Moving to Nikon D3 from Canon 1D... some observations
Discussion
OK, as some PH snappers had expressed interest in an earlier thread and wanted to know how I got on, here's a few (well, turned into a longish ramble), 'observations' from moving from Canon to Nikon, In particular 1D type bodies to the D3.
First off, maybe I should qualify these observations with a few salient points so as you can appreciated where I'm coming from.
As some of you maybe aware, I'm a professional snapper and have been for what's starting to feel more years than I care to remember. Over those years I've used just about every system out there from 35mm to 10x8. With 35mm, I was brought up on Nikon, professionally speaking, but always personally owned Canon (ever since my old Dad came home with the original F1s). The last Nikon I used professionally was the F3... which I hated for various reasons. But that was in the good old days of film.... on to digital....
My main work tool is Phase One digital backs which I use on V series Hasselblads. I use these for 80% of my work, a lot of which is studio, but I also do prefer to shoot tethered, wherever possible including on location, mainly to get a good view on a large laptop screen to see what's going on. However, there are jobs where I need to shoot fast, in lousy light conditions, which is where the 35mm AF digital comes in.
My first 35mm based digital camera was Canon's original 1Ds, which I still have and use. Great camera but slow in use, small screen and noisy over 200iso. Earlier this year I bought the 1DmkIII for better high iso performance and reliable AF.... only the AF turns out to be not so reliable due to the well publicised sub mirror manufacturing problem. Mine is on the waiting list for repair. Apart from that (rather important) problem, I love the camera, a major step up from the older 1Ds, much improved menus, features, super fast AF and drive. 10mp is down on my original 1Ds but enough for that type of work. I was one of the first to get the 1DmkIII back in June but it has taken forever for Canon to a). acknowledge the problem and b). do anything about it. By the time it's repaired it'll be about 7 months for a camera that I haven't been able to use with reliable AF. All very frustrating and not good. I should point out that these AF problems only really become apparent with fast lenses shot wide open, which is what I tend to do.
I was in the market to upgrade some of my Canon lenses anyway, so, as Nikon have finally got there act together with full frame and good high iso performance I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and try a D3. I have knocked Nikon's digital offerings in the past and I stand by that. I don't have brand loyalty but just want to use the best tool for the job without being frustrated by it. In the past Canon have, IMHO, been well ahead of the game with regard to the quality of their digital files.
So here are a few preliminary observations. Still early days, I haven't done much testing of file quality (but enough to get a good feel). You will be able to find plenty on line I'm sure, but the problem is you have to put up with the testers methodology, which may not be the same as yours, e.g. using different RAW processors or, worst case, looking at someone like Mr Rockwell who only shoots JPG.... which is bit like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in third... with the hand brake on... pointless if you actually care about ultimate image quality. One reason I decided to buy a kit of Nikon is to be sure that it would work for 'ME' and 'MY' workflow and I could thoroughly compare it to my existing cameras and workflow. Nothing dreadfully wrong with shooting JPG. It's quite possible that camera A is better than camera B when shooting JPG but quite frankly I couldn't give a toss as I only shoot RAW... which is the only way if you want to achieve maximum control and quality from your snaps. So these observations are mainly looking at ergonomics/problems/differences.
First impression, I like the camera a lot. Nice big viewfinder (well, compared to the D2x), nice screen on the back. The new G lenses are looking very nice, especially the 14-24. Everything of course, is back to front from the Canon. The lens mount is reversed so of course all rear caps go on the other way, the zoom and focus rings are reversed, the CF cards face the other way in the slots even the catch which holds the (virtually same) battery is upside down. I'm almost surprised not to find the shutter release on the left
Although some things, like the meter going up the right hand side of the viewfinder and the highlighted red AF points are familiar to using Canon but different from D2x (I share a studio with Nikon users so am not unfamiliar with D2x).
