D3s and Mark IV side by side with pro's

teodorian2 said:

If your reasoning was true why would anyone ever choose a FF DSLR like Nikon D3s for action photography?

Click to expand...

Because 1) Let's face it, the 3Ds is an excellent camera, but more importantly 2) because they have already invested in the Nikon system due to the failure of the 1DIII, 3) the differences (noise vs DOF) are probably not enough to choose one over the other.

The 12mp Nikon camera simply hinder the top tier Nikon lenses. Although I like the less noise of the D3s, I would still favor the 1D -IV for its resolution. I don't own any of these cameras or shoot sports. I own a 5D II / 300 2.8L IS. Resolution is what I want at lower ISO.

Aperaturewise said:

The 12mp Nikon camera simply hinder the top tier Nikon lenses.

Click to expand...

In what way? The lenses can out-resolve the sensor. You always want that to be the case.

Aperaturewise said:

Resolution is what I want at lower ISO.

Click to expand...

Then the only high-MP camera in the Nikon lineup that would "suit" you currently is the D3X, a camera that can almost out-resolve some very expensive lenses, which is not a good thing.

I think that the original D3 struck the best deal in terms of price/resolution/high ISO ability (Noting that the D700 smashed this even further). The D3s alters it a bit, with the price and the high ISO ability both increasing. YMMV to if that's worth the extra cost over a D3, but since the latter has been phased out and the former is dropping in price to meet were the latter left, the deal is getting sweeter by the month

Ashley

Yes if I was a Nikon user the D3X would suit my needs. I'd bet a peanut that the D3X would make that Nikon 400mm 2.8 shine way more than the D3s at lower ISO settings.

The 5D II was my choice over the 1Ds III. All Thought the 1Ds III is "a pro camera" I have the slightly better sensor (nearly matching the D3X), the cost saving allowed me to get the EF 300mm 2.8L IS.

In the future I will get a fast action camera, but for now my camera suits me fine.

In these samples there's also the possibility that the focus planes were slightly different, so I'd not consider detail comparison here that relevant. Re noise and colors, all tests are confirming the D3s has an edge above 3200 ISO, but that's about expected, given the larger sensor, if C and N have used similar technology.

Sharpening may increase noise a bit, but there's more than just noise in the high ISO images that show the slight advantage of D3s, like DR, colors, at least from the samples posted so far, including those at IR.

If further testing confirms early reports of very good AF, I just can't see Canon action shooters having any doubts about the 1D4.

Each of these cameras are amazing and choice is likely related to owned equipment and/or use (crop advantage of 1D4 x better high ISO from D3s).

rwbaron said:

I agree about the sharpening as to my eye the D3S looks soft by comparison (but maybe that's NR at work too). It would be interesting to compare both images with similar sharpening to see how the noise reacts in each file. If there is more sharpening on the 1D4 then that's most likely a disadvatage regarding noise.

Bob

rhlpetrus said:

Just looking at the noise on these crops it's clear the 1D4's image has a much higher level of sharpening going on, so detail can't be compared at 100%, in that case at least.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

rwbaron said:

rwbaron said:

For me, two outstanding performers, no photog would be handicapped in his/er work because of these cameras in any way.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Stepanfo said:

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)

Click to expand...

Often sports shooters wants shallower DOF to isolate the subject from disturbing backgrounds. The reason sports shooters uses superteles its not only a matter of reach, its also about the look.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

Not so much directed at you as much as your post made my question rise in my mind.

I don't see any point in any digging at Nikon or Canon. Both great systems with their own merits. I shot Nikon for 15 years with film cameras, and when I got into digital I just found that Canon had more to offer me and better prices.

So I don't have a side. But I agree with you that this was an interesting and thought-provoking post.

Thanks for your input Luke.

I agree with you about the sensor photo-sites. I guess I'm just wondering if there is really "as much" of a noticeable difference between each camera's respective Raw capture with basic workflow tweaks compared to jpegs straight out of the camera at high ISO?

I'd imagine the differences would be so minimal with basic RAW adjustments for noise etc... that this whole "who is better at what" would be all but a moot point. But I am not sure and that was more my question.

I'm confused! I thought we were supposed to take pics of our cats, not have the cats take the pics themselves? Did I miss a memo or something?

they are different, completely
it's all digital now

if you don't see the difference then you have no idea

this "they are both great" BS means that you don't know what to say and yet you need to participate (somehow)

LOL

Bodhidharma said:

Not so much directed at you as much as your post made my question rise in my mind.

