Dykmans said:

Could it be that Canon actually took that into account (and/or the shooters they asked told them that) when it was decided the 1D should remain 1.3X?

Did the shooters who rely on their 300's want to go buy a more expensive and heavier 400 f2.8?

And did the shooters who rely on their 400s want to lose a stop with the 500f4?

Nah, they left it 1.3X to pi$$ off everyone that wanted FF! ;-)

Anyhow that jumped out at me too, just maybe there's some method to Canon's madness?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Click to expand...

This reveals a problem I did not think about before.

Nikon FF camera was with 400mm lens at f2.8.
Canon crop camera was with 300mm lens at f2.8.

If I ignore awfull noise and lack of details, I like canon picture more, because both players are in DOF.

To obtain (almost) same DOF from Nikon I would need to stop down to f4 (actually to f5). High ISO advantage lost.

So from DOF point of view, these cameras are more or less equal (if I ignore awfull colour blotchy character of canons noise, which still leaves some edge to Nikon)

KW Phua said:

To be fare MKIV should be 100% crop x 70%. Then Mk IV noise will be further reduced.

--
KW Phua

Click to expand...

Agreed. If images should be compared at equal sized images. Same FL also should be used as magnification of the subject doesnt change with crop. An uncropped image can have virtually no perceptual noise in print but cropped heavily the noise becomes unacceptable. The reality from looking at the 2 images is if Noisewarre or Noise Ninja were used the image results woud have been jaw dropping 2 years ago. We are getting spoiled.