First problem. I noticed this when I first unpacked it and stuck a lens on in to try it out. Reframing and focusing, as you do, seemed to work fine and then, after a dozen or so shots would stop focusing, pressing buttons, nothing and then would start again. The camera was set up in single shot servo with focus priority which means I shouldn't be able to trip the shutter unless focus is locked.... except that I could. This happened with the 24-70 and 14-24. Hmm, very frustrating to someone who's trying Nikon and coming from a background of Canon AF problems! The problem was consistently inconsistent so didn't contact the dealer as I new they wouldn't have an obvious answer. Narrowed it down to it only happening when I held the barrel of the lens, as I do with a hand on the zoom ring. Thought it was if I jiggled the ring, but no. I found that by just altering the pressure on the barrel, which was light anyway, could make the illuminated focus point come on and go out repeatedly. Curious. Played about and finally (after a week) found the problem. When holding the camera in a natural position (for me anyway with my hand 'overhand on the lens barrel), part of my hand touches the lens release button and even a very light touch, I'm talking feather weight, was enough to deactivate the AF, although I could still trip the shutter. I have since tested my colleagues D3 and no such problem. So mine is back with Nikon as I type. So that's a PITA!
. They can't replace it with a new one for a month owing to the long waiting lists so will look at repair. That's fine with me. At least they have been sharp about it and I hope to get it back quickly. This has been done via my studio's NPS service. Although I am a Canon CPS member and registered my 1DIII for repair a month ago, it was only yesterday that I received an email to send it in. I learnt from another mate that he has the problem too with his D3, so maybe something to be aware of and check out if you buy one.
Anyway, back to the camera. The AF seems very accurate but noticeably slower, especially on the 70-200. Focusing from near to far and back again (most probably not a realistic situation for many but....), it seems to hesitate, focus, sometimes focus beyond, refocus and then lock. The Canon 70-200 on the other hand just snaps, instantly, near or far, no hesitation, no hunting. I haven't tried tracking accuracy and don't do much action/sports stuff so it's not so much of an issue for me. I was at a Photographers Christmas meal and took the D3 with me. I stayed overnight at a mates, an old Nikon, now Canon user. His first comment was; 'focus seems slow'. His other comment was the noise of the shutter, which is a bit loud and clanky. The Canon is smoother and quieter plus has an additional quiet mode which is quieter still. The slow feeling with the focus is with all lenses. When I half press the button it's as if the camera has to wake up before it starts to focus I'm only talking a split second, but coming from years of Canon's instant focus, it's noticeable. If I did nothing but sport I would stick with Canon.
Much is made of being able to put legacy lenses and accessories onto the unchanged (for God knows how many years), Nikon mount. You maybe able to put it on, but what they don't tell you is some of it just doesn't work. I bought an extension tube for close up stuff and was disappointed to find it doesn't work at all with G lenses and only manual focus with others using aperture ring on the lens. With Canon, all metering and AF works as normal.
The extra 2mp of the D3 shows over the 1DmkIII as one might expect. The colour looks better straight out of the box .The High iso noise is looking very, very good indeed. Having done some tests, the D3 beats the 1DmkIII across the range of high iso. Shots at 6400 look noisy, as expected, but what surprises is the retention of dynamic range. Usually pics at high iso just look muddy and flat but these retain punch. Amazing!
Can't say I like the position of the iso button.... right next to the quality button. On Canon, the button is quite separate and next to the shutter so it's easy to find with your eye to the viewfinder. Once pressed, every thing blanks out in the viewfinder except iso so you know what's selected and it's easy to adjust with the wheel with your thumb. With the Nikon, after pressing the button, everything stays lit up in the viewfinder (the top and small rear screen does just highlight iso). The first time I tried this I was spinning the wheel to no avail.... because I had hit the Quality button by mistake. Done this twice now, second time inadvertently shooting JPG (spit). So now have to be careful, take my eye from the viewfinder and look at the display. When you set the info to display on the rear screen it doesn't even show the iso... unlike the Canon which is clearer. Again, hold the iso or mode button switches off unrelated display so you know exactly what you're changing with the Canon.