I don't see any point in any digging at Nikon or Canon. Both great systems with their own merits. I shot Nikon for 15 years with film cameras, and when I got into digital I just found that Canon had more to offer me and better prices.

So I don't have a side. But I agree with you that this was an interesting and thought-provoking post.

Click to expand...

teodorian2 said:

Do you really think photographers set more DOF as top priority for choosing APS-H before FF?

Click to expand...

I sure would think so. For a sports photo, you need to have your subject(s) within the DOF otherwise it doesn't tell the story of the game. Portraits and macro photography is a different discussion for DOF.

teodorian2 said:

I have never heard a pro photographer complaing about the lack of DOF in a FF DSLR. Usually short DOF, or subject isolation as Thom Hogan puts it, is seen as an advantage not a disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Needs for DOF are different in sports. Canon's aps-h (1.3x) sensor in their 1D product line allows shooters to use a shorter and faster lens than with a FF SLR obtaining more DOF while using lighter, faster, and less expensive lenses. With the 1D you can use a 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 where FF you'd need 500 f4 or 600 f4 to get a similar FOV.

Plus using the shorter f2.8 lenses with Canon, you get 39 cross type AF sensors with the 1D4 (also with a 1.4x converter) vs. 15 cross types with the d3s that are cluttered in a square at the center of the viewfinder. And the d3s' 15 cross type AF sensors "go away" when you slap an f4 lens on leaving just the center AF point having dual axis sensitivity.

PerL said:

Stepanfo said:

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)

Click to expand...

Often sports shooters wants shallower DOF to isolate the subject from disturbing backgrounds. The reason sports shooters uses superteles its not only a matter of reach, its also about the look.

Click to expand...

Yes but not at the expense if subject IQ. If there was such a thing as a 300mm f1.2, do you think the photographer would shoot at f1.2 so that just just the players eyes would be in focus (at the expense of nice bokeh) or would the client want his whole body in focus? This is not portrait photography, it's about capturing bodies in action. Subject IQ comes first, then Bokeh IMO.

Wow someone is cranky today. Maybe you need to read more carefully, or just learn HOW to read.

I'm not saying that they are EQUAL. And if you're going to quote me, do it in the proper context. I didn't say "they are both great." I said "they are both great systems." If you'd like to single-handedly claim that neither Canon or Nikon have good camera systems, be my guest and get ready for a "fan-boy" beat down on both ends. Which would probably do you some good in real life and help you show a bit more respect for other people.

Personally, I don't appreciate your attitude since I acknowledged that I'm not sure how shooting in RAW would effect the results. So if this is how you think you're going to add something constructive to the discussion I think it's you who really doesn't know what to say, but just felt the need to say something.... anything, just to be included.

It's sad that you can make such an ignorant statement and a personal attack on a person you don't even know. I've been doing photography for over 25 years, but only digital for 2. So PULEEEAAASSSEEE forgive me for not knowing everything about 2 cameras I've never used and never even seen yet in person!

People like you make decent people with sincere questions not want to ask, because cowards like you who hide behind your anonymity online feel the need to act like a bully.

Ashley P said:

rwbaron said:

Cute response.

Does your Nikon 400f5.6 have AF? Where can they be found new?

Click to expand...

Oh my god! No AF! Before AF we NEVER got any images! How will we cope?!

In a less sarcastic reply, the MF on the Nikkor is very nice. The focus throw is large enough to make it possible to get a good focus lock (just because it's MF doesn't mean the AF can't tell you when you've hit focus!) but small enough not to require a few hundred rotations of the focus collar to get there. It also has a focus soft-lock, allowing you to cap the focus range to the near or far depending on how you're shooting. While AF would be nice , it's not required .

As for new , I've found it doesn't really matter. You won't be looking at the shot I get with my 400 f5.6 and proclaiming that it was shot with a lens that was made in Nov. 1980. Plus this lens set me back £300; I would not find it worth £500 more to get AF (which is the price difference indicated for the Canon 400 5.6 you noted).

Ashley P said:

The Nikon 80~400 is no substitute for an excellent quality prime.

Click to expand...

I never said it was, and I agree that it isn't.

Ashley P said:

I just bought the Canon 400f5.6L new for $1300 and will be selling my Canon 100-400 simply because it's not good enough at 400mmf5.6 and the Nikon is measureably worse in every test I've read and the AF is slow.