As mentioned, I like to shoot tethered where possible even when shooting 35mm. Canon works fine (albeit a little slow), with Capture One (which is my RAW processor of choice), or Canons own software. Unfortunately Nikon doesn't tether to C1 and looks like I'll have to pay for Nikon's Camera Control. I've downloaded a trial of that and it works just fine. You can get the preview to show up fast but the actaully high res file takes even longer than Canon if you want to check the focus at 100%. I thought it might be similar in looks to NX but the good news is it isn't (perhaps I shouldn't speak to soon, maybe it's an old version and they will update it). I thought Canon's software was a bit ropey (although recent versions have been much improved), but nothing prepared me for the woefully dreadful NX! I won't be using that, thanks.
I can't really afford to keep both systems, just not practical anyway. I had thought that I would keep at least one Canon body and the 85 1.2 which is a unique lens. However, after doing a comparison with the Nikkor 85 1.4, although maybe not quite so soft in the OOF areas, it's marginal and I actually prefer the OOF circles of confusion created with the Nikkor. Plus, it's smaller, lighter and has more accurate focus.
So hats off to Nikon for pulling the stops out with the D3. It looks like I'll most probably sell my Canon stuff, I was bored and fancied a change anyway. However (before any old Nikon users feel smug), I should point out that if anybody wants or needs the best, highest resolution, in a 35mm body, the 1DsIII is the kid to beat. 21 Vs 12mp will be noticeable if you like to do high quality large prints. That said, rumour has it that an 18?mp Nikon is waiting in the wings. Another advantage that canon has is that you can put many more other lenses on via adaptor, i.e. Zeiss, Leica, amongst others and of course Nikon (yes I know you can get some Zeiss glass for Nikon). Like I said at the start though, I have digital backs for the high quality stuff and Canon's 21mp, whilst good (if used with the best available lenses), is no match for a 21mp back, different league and a different horse for a different course.
Putting all the differences, ergonomic nitpicking, teething troubles and manufacturing defects to one side, both these systems are amazingly good and there's really no excuse for not being able to take excellent pics with either system. It really just comes down to personal choice. Never the less, you're more likely to take better pics if you have confidence and are happy with your gear.
For another, more extensive, view of some differences I haven't touched on between the two brands + the D300, Michael Reichmann has been having a similar play:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/...
I agree with most of what he says.
Maybe of further interest to those who shoot RAW. As mentioned, I tried NX. To be fair, the colour is good but the UI is awful and making adjustments seems painful and slow. I've also read it saps computer resources. I would rather stick pins in my eyes than have to edit a job with it. So having the D3 made me take another look at Lightroom as being one of the few other processors that supported it at the beginning. Played with it in the past but I don't use libraries and it does have some holes. i.e. I supply most of my files to clients in CMYK colour space ready for publication, but LR can't output that so means another step in PS. I could use CS3, but haven't upgraded from CS2 and I don't care for ACRs (same colour engine as LR), workflow. LR is not bad at all, enjoyable to use, feels quite snappy and has plenty of bells and whistles (too many), but Capture One V4 now supports the D3 (as long as the NEFs are uncompressed), so I have been doing a fair bit of testing. Files opened in C1 just look great straight away, accurate consistent colour, vibrant files, with no messing 90% of the time. LR is capable but you have to do more work to get there (same applies to Canon files). Depends if you like fiddling with sliders all day in front of a monitor, but I for one will be sticking with C1 (although I should say the new version is still work in progress and there are some bugs to be sorted, also, it's only the LE version which is currently available, which is fine for most purposes).
Hope that was of some interest some.
E&OE and your milage may vary etc. etc.
First off, maybe I should qualify these observations with a few salient points so as you can appreciated where I'm coming from.
As some of you maybe aware, I'm a professional snapper and have been for what's starting to feel more years than I care to remember. Over those years I've used just about every system out there from 35mm to 10x8. With 35mm, I was brought up on Nikon, professionally speaking, but always personally owned Canon (ever since my old Dad came home with the original F1s). The last Nikon I used professionally was the F3... which I hated for various reasons. But that was in the good old days of film.... on to digital....
My main work tool is Phase One digital backs which I use on V series Hasselblads. I use these for 80% of my work, a lot of which is studio, but I also do prefer to shoot tethered, wherever possible including on location, mainly to get a good view on a large laptop screen to see what's going on. However, there are jobs where I need to shoot fast, in lousy light conditions, which is where the 35mm AF digital comes in.
My first 35mm based digital camera was Canon's original 1Ds, which I still have and use. Great camera but slow in use, small screen and noisy over 200iso. Earlier this year I bought the 1DmkIII for better high iso performance and reliable AF.... only the AF turns out to be not so reliable due to the well publicised sub mirror manufacturing problem. Mine is on the waiting list for repair. Apart from that (rather important) problem, I love the camera, a major step up from the older 1Ds, much improved menus, features, super fast AF and drive. 10mp is down on my original 1Ds but enough for that type of work. I was one of the first to get the 1DmkIII back in June but it has taken forever for Canon to a). acknowledge the problem and b). do anything about it. By the time it's repaired it'll be about 7 months for a camera that I haven't been able to use with reliable AF. All very frustrating and not good. I should point out that these AF problems only really become apparent with fast lenses shot wide open, which is what I tend to do.
I was in the market to upgrade some of my Canon lenses anyway, so, as Nikon have finally got there act together with full frame and good high iso performance I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and try a D3. I have knocked Nikon's digital offerings in the past and I stand by that. I don't have brand loyalty but just want to use the best tool for the job without being frustrated by it. In the past Canon have, IMHO, been well ahead of the game with regard to the quality of their digital files.
So here are a few preliminary observations. Still early days, I haven't done much testing of file quality (but enough to get a good feel). You will be able to find plenty on line I'm sure, but the problem is you have to put up with the testers methodology, which may not be the same as yours, e.g. using different RAW processors or, worst case, looking at someone like Mr Rockwell who only shoots JPG.... which is bit like buying a Ferrari and only driving it in third... with the hand brake on... pointless if you actually care about ultimate image quality. One reason I decided to buy a kit of Nikon is to be sure that it would work for 'ME' and 'MY' workflow and I could thoroughly compare it to my existing cameras and workflow. Nothing dreadfully wrong with shooting JPG. It's quite possible that camera A is better than camera B when shooting JPG but quite frankly I couldn't give a toss as I only shoot RAW... which is the only way if you want to achieve maximum control and quality from your snaps. So these observations are mainly looking at ergonomics/problems/differences.
First impression, I like the camera a lot. Nice big viewfinder (well, compared to the D2x), nice screen on the back. The new G lenses are looking very nice, especially the 14-24. Everything of course, is back to front from the Canon. The lens mount is reversed so of course all rear caps go on the other way, the zoom and focus rings are reversed, the CF cards face the other way in the slots even the catch which holds the (virtually same) battery is upside down. I'm almost surprised not to find the shutter release on the left
Although some things, like the meter going up the right hand side of the viewfinder and the highlighted red AF points are familiar to using Canon but different from D2x (I share a studio with Nikon users so am not unfamiliar with D2x).First problem. I noticed this when I first unpacked it and stuck a lens on in to try it out. Reframing and focusing, as you do, seemed to work fine and then, after a dozen or so shots would stop focusing, pressing buttons, nothing and then would start again. The camera was set up in single shot servo with focus priority which means I shouldn't be able to trip the shutter unless focus is locked.... except that I could. This happened with the 24-70 and 14-24. Hmm, very frustrating to someone who's trying Nikon and coming from a background of Canon AF problems! The problem was consistently inconsistent so didn't contact the dealer as I new they wouldn't have an obvious answer. Narrowed it down to it only happening when I held the barrel of the lens, as I do with a hand on the zoom ring. Thought it was if I jiggled the ring, but no. I found that by just altering the pressure on the barrel, which was light anyway, could make the illuminated focus point come on and go out repeatedly. Curious. Played about and finally (after a week) found the problem. When holding the camera in a natural position (for me anyway with my hand 'overhand on the lens barrel), part of my hand touches the lens release button and even a very light touch, I'm talking feather weight, was enough to deactivate the AF, although I could still trip the shutter. I have since tested my colleagues D3 and no such problem. So mine is back with Nikon as I type. So that's a PITA!