Click to expand...

Granted, but the original poster I quoted was trying to proclaim that Nikon has no such lens that covers the 100-400 range, which is obviously false. The IQ from said lens, however, is a different matter and I agree that the 80-400 isn't good.

The rumour mill (always churning) also indicates Nikon wishing to put out a 400 f5.6 with AF and VR. (Though with no current lens to 'replace', the price will possibly start near the magical 2k mark)

Ashley P said:

It's good that Nikon has a replacement in the works but from what I know of Nikon it will probably cost $2500.

Click to expand...

I doubt it if only for the fact that the current 80-400 (in the UK) goes for 1.1k; When Nikon replaced the 70-200 the original was commanding a price near 1.4k, the replacement can be had for 1.7k. I would expect any 80-400 replacement to weigh in between 1.4 and 1.5; 1.6k tops.

Ashley

Click to expand...

In my initial post I said " As far as I can make out, Nikon has nothing to compare with the excellent and inexpensive 400 f5.6L and 100-400L lenses" Then you proceed to put forward an out of production manual focus lens and (by your own admission) a zoom that is of poor optical quality.

As for your assertion that A/F is un-necessary - you must have never shot fast birds in flight or be way better than me at fast/accurate manual focusing, despite the shallow DOF at these focal lengths. I was shooting motorsport with manual 400mm lenses 40 years ago, and I can tell you it is not really an option for things moving quickly unless you can pre-focus and hope your subject actually ends up passing the point you have focused at.

I really don't think you thought your answer through very thoroughly. If Nikon does come out with a new 400 VR prime, it would still leave my short on the full-frame D3 with only 12 Mp - compared to my 1.3 crop mkIV with 16.
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '

rhlpetrus said:

Each of these cameras are amazing and choice is likely related to owned equipment and/or use (crop advantage of 1D4 x better high ISO from D3s).

Click to expand...

they are close enough in performance to me..that is exactly my decision..it was based on equipment owned.

Johnny

ihv said:

After the 1D MK4, can you imagine even more pixels in 1.3x?

Click to expand...

Well - the 1DIV has 60% more pixels than the 1DIII and appears to have even better high ISO performanc (1/2 - 1 stop ?) So in the next version in a couple of years, why wouldn't we expect 20 Mp with the same or better noise performance than the mkIV ?
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '

whatever

they are different

if you don't have anything to say the don't say anything.

Bodhidharma said:

Wow someone is cranky today. Maybe you need to read more carefully, or just learn HOW to read.

I'm not saying that they are EQUAL. And if you're going to quote me, do it in the proper context. I didn't say "they are both great." I said "they are both great systems." If you'd like to single-handedly claim that neither Canon or Nikon have good camera systems, be my guest and get ready for a "fan-boy" beat down on both ends. Which would probably do you some good in real life and help you show a bit more respect for other people.

Personally, I don't appreciate your attitude since I acknowledged that I'm not sure how shooting in RAW would effect the results. So if this is how you think you're going to add something constructive to the discussion I think it's you who really doesn't know what to say, but just felt the need to say something.... anything, just to be included.

It's sad that you can make such an ignorant statement and a personal attack on a person you don't even know. I've been doing photography for over 25 years, but only digital for 2. So PULEEEAAASSSEEE forgive me for not knowing everything about 2 cameras I've never used and never even seen yet in person!

People like you make decent people with sincere questions not want to ask, because cowards like you who hide behind your anonymity online feel the need to act like a bully.

Click to expand...

I was directing my "Alrighty" comments at Gerald, so I don't know what your question was. Did you ask me a question? ;-)

I really don't have the bandwidth to really be that concerned about any of this noise stuff. The 1D MkIV looks fine to me. I'm not really interested in the Nikon, but it also looks just swell. I can tell the difference, but I'm shooting Canon, so there ya have it.

I don't shoot indoor arena sports, so most of the intellectual repartee about high ISO doesn't interest me. I can see going to ISO6400 in cloudy weather for wildlife, but for the motor sports stuff, I try to stay as low as possible with both ISO and shutter while maintaining a workable exposure. I pan a lot. It keeps me from getting bored at the track.

Oops, I'm going way off topic. You guys have fun now. It's Saturday night and I need to uncork a few bottles.

Bodhidharma said:

Not so much directed at you as much as your post made my question rise in my mind.