. They can't replace it with a new one for a month owing to the long waiting lists so will look at repair. That's fine with me. At least they have been sharp about it and I hope to get it back quickly. This has been done via my studio's NPS service. Although I am a Canon CPS member and registered my 1DIII for repair a month ago, it was only yesterday that I received an email to send it in. I learnt from another mate that he has the problem too with his D3, so maybe something to be aware of and check out if you buy one.Anyway, back to the camera. The AF seems very accurate but noticeably slower, especially on the 70-200. Focusing from near to far and back again (most probably not a realistic situation for many but....), it seems to hesitate, focus, sometimes focus beyond, refocus and then lock. The Canon 70-200 on the other hand just snaps, instantly, near or far, no hesitation, no hunting. I haven't tried tracking accuracy and don't do much action/sports stuff so it's not so much of an issue for me. I was at a Photographers Christmas meal and took the D3 with me. I stayed overnight at a mates, an old Nikon, now Canon user. His first comment was; 'focus seems slow'. His other comment was the noise of the shutter, which is a bit loud and clanky. The Canon is smoother and quieter plus has an additional quiet mode which is quieter still. The slow feeling with the focus is with all lenses. When I half press the button it's as if the camera has to wake up before it starts to focus I'm only talking a split second, but coming from years of Canon's instant focus, it's noticeable. If I did nothing but sport I would stick with Canon.
Much is made of being able to put legacy lenses and accessories onto the unchanged (for God knows how many years), Nikon mount. You maybe able to put it on, but what they don't tell you is some of it just doesn't work. I bought an extension tube for close up stuff and was disappointed to find it doesn't work at all with G lenses and only manual focus with others using aperture ring on the lens. With Canon, all metering and AF works as normal.
The extra 2mp of the D3 shows over the 1DmkIII as one might expect. The colour looks better straight out of the box .The High iso noise is looking very, very good indeed. Having done some tests, the D3 beats the 1DmkIII across the range of high iso. Shots at 6400 look noisy, as expected, but what surprises is the retention of dynamic range. Usually pics at high iso just look muddy and flat but these retain punch. Amazing!
Can't say I like the position of the iso button.... right next to the quality button. On Canon, the button is quite separate and next to the shutter so it's easy to find with your eye to the viewfinder. Once pressed, every thing blanks out in the viewfinder except iso so you know what's selected and it's easy to adjust with the wheel with your thumb. With the Nikon, after pressing the button, everything stays lit up in the viewfinder (the top and small rear screen does just highlight iso). The first time I tried this I was spinning the wheel to no avail.... because I had hit the Quality button by mistake. Done this twice now, second time inadvertently shooting JPG (spit). So now have to be careful, take my eye from the viewfinder and look at the display. When you set the info to display on the rear screen it doesn't even show the iso... unlike the Canon which is clearer. Again, hold the iso or mode button switches off unrelated display so you know exactly what you're changing with the Canon.
As mentioned, I like to shoot tethered where possible even when shooting 35mm. Canon works fine (albeit a little slow), with Capture One (which is my RAW processor of choice), or Canons own software. Unfortunately Nikon doesn't tether to C1 and looks like I'll have to pay for Nikon's Camera Control. I've downloaded a trial of that and it works just fine. You can get the preview to show up fast but the actaully high res file takes even longer than Canon if you want to check the focus at 100%. I thought it might be similar in looks to NX but the good news is it isn't (perhaps I shouldn't speak to soon, maybe it's an old version and they will update it). I thought Canon's software was a bit ropey (although recent versions have been much improved), but nothing prepared me for the woefully dreadful NX! I won't be using that, thanks.
I can't really afford to keep both systems, just not practical anyway. I had thought that I would keep at least one Canon body and the 85 1.2 which is a unique lens. However, after doing a comparison with the Nikkor 85 1.4, although maybe not quite so soft in the OOF areas, it's marginal and I actually prefer the OOF circles of confusion created with the Nikkor. Plus, it's smaller, lighter and has more accurate focus.
So hats off to Nikon for pulling the stops out with the D3. It looks like I'll most probably sell my Canon stuff, I was bored and fancied a change anyway. However (before any old Nikon users feel smug), I should point out that if anybody wants or needs the best, highest resolution, in a 35mm body, the 1DsIII is the kid to beat. 21 Vs 12mp will be noticeable if you like to do high quality large prints. That said, rumour has it that an 18?mp Nikon is waiting in the wings. Another advantage that canon has is that you can put many more other lenses on via adaptor, i.e. Zeiss, Leica, amongst others and of course Nikon (yes I know you can get some Zeiss glass for Nikon). Like I said at the start though, I have digital backs for the high quality stuff and Canon's 21mp, whilst good (if used with the best available lenses), is no match for a 21mp back, different league and a different horse for a different course.
Putting all the differences, ergonomic nitpicking, teething troubles and manufacturing defects to one side, both these systems are amazingly good and there's really no excuse for not being able to take excellent pics with either system. It really just comes down to personal choice. Never the less, you're more likely to take better pics if you have confidence and are happy with your gear.
For another, more extensive, view of some differences I haven't touched on between the two brands + the D300, Michael Reichmann has been having a similar play:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/...
I agree with most of what he says.
Maybe of further interest to those who shoot RAW. As mentioned, I tried NX. To be fair, the colour is good but the UI is awful and making adjustments seems painful and slow. I've also read it saps computer resources. I would rather stick pins in my eyes than have to edit a job with it. So having the D3 made me take another look at Lightroom as being one of the few other processors that supported it at the beginning. Played with it in the past but I don't use libraries and it does have some holes. i.e. I supply most of my files to clients in CMYK colour space ready for publication, but LR can't output that so means another step in PS. I could use CS3, but haven't upgraded from CS2 and I don't care for ACRs (same colour engine as LR), workflow. LR is not bad at all, enjoyable to use, feels quite snappy and has plenty of bells and whistles (too many), but Capture One V4 now supports the D3 (as long as the NEFs are uncompressed), so I have been doing a fair bit of testing. Files opened in C1 just look great straight away, accurate consistent colour, vibrant files, with no messing 90% of the time. LR is capable but you have to do more work to get there (same applies to Canon files). Depends if you like fiddling with sliders all day in front of a monitor, but I for one will be sticking with C1 (although I should say the new version is still work in progress and there are some bugs to be sorted, also, it's only the LE version which is currently available, which is fine for most purposes).
Hope that was of some interest some.
E&OE and your milage may vary etc. etc.
How great to get such a detailed review of everyday impresion by someone who stakes his livelihood on such a tool - really appreciate that, Paul.
As a Nikon user myself, I am not at all surprised that it's not a "perfect" experience. It's all a matter of getting to understand, in depth, any limitations, and what to do about them as I am sure you will agree.
I have to say that I am always sceptical of ALL new models when they first come out - I always feel there will be some teething troubles, and often I seem to be proved right - so any updates you can give us as your experience develops will be gratefully received (from those of us who are budgeting to buy a secondhand D3X in five years time
).
As a Nikon user myself, I am not at all surprised that it's not a "perfect" experience. It's all a matter of getting to understand, in depth, any limitations, and what to do about them as I am sure you will agree.
I have to say that I am always sceptical of ALL new models when they first come out - I always feel there will be some teething troubles, and often I seem to be proved right - so any updates you can give us as your experience develops will be gratefully received (from those of us who are budgeting to buy a secondhand D3X in five years time
).Andy M said:
jackal said:
it has to be landmark surely.... it changes photography forever
canon doesn't even get close
On the contrary I've heard. I'm told that 1D mkIII's files pushed a couple of stops are more usable?canon doesn't even get close
the D3 will do handheld low light/nightime shots that you wouldn't/couldnt even attempt on the canon
jackal said:
the D3 will do handheld low light/nightime shots that you wouldn't/couldnt even attempt on the canon
You couldn't simply shoot at ISO 6,400 and push the exposure 2 stops in post processing? I'm not knocking the D3 as I think it's an awesome camera and about time Canon had some true full frame competition, but the headline grabbing ISO 25,600 isn't necessarily breaking new ground.