I don't see any point in any digging at Nikon or Canon. Both great systems with their own merits. I shot Nikon for 15 years with film cameras, and when I got into digital I just found that Canon had more to offer me and better prices.

So I don't have a side. But I agree with you that this was an interesting and thought-provoking post.

Click to expand...

RedFox88 said:

teodorian2 said:

Do you really think photographers set more DOF as top priority for choosing APS-H before FF?

Click to expand...

I sure would think so. For a sports photo, you need to have your subject(s) within the DOF otherwise it doesn't tell the story of the game. Portraits and macro photography is a different discussion for DOF.

RedFox88 said:

I have never heard a pro photographer complaing about the lack of DOF in a FF DSLR. Usually short DOF, or subject isolation as Thom Hogan puts it, is seen as an advantage not a disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Needs for DOF are different in sports. Canon's aps-h (1.3x) sensor in their 1D product line allows shooters to use a shorter and faster lens than with a FF SLR obtaining more DOF while using lighter, faster, and less expensive lenses. With the 1D you can use a 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 where FF you'd need 500 f4 or 600 f4 to get a similar FOV.

Plus using the shorter f2.8 lenses with Canon, you get 39 cross type AF sensors with the 1D4 (also with a 1.4x converter) vs. 15 cross types with the d3s that are cluttered in a square at the center of the viewfinder. And the d3s' 15 cross type AF sensors "go away" when you slap an f4 lens on leaving just the center AF point having dual axis sensitivity.

Click to expand...

1) The reach advantage of 1D MkIV is real - whenever reach is top priority,

2) DOF is a relative and subjective preference. Most photographers may think that a FF DSLR give more control over the DOF than a crop DSLR does,

3) The 15 cross type AF points in the D3s works with all lenses f5.6 and faster. If it were restricted to f2.8 the top teles like 500/4 and 600/4 would have left the Nikonians with only one single cross type AF point in the middle.

PhillipA said:

In my initial post I said " As far as I can make out, Nikon has nothing to compare with the excellent and inexpensive 400 f5.6L and 100-400L lenses" Then you proceed to put forward an out of production manual focus lens and (by your own admission) a zoom that is of poor optical quality.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the MF/AF I would wager that the Nikon MF 400 f5.6 is comparable to the Canon 400mm f5.6L. After all the result you get with a lens is down to the optics; I'd rather have an MF lens that has decent quality than an AF lens with bottlecaps for glass. (Note, I'm not suggesting that the Canon one is bottlecaps)

PhillipA said:

As for your assertion that A/F is un-necessary - you must have never shot fast birds in flight or be way better than me at fast/accurate manual focusing, despite the shallow DOF at these focal lengths.

Click to expand...

Birds in flight? Nope. However, I've shot motorcross, F1 and even aircraft with the 400mm f5.6.

PhillipA said:

I was shooting motorsport with manual 400mm lenses 40 years ago, and I can tell you it is not really an option for things moving quickly unless you can pre-focus and hope your subject actually ends up passing the point you have focused at.

Click to expand...

Depending on where the track puts you, the focus issue might be moot, for on my 400 the focus distance scale jumps from 50m to infinity in under 1cm, and between infinity and hardstop is approx 1cm. All I did was use the soft focus lock to limit me to 50m and upwards, and eased the focus into the corner as the car came into view. It's not difficult, especially if you're happy with ripping film to get your result.

PhillipA said:

I really don't think you thought your answer through very thoroughly. If Nikon does come out with a new 400 VR prime, it would still leave my short on the full-frame D3 with only 12 Mp - compared to my 1.3 crop mkIV with 16.

Click to expand...

This is where it comes to personal preference. I'd take a D3s over a mkIV any day for any subject. If required I can slide in a nice 1.4xTC to take my focal length to where I want it, and with the extra stop in higher ISOs over the mkIV (as quoted by the review linked in the very first post) it'd be a 'free' boost. Then you're just comparing 12MP against 16, at which point I'd suggest that it doesn't really matter. I've made 40x30 inch prints from 10MP before without issue, so to me anything past 10 is great.

As for the 100-400L, looking at various sources seems to suggest that it can't out-resolve a 350D, so really it seems to be on-par with IQ of the Nikkor 80-400 (The faults of the latter were high CAs wide open and a slightly soft 400 in the corners, something that the reviews of the 100-400L seem to suggest as well).

However, your post makes it clear, Nikon isn't for you. At the end of the day we'll use whatever system gives us the choice and results we require. Even if that means using an MF prime.

Ashley