It's also worth reading: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3...
Andy M said:
Can I ask, why didn't you buy the 1Ds 3?
Somewhat put off by the 1D3 problems (although the focus works fine). Plus I don't really need 21mp for the type of jobs were I need that type of camera. 12 is more than enough for double page spreads and I don't do huge prints. Plus it's not exactly cheap and I want to update some other kit... the cake is only so big... well, quite small at the moment .jackal said:
have you said enough about high ISO performance ?
it has to be landmark surely.... it changes photography forever
canon doesn't even get close
I think I said the high iso is 'amazing'. The Canon does come close and in the real world, not far behind. It is a landmark camera, but for Nikon, not digital photography generally. Canon has been steadily improving their low light performance for years and the difference in the past in this area between a 5D and D2x say, is bigger than 1D3 and D3. The improvement that Nikon have made over the D2x in this area is truly astonishing, a huge leap. Like I said, hats off to Nikon.it has to be landmark surely.... it changes photography forever
canon doesn't even get close
Andy M said:
On the contrary I've heard. I'm told that 1D mkIII's files pushed a couple of stops are more usable?
Not my experience Andy. I've tested up to 12800 (pushing the 1D3 a stop from 6400). I'd say the D3 is about a stop better and it retains colour better (I suspect having another couple of MPs to play with helps, plus the chip is bigger). The Nikon will shoot another stop higher and I guess you could push it further but it does get ugly up there. The files are usable (I say that in an ambiguous loose way depending on use 
), from both cameras at 6400 with some careful processing and noise reduction. In reality, It's unlikely that I would ever shoot above 3200, which when I think of the old film days, is almost science fiction.No doubt Canon's next offerings will be able to shoot straight through the lens cap
.Bacardi said:
No doubt Canon's next offerings will be able to shoot straight through the lens cap .
LOL!.I honestly don't mean to be disparaging towards the D3 - it has a lot of features Canon users can only currently dream of - and if in the same position (1D vs D3) I'd probably go for the D3 for the same reasons as yourself.
In fact, Canon have really rested on their laurels for too long, so I hope the D3 and the D300 is a real wake-up call.
Thanks for that - very interesting.
I use lightroom too, but looking at people who've compared on the internet (dubious I know), it does look like the output from Capture NX is better. Annoying as it's an unintuitive app breaking up the workflow.
On the focussing speed issue, what focus mode were you using or did you find it applies to all (I'm referring to point/spot/auto). Have you tried mounting you Nikon 70-200 on Canon and comparing the focus speed? Would be interesting if it is related to the lens or the body.
I use lightroom too, but looking at people who've compared on the internet (dubious I know), it does look like the output from Capture NX is better. Annoying as it's an unintuitive app breaking up the workflow.
On the focussing speed issue, what focus mode were you using or did you find it applies to all (I'm referring to point/spot/auto). Have you tried mounting you Nikon 70-200 on Canon and comparing the focus speed? Would be interesting if it is related to the lens or the body.
Andy M said:
It's also worth reading: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3...
Maybe I'm missing something, but we have 2 different crop factors, a fixed focal length lens, fixed distance and images that are the same size. He's either had to resample up the nikon images to make them the same size, or downsample the canon ones. I think that pretty much invalidates the test? Additionally it seems he's using default shooting mode and that is softer in Nikon than Canon although either can be adjusted to be similar.I think this guy wanted the Canon to win or doesn't understand the impact of his workflow decisions. I completely agree the canon shots are much better resolved. I'm not yet convinced by the methodology.
One final thing that undermines the comparison. Capture 1 is great with Canon. Sadly Capture NX is required to get best results from Nikon (which in many ways is a major point against it).
p.s. why not shoot something colour - it would show more...
Edited by DanH on Tuesday 15th January 20:31
Ah that comparison is making sense further in :
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3...
and onwards. Also this highlights how much better capture nx handles NEFs.
edit: reading on, there is considerable vignetting on this 'amazing' lens used on the full frame sensor. Sounds like the cropped sensor was benefitting from a small lens sweetspot which the full frame sensor didn't. He's also cocked up the exposure on both cameras although more on the Nikon, which will only encourage noise. This test is useless imho!
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3...
and onwards. Also this highlights how much better capture nx handles NEFs.
edit: reading on, there is considerable vignetting on this 'amazing' lens used on the full frame sensor. Sounds like the cropped sensor was benefitting from a small lens sweetspot which the full frame sensor didn't. He's also cocked up the exposure on both cameras although more on the Nikon, which will only encourage noise. This test is useless imho!
Edited by DanH on Tuesday 15th January 20:59
Bacardi said:
Plus I don't really need 21mp for the type of jobs were I need that type of camera. 12 is more than enough for double page spreads and I don't do huge prints. Plus it's not exactly cheap and I want to update some other kit... the cake is only so big... well, quite small at the moment .
I would beg to differ - I don't think the5Ds I use are 100% for DPSs - my old 1Ds2 was significantly better. As of a few days ago I have access to a 1Ds3 (not mine though), which I plan to use for magazine work, I anticipate it will be a large improvement over the 5D for this. You'd hope it would be for the price though!.Interesting write up, it's about time Nikon gave Canon something to think about, it's been 5 years now
DanH said:
On the focussing speed issue, what focus mode were you using or did you find it applies to all (I'm referring to point/spot/auto). Have you tried mounting you Nikon 70-200 on Canon and comparing the focus speed? Would be interesting if it is related to the lens or the body.
I believe it was on single point only but the feeling is across all lenses and modes. I don't have a Nikon to Canon adaptor but it would be manual focus anyway.With regard to this test: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3... seen it before and utterly flawed. (Reminds me of Bjørn Rørslett's original test with the 1Ds2 and D2x. Completely flawed if you don't have the same framing). They did the test using C1 and I suspect it was the beta version rather than the finished one (although it's not). The beta was awful with D3 NEFs but the shipping version is fine. This is the problem with reading online tests. That is why I've decided to do my own, then I have only myself to please.
That's not to say less mp can't outclass more mp. Haven't definitively tested but my 10mp Leia M8 is out resolving the D3 and has better dynamic range. That was using prime lenses on both but, those leica lenses are something else! Having said that, the M8 is definitely a different horse... more of a 3 legged donkey maybe
.With regard to noise, 5D Vs 1D3, from what I've seen and read the 1D3 is as least as good as or better by about a stop. But it's a newer camera by two years so should be. No doubt the 5D2 will beat the 1D3....... ad infinitum. It's becoming academic as is the mp race.
dcw@pr" Target="_blank">class="forumQuoter">dcw@pr said:
Bacardi said:
Plus I don't really need 21mp for the type of jobs were I need that type of camera. 12 is more than enough for double page spreads and I don't do huge prints.
I would beg to differ - I don't think the5Ds I use are 100% for DPSs - my old 1Ds2 was significantly better. (*The reason is they deal with hundreds of images for one mag and publish about 20 mags. That's thousand of images every month. They need an optimum size up to DPS but some shots may only be reproduced as small inserts. Until the designers get the pics on the page that won't know what will be reproduced at what size so everything has to be supplied good enough for DPS, which they have decided to be 30mb in their workflow. 1Ds3 files at full res CMYK work out at 80mb a file x 100s, x 20, x 12 or 13 issues a month.... That's a lot of data to clogg up the systems and deal with and I know storage is getting cheap, but.... Incidentally, I rarely supply full res out of any cameras to most clients unless it's needed big, it's just overkill).
Like I said, your milage may vary.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff