Canon EOS Rumors

Nikon D3s vs Canon 1D Mark IV ISO

Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
306 Comments
0 Min Read

So…………
It seems the thing people talk most about with cameras today is ISO performance. So here is some examples/tests of the D3s & 1D4 ISO performance.

By the looks of things, Nikon’s D3s is definitely outperforming the Mark IV at high ISO.

See for yourself: http://www.neutralday.com/

I cannot vouch for the tester/reviewer here.

cr

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.
Share This Article
Previous Article Next Month… [CR1]
Next Article MIA & New Camera Info[CR1]
306 Comments

  • omg are you serious? pitting a pixel-packed (16MP) aps-h against a modest 12MP full-frame? of course the D3s wins in iso performance.

  • Noise is not the only aspect of a RAW image that is important. Any good noise reduction software will handle the high ISO MK4 images while the MK4 will produce much more resolution.

    To me the important parts of an image with a good subject are Focus, lighting, exposure, composition and then noise. Yup! Noise is important, but not the most important part of an image.

  • Where canon is making a mistake in its marketing of this camera us in selling it as a high iso machine. It’s not. It is a highly specialized niche camera for a segment of photographer who demand its speed, af, Cropped sensor reach and resolution with 14bit files. It’s the whole package. Relatively clean iso 3200 is a bonus. From what I can see the 5d2 maintains the better high iso performance for canon for now.

  • The D3s v 5D2 results are pretty much in line with what I have seen using both cameras in the field. 5D2 is actually pretty similar for noise up until 1600 – after that the D3s is in a league of its own (as is the AF speed!). Good combo to use though if you don’t mind mixing systems – D3s is incredible in low light and fast as for moving subjects – 5D2 is great where more resolution is required and still Ok for slower subjects in low light. Plus video is obviously a lot better! Will pass on the 1D IV for now …

  • 1D Mark IV

    Is Over Price and not a Good $5000 dollar Camera

    I belive for me is advertise advertise advertise

    Sorry Canon put the AF to the Mark III and you got a killer Cam

    The sensor is not good what happend canon for me this is the worst senser Eos 40D and Mark IV have the same density 3.1 and 3 years of new tecnology

  • What’s impressive is how well the 5DII held up against the two… Given how good the 5DII 21MP FF sensor is, could you imagine the low light performance if Canon had chosen to do 12-15 FF 1DIV!? That would have been epic.

  • In just a few short years, Canon has achieved the unthinkable…..to be completely out classed by Nikon at high ISO and the need for Canon to prove they know how to design an AF system. And I shoot Canon.

  • 5d mII comes out the winner considering it has 21mp. But the downside is that the 5d II is useless for sports.

  • Yeah, well I kept saying that I thought Canon was playing too arrogant and resting on their laurels too much a number of years back and got quickly told I was a fool and a troll.

    (for the record I have shot Canon since 1979!)

  • “It seems the thing people talk most about with cameras today is ISO performance”

    Quite a big statement, I think there are quite a few things that people talk, complain, b*tch about as well – for example how 7D is soft, how much they want the new 3D… For me personally it doesn’t matter. If something is too dark to take a picture at ISO1600 I just use my flash or take a long exposure, taking picture in pitch black darkness and complaining about “noise” (real or perceived) is not my idea of fun.

  • as long as Canon keeps the 5D M3 at 21mp there is no problem.
    But knowing Canon they want to cram in more pixels.

  • I told you all this…and people were arguing with me. If you think the 1d mk iv is better than the D3s in any way or form, you are just a canon fan boy who is blind to the facts. Try both out for yourself, and except for video which doesn’t matter to still photographers anyway, the D3s is superior in every way. I’m not a nikon person either, but unfortunately canon is just crap nowadays for dslr bodies because all they care about is marketing and cramming more pixels and ruining image quality. I wouldn’t pay 3000 for the 1d mark iv, because from what I see even nikon’s old d700 has much more pleasing noise than the 1d mark iv.

  • There is no holy grail!!!!

    When resizing the 5DMkII image crop to match the D3s and apply some NR they are virtually identical in these ISO 25600 samples. Nikon didnt make any breakthrough but merely matched Canon in lowlight ability. You could suspect there is some kind of NR in D3s RAW already applied even though it is switched off but either way I could get the 5DMkII output to match D3s at high ISO.

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4287330020_3653470559_o.jpg

  • I totally accept that Nikon has the edge on high ISO now. The D3s is an impressive camera. I’ve got some RAW files and compared to the Canon’s, are better by a good 1 up to 2 stops.

    But from there, the shown test, to my eyes is misleading and I wouldn’t trust it.

    First, check the time and the iso speeds on the properties in Flickr. Then check that one of the bottle’s sticker was removed, I wonder the reason… Didn’t used mirror lock-up in Canon, used manual focus; Nikon used Sharpness “soft” while canon sharpness 0.

    Third, check the feathers in the bird, and finally check that some conversions were done in CS4, some in Lightroom, DPP… all over the place.

    The “tester” never mentioned the lenses (the 1D4 used a 17-24 while the Nikon used a prime 50mm 1.4)

    Just a look at the flickr pictures will tell the complete story.

  • “unfortunately canon is just crap nowadays for dslr bodies because all they care about is marketing and cramming more pixels and ruining image quality”

    This is a typical hyperbolic statement so often found in those types of discussions that brings nothing to it. Even assuming that your statement is true and indeed the Nikon body is superior in everyway to the Canon one, it does not make Canon “crap”, it might not be as good as Nikon (assuming it’s true) but it’s still a very good camera.

    This while discussion like so many other ones is basically pointless, it can be argued that noise is better for this or that camera, how higher noise can be offset by higher resolution etc. Pixel-peeping at 100% is pointless, even with the high-end cameras most pictures are printed well below A4 anyway where most of those blemishes are not visible.

    In the end it’s how you use the tool within its limitations that counts and not how amazing it is if one cannot use it properly.

  • Yes, there are inconsistencies.

    There are other high ISO images floating around that do not exhibit this level of noise. In fact this is by far the worst I’ve seen. Why is this the only test that has images this bad?

  • Are this statements are all true

    The EOS-1D Mark IV features a standard ISO range from 100 – 12800 with an expanded range of 50 to 102400! The combined noise reduction capabilities of the Dual DIGIC 4 Image Processors and Canon CMOS sensor help ensure that even at an ISO setting of 102400, noise is kept to a minimum. This greatly expanded capability provides an increased range of real-world shooting options, especially in available-light or dim situations. A low ISO speed can be useful, for example, when shooting high contrast scenes with fast (e.g., f/1.4) lenses. Blown highlights, such as the shading of a bride’s dress, can be avoided and photographers can use wider apertures to control depth-of-field in ways not possible at higher ISO settings. Additionally, the EOS-1D Mark IV features the Auto Lighting Optimizer (ALO), which automatically adjusts the brightness and contrast during image processing to minimize the need for expensive and time-consuming post-production processing. Auto Lighting Optimizer is available in most shooting modes, including Manual mode and can be applied to RAW images using the included Canon Digital Photo Professional software.

  • It looks like the 5D Mark II is best up to ISO 6400. From ISO 12800 upwards, the Nikon D3s is the clear winner. The 1D Mark IV is not very good at anything.

    The Nikon D3s is just one very good all round camera. From Canon you can either have good AF (1D Mark IV) or good image quality (5D Mark II). But you cannot take pictures that are both in focus AND of high quality, unless you pay for the $$$ 1Ds Mark IV.

  • I laugh, and yet I weep, for it is seemingly true. It’s like they simply switched turtle shells (Minolta’s shell fell of the table and broke)

  • Hey MM! i was giving you a pretty hard time a couple of weeks ago when I was sooo excited for my 1DMIV. Oh how times have changed. You were right right right all along MM. Seriously. I canceled my order for the 1DMIV and now I’m waiting for the 3D, a Nikon D4, or a D3s if the first two cameras aren’t out in the next year. Yea for Nikon! Canon, please give us a 3D with Nikon like specs so that i don’t have to shoot both systems or sell my Canon equipment which I really don’t want to do since I like my Canon lenses.

  • There are other comparisons that definitely shows the 1D4 matching the D3.

    But the D3s rules them all!

    So happy to see this. :)

  • I agree this particular set of results are carelessly carried out.

    But I am sure more tests will prove the D3s is far superior to the 1D4. I am waiting for DCRaw to support D3s, then I will convert my D3s NEF files for direct comparison.

    I am very happy to see this.

    Canon should wake up and smell the coffee. They are left in the dust now.

    But one thing I cannot understand: why is this technology NOT applied in the D300s (which is inferior to the 7D)? Hmmm… my guess is that the D3/D700/D3s sensor is completely designed by the Nikon team since no one uses it.

    I have no issue with Canon increasing their pixel count, but for goodness (i) be honest and do not offer ISO levels which are completely useless (anything above 12800) (ii) make sure the ISO performance is not compromised.

    I don’t think Canon knows Nikon has this capability. They have merely matched the performance of the D3, and assumed their competition remains stagnant there.

    A good and painful lesson for Canon. The next fiasco after the 1D3. Ha, ha…

  • Well most people talk about high ISO performance these days because:

    1. a lot do not know how to use multiple lights
    2. Nikon only has 1 camera past their 12mp land.
    3. people forgot that photography is painting with light.

    I’ve asked around, people rarely use the maximum ISO their camera can deliver. Personally all these expanded modes are just gimmicks.

    Before the advent of High ISO digital photography, photographers where fine without these high ISO capabilities because they know that photography is about light and not the lack of it.

  • Oops. Canon did it again.

    They stuffed too many megapixels on the 7D but I thought that’s OK. The 7D is (mostly) targeted at consumers after all.

    But I can’t believe they are doing the same on the 1D4.

    Are they trying to lure uninformed pros with more megapixels ???

    Is this how they plan to keep the pro market – with noisy crop sensors vs clean FF sensors from Nikon ???

    Very interesting strategy.

  • because Nikon has D3X as a landscape and a studio camera…

    But then they have a Full frame sensor with Low MP and super IQ and high ISO performance for wedding/event photos, and action photogs. Where is canon’s full frame with low MP and excellent AF?

  • agree 100%, I can’t even say it’s Canon vs NIkon. Nikon outclasses canon. Canon has just become another olympus/pentax now…sorry to say, but it’s fact.

  • That’s what I have been saying, unless they make the rumored 3D there is no hope left for canon. So for their sake, and for canon shooter’s sake they need to make a 3D that puts canon ahead of nikon.

  • i tried downsizing…it still has a 1 stop advantage instead of a 2 stop. Go to imaging resource, they have sample photos there, downsize and paste the link.

    I know you’re trying to justify your canon camera, but you have to realize that canon has been left behind in the dust by nikon. Back in the days when canon was far ahead, I said the same thing about nikon being left behind in the dust. I doubt canon will catch up, cuz they are too concerned with cramming pixels and marketing vs making good cameras.

  • 1D Mark Iv is just a APC-H (1.3x crop sensor) camera and D3s is a Full Frame camera, just because they came out also same time, all people compare these 2 cameras. I still prefer to see apple to apple comparison like 7D vs D300s.

    My personal thinking : Canon is a bit left behind for high ISO performance(Just see D700 vs. 5DII, now D3s come out), but i think Canon will do something to fight back , just like 7D compare to D300s.

    Hope canon and Nikon can come out something new and benefits to all users.

  • This goes to show what a Monster the 5d II is!

    Double the megapixels as compared to the D3s, but it matches it’s lack of noise to 6400.. WOW… And it crushes it resolution wise on every level!

    With deals out there close to $2000 for the 5d2. It’s becoming the best bang for your buck camera also. THE best video on a DSLR out there–including the 1d IV. And it’s getting 24p/60p in a couple months.

    10 years from now.. the 5d II will still be putting a beat down on new cameras

  • “If something is too dark to take a picture at ISO1600 I just use my flash or take a long exposure”

    which is why I want a 14Mp-16Mp FF camera
    with no noise from ISO100 – ISO1600 @30sec and shorter,(I know 1600 is a dream)
    I’ll settle for 100 – 400 and no noise @30sec and shorter

  • I know the 1d Mark 4 considering it is actually a fairly high density sensor. But… well i think the 100,000 ISO is a lot of hype. I it looks to me like the 1d Mark 4 is about the same noise level maybe slightly better than the 5d Mark 2, but the 5d Mark 2 images still look better because of the extra mega pixels.

    1d Mark 4 is still a great camera for sports I am sure, but.. a little over hyped on it’s low light capabilities it seems. This is not the first review I have seen like this.

  • You’re all idiots (well most of you).

    All these cameras are good. Whining like MM and trying to get people to “see the light” doesn’t change that fact.

    Grow up and stop the whine.

  • I don’t know how accurate these results are, so I’m going to wait and see more tests before making my mind up.

    When the general public looks at these results, it’s going to be night and day, the 1DIV is very noisy compared to the other bodies.

    Maybe this will wake Canon up.

  • So just about any of the current SLRs will do. What noise might be there or you imagine is there goes away during post processing.

  • To be fair, they squeezed more pixels in the 1D4 and managed to equalize the performance of the D3/D700.

    However, they underestimated their competitor and were not aware Nikon was far more advanced than what they perceived.

    Another high end fiasco from Canon right after the 1D3. Oooops

  • PS: I wonder how Canon would have fared if they had ‘merely’ packed 12 MP into their APS-H sensor using their current technology.

    PS2: Perhaps this is the time to release a 16 MP FF 3D with 8 FFPS. Oh wait… it’ll take Canon another 2 years to recover from this fiasco. ;)

  • The sad truth is Canon reacts VERY slowly. It took Canon 2 whole years to compete against Nikon.

  • Funny comparo, it makes the same fundamental mistake as DPR reviews do: assessing 100% crops of cameras with different resolution. That invalidates the comparison right away, since no attempt was made to normalize the samples to some common output. Also, even the exposures weren’t equalized. It’s pretty obvious the Nikon output was underexposed compared to both Canons. It’s either the Nikon deliberately exposes that way or it’s black point is raised by design to hide the noise in the shadows, or both. It may be more fair to compare Canon ISO 1600 output to Nikon 3200 output, and so on.

  • Well said.
    Mostly at least. ;-) I’ve said in the past that there are good reasons to stick with the APS-H format, but I agree with you and most of the others that the IQ of 1D4 is yet another step by Canon in the wrong the direction. :-(

  • how about photo journalists, sports shooters, wedding photogs, etc.? There’s a lot more people pushing the limit than you might reckon, and that’s because they don’t have a choice, or time, to alter the light situation.

  • 12MP vs 16MP is not a difference. For example, 65MP Phaseone medium format back goes up in higher ISO by pixel binning, retaining !!!! 16MP ISO1600 file which is still not as good as an average SLR at that ISO.

    I agree somewhat that the difference might not be that big after some treatment, but do you honestly expect a smaller sensor with more pixels to compete against bigger one with less, don’t you?

  • come on, its always like that

    the leader always switches after a few years.
    nikon slept for most of the digital SLR time, then with a new head in place they did some brainstorming and found a way to come out of their hole, so it will happen in at least a few years for canon again, not that canon is sleeping or something.

    i wont sell my canon gear for sure, well if nikon had a 85mm 1.2 ;)
    but we all know its not possible with their mount

  • 5DMKII = useless for everything except landscapes. You can also do portraits, as long as you stay away from large aperture lenses and no one is moving.

  • Great. Another 100% pixel to pixel comparison of cameras with different pixel densities and crop factors.

    It’s physics that’s being illustrated, not technological prowess.

  • This is good.
    1D MarkIII can’t focus
    1D MarkIV can’t have clean HI-ISO

    That should bring down the price of 1D MarkIV to $3,800 in a month or two.

  • If you’re talking about image quality because auf the test, then you’re wrong. Don’t forget the different sensor sizes. BUT: if I had the knowledge about cameras that I have today, but had to decide between Canon and Nikon, I would probably choose Nikon by now (I own a 400D).

  • If the 1DIV is really that bad, there is very little chance of a 3D as you wish it, as it would “kill” it…

    And the 5DIII will keep a centered AF.

    So let’s hope the 1DIV is better than this, else all new Canons will have to respect the weakness of their new king :-)

  • Anyone else notice that the dynamic range of the Nikon seems terrible…. there is no detail in the shadows at all. If that is the price to pay for high ISO… i’ll take increased DR any day.

  • Personally the 5DMKII is superior to the other two, after a noise cleaning we get better detail and better image than the other two.

  • Totally agree. I bought a 300d over a Nikon D70 because of IQ. A few years later the Nikon D700 was better than anything Canon had at the price range and maybe even the 1 series (1d/1ds III disaster).
    It’s like investing in the stock market.

  • Have you ever shot bands in a dark nightclub? A flash would kill the atmosphere and a slow shutter speed is useless.

  • I’ve long been amused by the APS-H sensor as a half-way point between the APS-C and FF.

    I’m not surprised by the results of the test (although I think they’re being exaggerated, the 6400 shots from the 1D4 look worse than the 6400 shots from the 7D, so I question this a bit) but I do think this does signal the end of APS-H sensor line (David, I know you’ve spent some time convincing me of this fact, and I now agree)

    the main reason I think APS-H is dead is twofold, and none of it has anything to do with Nikon:

    1. the supposed “cost savings” of APS-H is pure BS. When you can put a [still] class-leading FF sensor in the 5D Mark II for $2700, and a class-leading body and functions on the 7D for $1700, don’t tell Canon would lose money on a FF 1DmarkIV for $5000.

    2. more simply, there’s no reason not to go FF. Canon could just have easily have made an 18MP FF sports shooter that had an in-camera 1.3x crop function. don’t tell me any of the technology doesn’t work. how different is reading out 18MP/sec vs 16.7MP/sec? you CAN get 10 FPS in a full frame camera, those of us shooting with EOS 1v’s can tell you that right now.

    Canon, the 1D Mark IV is what it is at this point. But in the future, time to go FF. Maybe the 3D will remedy this soon, but that’s idle speculation.

  • no reason not to release a FF with 10 FPS. they did it before with film, and the data flow from a 16MP APS-H is no different than data flow from a 16MP FF, so the chips can handle it too

  • As was mentioned previously, like most recent Nikons, the black point for the D3s was pulled up to better hide the noise in the shadows, while exposure was also tweaked deliberately to look darker than the two Canons, thus it looked that way.

  • each company’s development teams can only dedicate so much energy to each project. it’s sort of a result of everyone chasing their own tail.

    Nikon smelled blood in the water when Canon came out with the 1DmarkIII, and put all their effort into the D3s and came up with a class-leader.

    Canon was pissed after Nikon scored gold with the D300 and put all their effort into the 7D, and came up with a class-leader.

    both companies are capable of raising the tech to a newer level, but in some senses it’s not realistic to expect them to do so with multiple releases every calendar year.

  • Untrue. This keeps getting peddled on the Intarwebs like it’s gospel truth. The accurate way of saying it is that Canon took 2 years to realize they would like to compete at the $1800 price level. The xxD cameras were always around ~$1300, so it’s stupid to expect it to beat a camera that costs significantly more. The lineups from both companies didn’t really match up price-wise & features-wise directly before.

  • It is possible to get f/1.2s it’s just that it would be hella expensive so no one would buy it. There are f/1.2 manual focus Nikon lenses you know, it’s not impossible.

  • Yea I have a feeling that this is the start of a pattern, where release after release, one model will be better than another, but a couple of years later the rival company comes out with a better camera. I think I should start stocking up on glass from both companies, cause in the future, I know that I’m going to be jumping from one to another pretty often.

  • They are pointed to the same market… So I think its the right comparison but two different roads.

    I think Nikon is on the right track this time.

  • “The 1D Mark IV is not very good at anything.”…

    Ouch! :-)

    A bit of a stretch but considering it’s a $5000 camera, I would have expected better quality.

    Still, I’d rather have a 1DmarkIV any day over a 5D mark II (which arrives at my doorstep today) !! Bought the 5DmarkII as it’s about the only decent quality at my sub $3,000 pricepoint. It’s a shame the AF is obsolete.

    I just couldn’t wait any longer to upgrade my 30D for an upcoming wedding.

  • Agree. The 1DmarkIV is a photojournalist camera. I wish I had one but not for $5K.

    For $5K, I’d rather have a 5DmarkII and a 7D and sill have $900 to blow on a lens.

  • Agree. Nikon is clearly the technology rabbit.

    I think Canon is getting the message and knows they can’t rest of their brand forever.

    For those of us with Canon lens investment, they basically have us by the short hairs. The best we can hope is that Canon wants new DSLR customers. I’m full on Canon and just bought a 5DmarkII.
    However, I recommend Nikon to virtually everyone that asks.

  • I think that high ISO usage is over rated, unless you really need to use it. Most of the sports I shoot, its either in the sun or in a really lit(though vapor light lit) gym. I still use a 40D, but ISO 1600 is enough. And even if I do need ISO higher than 3200, it’s just an “I really, badly need this shot even if it looks bad and isn’t sharp” kind of shot or I need to use 1/1000 on a badly lit room. Even in events, if you have really good lenses, especially primes, you don’t really have too much of a need for these high ISO’s. I’d rather have my tack sharp pics with full detail in both highlights and shadows.

  • there’s also always a spot for good flash technique as well. there’s been plenty of good sports photography over the past decades, none of which was shot at ISO 25600 or even 6400. being able to use high ISOs has become a crutch that people who are too lazy to use or learn about good lighting technique can readily lean on.

    I’m not saying high ISO is worthless — it’s not, it’s worth quite a lot in terms of facilitating ease of use. but please at least learn how to use your lighting equipment, it exists because it works, and works well.

  • which raises the issue, canon could really use (I’m not going to use the word ‘needs’) a strong performer in the 14-24 range

  • a number of people have been flagging the issue that it looks like the Nikon is undergoing some NR before reaching this state of output, and that’s probably why the blacks are smearing in the image

  • whoever expected ISO 102400 to be useable is just fooling themselves.

    from what we’ve seen of digital cameras in the past, the top 1 or 2 settings for ISO is almost always near-unusable, however, it’s there for emergency settings, and to promote the camera more.

    how many people are doing paid work out there at above ISO 3200? I’m not a sports shooter so I don’t know.

  • I currently shoot with a EOS 1v… I’d love the equivalent of this camera in digital. At the moment my choices are limited to two models.

    My heart is with full frame due to my experiences with my Olympus OM4Ti and my primes. I came across Canon by accident and do I regret my choice… Hmmm!!!

    Well I was thinking back to a time when I had a mountain bike and I thought about trading it in to get another model, I took it in for a service at my local bike shop and the young man took my bike and started doing amazing feats on my bike, bouncing it on its back wheel then doing the same on the front.

    I realised that it wasn’t the bike but I needed to develop my skills as a rider and stop blaming the tool.

    I guess that what I’m trying to say is this… Both Canon and Nikon are good cameras. I currently have Canon and when it finally comes to the digital aspect of things I’m going to go with a canon. I love the SD/CF combination and the fact that the technology in this department is evolving. Furthermore I believe that it’s not what you got its what you do with it. I love the selection of primes… I dream of having a 135 f2 and if money was no object. I’d be the happiest man on the planet.

    I hope and pray that one day Canon will release the digital equivalent of my ole lil film EOS because I love it… I really enjoy the banter it makes good reading and increases my knowledge.

    I think that digital photography has come a long way and there are so many opportunities which are available which a decade ago would not of been deemed possible…

    blessings

  • Well, the D3 beat the 1D3 into a pulp.

    2 years later, the D3s trumps the 1D4.

    Hopefully, Canon can leap ahead 2 years later.

    But chances are slim.

  • cheers to you for having a good perspective on these things…

    I am, at this point, a dedicated Canon shooter. regardless of the differences between Nikon and Canon and any other brand, ultimately these days those differences are very slight.

    the most important thing is, none of these cameras will hinder you from taking great shots; all of them will help you greatly.

    the only thing hindering people from taking great shots is not investing the time and effort into practicing photography.

  • I’ve never shot over 400 but due to my previous experience I’ve learnt (still learning) to capture in spite of my limitations

    One day when I purchase my digital equivalent… As much as the high ISO’s will be available, it will be something which I will appreciate as opposed to it ‘becoming a crutch’

    I do believe that in the digital generation we have become accustomed to the technology and in certain respects have become somewhat ‘lazy’

    I would concur with you… kubelik.

  • So in other words, if your shooting in a badly lit room and need to stop action you need to use ISO3200? You’re happy with what ISO3200 looks like on a 40D?? I guess if you’re only printing 4x6s..

    I’m not even particularly happy with ISO3200 on my 1D3.

  • Come on Nikon raise to 21MP and complete with Canon for the ISO.

    Come on Canon add your new technology to 5D to 12 MP 5Dn and put 7D AF to it to complete with Nikon. We want apple to apple. When can it happen.

    Why 12 MP FF compare with 16 MP 1.3 crop?

  • Isn’t that what they said about dippin’ dots (the ice cream of the future)??? That was like 15 years ago…

  • You are missing the fact that the 1d IV pics are still great quality. Just not as good as a 12 mp full frame camera.

    I would have to say if the 1d IV beat the D3s in IQ that would have meant Nikon is WAYYYYY behind in sensor technology. But right now as a previous commenter stated.

    What we are really comparing is paths the companies chose to take. I have no doubt Canon could make a 12 mp full frame camera that had equal or better IQ than the D3s

  • I think what you are missing and all Nikon are missing is the fact it’s not a true apple to apple comparison.

    One is 16 1.3 crop
    one is 12 full frame.

    While they are targeted at the same segments the difference is much more due to philosophy than technology.

  • As a wedding photographer myself I do not see myself ever pushing the 12800 ISO mark.

    At that point even a little light would throw your whole composition off and you could hardly see the composition yourself.

    The high iso is really only fully useful to sports shooters

  • Whose sarcasm? I hope that you’re not referring to my sarcasm. I am absolutely serious. I’ve now sent back the 5dMII due to weak focusing and i’ve canceled my preorder for the 1DMIV. I’m happy to sit by with a 5D and wait yet another year for Canon to produce something to my liking. And oh me likey the Nikon D3s right now a whole lot.

  • Technology rabbit? i think people are getting something twisted

    It is harder to make a 16 mp 1.3 crop sensor perform better than a 12 mp full frame sensor.

    Just because Canon could not do that does not mean they could not make a sensor with their currently technology that is 12 mp full frame and better than the nikon one

  • Exactly…

    Have anyone that is trumpeting about 12800 ever taken a good photo at 12800? (other than sports shooters)

    Do you understand the extra difficulty of even a smidgen of light falling in your picture blowing it out? Or the fact you can barely see the composition of the picture yourself?

  • Dumb test comparing apples to oranges.
    But

    5DII looks best overall. You get 21 MP when you need it. You can downsample and get as good as D3s. And …ISO over 25000 is only good from any of these cameras if you like a smeared abstract mess.

  • “..Just because Canon could not do that does not mean they could not make a sensor..”

    Yep. The operative word there is “could”. Coulda woulda shoulda doesn’t count.

    Like many have said. Canon has driven off the cliff with Megapixels much like Intel once drove off the cliff with Megahertz.

  • @BE

    hmm… No offence but maybe you need photo lessons..
    I hate to blame my equipments for “bad” pictures.

  • No use? It’s because you didn’t make use of new technology. Wedding photography is changing with cameras too. Maybe, you are still shooting like 2 years ago.

  • thank god Intel drove off the MHz cliff if that’s the case.

    I’m pretty sure I have Intel (and NVidia) to thank for reducing my time on 40 hour 8×11 architectural renderings down to 4 hour 24×36 architectural renderings.

    driving off cliffs can be quite productive it seems

  • I agree. I’ve not really seen any wedding situation that requires bumping up to 12800 unless your bride is on a trampoline in a cathedral at night?

    a 5D Mark II, fast lens, and a little bit of fill light go a long way

  • I also find it bizarre that the ISO 6400 shots seem to exhibit more noise than ISO 6400 shots taken with a 7D. is that just me?

  • Actually they did pretty much hit the wall with regards to MHz – which is why we’re starting to see the development of multi-core processors.

  • A beat down…? Probably not. But. Come 10 years from now I do believe that the 5DII will be appreciated and accepted as a very prominent and innovative step into the future of photography.

  • Indeed, comparing 100% crops is flawed. We should be comparing crops of the same print size.

    That said, the D3s looks very very impressive!! Raising the bar is always a good thing for consumers.

  • Dunno guys. I am not one to reply to this stuff much but i cannot believe how much time you have on your hands.
    I have 3 5D’s that provide me with a substantial living shooting travel guides, weddings and some editorial. They are full of dust, my oldest is a very early one on its second shutter and two of them tumbled down towards a waterfall last year (i jumped and stopped them both) So i know for a fact that this camera is fully acceptable to many international clients. What do you all really know?
    And please, i hope you spend this much time and passion on your loved ones!

  • how is this any different than comparing the 1dm3 to the d3? no one would think that was a valid comparison, so why is this considered one? This test is just a result of websites not having the patience to wait for the 1dsIV to do a comparison.

  • I’m getting decent hockey shots on a 40D at ISO 1600, using f4 on a tokina 50-135 2.8

    The lens is a little slow to focus, and not as sharp at 2.8, so I use f 4 – 4.5 a lot. In a really well lit arena I can get to ISO 800.

    I’ll go FF next, otherwise I’d get the 7D.

  • but it can be upgraded… the point is for telephoto photographers, but they shouldnt have raised the MP so much.

  • There is so much tripe in some of the comments it’s hard to believe that anyone has actually seen any photos taken by 1DIV owners using “L” glass. I also find it very hard to understand how anyone can take such an arbitrary and unscientific comparison seriously!

    Nothing that I have seen that has been posted by users of the 1DIV has convinced me that the new 1D is inferior to the 5DII IQ wise. Indeed for BiF and action photography (especially in low light) the 1DIV looks like a clear “win” for Canon.

  • I don’t see anyone saying that the 1DIV images have poor IQ, but just that high-ISO performance isn’t as strong.

    That is, after all, the topic of the discussion in which you’re posting.

  • I was looking for an intelligent comment to reply to and this is perhaps one of the best here. All the people going ape over this little flawed mini “review” should take a step back and wait for a real review.

    The most obvious problem with this is the fact the Nikon images were underexposed by about one stop relative to the Canons, so that would immediately give its results about one stop of noise advantage.

    If the above poster noting big differences in processing and settings in the files as well is correct, then this “review” is a near meaningless joke. My bet is that the Nikon D3s continues to display slightly better results in chroma noise at high ISO while the Canon 1D IV will probably have a slight edge in overall detail on prints of similar size due to its higher resolution.

    With NR used for ISO speeds up to 12,800 I think you’re going to find both cameras usable with little to no difference in noise in the final image. This will be especially true of you’re not pixel peeping.

    A lot of you here need to quit drinking the Kool Aid.

  • Perhaps poor phrasing! I should also have added that every high ISO shot so far that I have seen, without NR beats or equals the 5DII (without NR). I simply can not understand the “doom on Canon” comments based on true sample photos!

  • I use 250 – 320, gives nice white ice and stops the action (Peewee).

    I use all C1-C3 ( with slightly different settings) so I can quickly switch settings. Lighting is not even, but overall the main arena is well lit (a full length row of windows about 20 feet up behind the bench, on north side -gives indirect natural light)

  • there’s a lot of people who want to be chicken little out there, brightens their day somehow

  • I am very tempted by the 5DII at the present prices (see B&H or Adorama).

    I am just too curious to see what the next small-body FF from canon will do, so I aim to wait it out.

  • 5DMII is definitely not useless for sports….It would work wonderfully for sports such as…..three legged tortoise races……uh a race in which the runners were hobbled with a chain 6 inches long between each leg……a race were the slowest contestant was the winner…..a race were people went as quickly as possible through thick mud or even cement. See you’re very wrong about the 5DMII focus speed. You just need to understands it “limitations” as so many have been apologetic to the “limitations” of the 1DMIV vs Nikon D3s. They’re just minor limitations that’s all. Just tell people to slow down a little when photographing them then it’s all GOOOOOD!

  • A photojournalist’s camera or a sports photographer’s camera? Most photojournalists I know like to use wide angle lenses, sometimes VERY wide angle lenses. The 1D series has always seemed optimized for shooting sports outdoors with long lenses.

    I currently use a 5D classic and 40D, so I guess I agree without you about spending $5000. I just wish that the 7D was 14MP with better high ISO image quality.

  • I once shot at a jazz club where the typical exposure was 1/15sec, f/1.4, ISO3200. However, for rock venues, I’ll agree with you. However, I want to be able to use f/2.8 zooms and I can’t do that at ISO1600.

  • Really? tell me one situation where you would pushed it that much? Have you even attempted anything like that before talking about someone else’s shooting style?

    Are your weddings that you shoot inside a dark gym with the bride and groom running around? Are you jumping around from 400 iso to 12800 iso?

  • Then why are those multi-cores back to hitting 3ghz and above? It’s still pushing/forwarding technology

  • Funny shows my point exactly. In that situation there was no reason you needed to shoot at 12800. It’s a static object and the light could have been easily increased. You just chose to use high iso. That’s absolutely different than needing it

  • Well, I’m very sorry to say for me personally it shows that you misunderstand the existing technology and its limits. In the pre-digital, film days concert photographers would use (usually) ISO1600 film, sometimes would push it during the development process to 3200 and would have to live with the result. Have you seen how grainy, detail-less such pictures are? And they would not even dream of suing an f2.8 lens, it is a VERY slow lens for such applications, when shooting in those conditions f1.8, 1.4 or even 1.2 lenses would be used.

    From your description you are trying to get perfect pictures under very imperfect conditions, not all situations are suited to all types of photography. When shooting in pubs, clubs, live music venues one should try to capture the atmosphere and that by definition includes some underexposed, murky parts of the picture and not worry about perfect exposure.

    Just because very high ISOs are available in DSLRs it does not mean that they HAVE to be used and when they are used that one will get the same quality when shooting at lower values.

    All technologies have their limitations, shooting pictures in situations when it’s too dark for a human eye to see all the details and wishing pictures shot under those conditions show more than an eyes can see without any tradeoffs is just not realistic.

  • If you usually make your money in product, studio portraits and weddings I think you’ll be very happy with the 5DMII and it’s current price point and bundle package. I’m blown away by the 5dII’s studio portrait shots, mine turn out super sharp to the point where you can see too many pores and hairs.

    I think it’ll be a long wait till the next small FF comes out, and you probably won’t get your hands on it till sometime next year. That’s just my guess. To me its not worth the wait, you can always sell the 5D later, you’re already getting a good deal on it.

  • “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.

    Just because you don’t shoot film it does not mean it’s dead but that’s really beside the point as you have seem to missed the whole point of my post.

  • Slight ranting below…

    These comparisons and reviews are still better than Ken Rockwell’s “DX3 vs. 5DmII Sharpness test”

    The comment that made Ken’s review ridiculous imo was “The D3X is a serious pro camera, while the 5D Mark II is just another consumer electronics product.”

    5DmII = 2008 release, $2500
    DX3 = 2009 release, $7500

    Its not apples to oranges but not quite a fair comparison either. Usually a camera body that cost 3x as much as another and is newer tends to generate better quality. Haha.

    With that said, I’ve taken tons of landscapes and portraits with the 5DmII and I’ve not gotten images as soft as what he had.

  • That’s not answering my question.

    There are many situations when even a fast lens isn’t enough.

    Some people would rather not spend a lot of money on expensive lenses when they could have a very good ISO 6400 from Nikon for the nearly the same price.

  • I don’t know any photojournalists and only repeating what I hear often whick makes sense to me – that is, photojournalists need FAST autofocus and rapid fire.

    This is a shoein for the 1DMarkIV!! I wish I had this camera but $5K? Forget about it. I literally just received my 5DmarkII which now complements my 30D.

    5DMII for FF portrait and low light and 30D for my football game in APS-C.

    In a few years hopefully Canon would produce a single body for this.

  • I haven’t shot jazz clubs, but there is no way that you could shoot a rock or punk band at anything less than 1/100 sec unless you are wanting blur.

  • “I think it’ll be a long wait till the next small FF comes out, and you probably won’t get your hands on it till sometime next year.”

    I would agree with this. I would also agree with getting on the 5Dii and seeing how much you like it. Even if the Mark III comes out in a year, it will take some serious improvements for me to upgrade (not to mention someone wanting to buy mine at a very reasonable price), I’ve been very happy with it.

  • this confirms why i bought a full frame camera. i bought the 5dii for the low noise, resolution, detail, high iso ability, and amazing pictures it captures. even the original 5d is amazing!

    yes the af isnt that great, but it works very well if you know how to use the center af properly ;)

    i have invested heavily in L lenses, and when canon steps up to the plate with an awesome full frame camera, with better AF, i will be glad to purchase one. imo, the 5dii is still the best camera for canon and will continue to be so until they release a better mkiii (that is still affordable)

    im no pro, but i want great pictures, full frame, clean high iso, and the ability to take video on the fly

  • Made up my mind, then!

    Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

    Canon EOS 7D

    Nikon D3s

    Nikon D300s

    That would make a nice bag!

  • Agree 100% too. I previously tried to say something similar but some Canon guys “ate” me… :)
    I think we only have to wait until Canon will become the best again.

  • What about the lenses? I’ve never understood having two different systems. I can barely afford to lenses for one.

  • It certainly makes sense to wait until mid-February. If Canon doesn’t announce something compelling then, they probably won’t announce any more DSLRs until mid-August. There are a lot of shots to be taken between now and then.

  • Yea and to add to that Jeff and Bob, if it does come out in August, it won’t actually be ready for shipping till December or Jan 2011. And if you don’t pre-order it might be March 2011.

    Enjoy the 5DmII right now if you’re already tempted. Or atleast wait till February.

    Either way, best wishes with your photography.

  • That’s it!!! How many of us are waiting a camera like that from canon? Your 5Dn 12MP with 7D AF would be great for a lot of canon customers.
    I would only need a wireless controller and that would be the camera of my dreams!

  • I was delighted with the results of this mini test, as it was just what I had been waiting to see while I contemplated working extra to be able to afford one of the sports cameras. Being my first year shooting high school sports, I have been using the 5DMkII with the 70-200 f/4, and I crop my way to decent pictures when the lens won’t reach the subject. Lately I have been shooting ISO 12800 in the gym for basketball, instead of blasting the kids with a flash. Prior to that I had been using ISO 6400 for football and soccer. The lens focuses fast and I don’t rely on the camera to track the motion continually, rather focusing when I am going to shoot. I had bought a 7D and returned it, my copy could not focus accurately with the default setting. I use Noiseware Pro to clean up my images before I offer them. You can check out some of them here. http://sunkenbranch.zenfolio.com/ I knew that after the hype of the 7D that the MkIV would probably fall short. And the Nikon leaves little cropping ability to get the desired composition. For me it’s 5DMkII for another year at least.

  • so the conclusion everybody already knew:

    full frame is still better.

    next topic.

    D4 is rumored 2011 btw given the D3s is an update similar to the N update canon did for the 1D2 generation. The question is will it be Full frame and more than 12MP? likely if you believe the rumors. canon’s decison of going 1.3 crop could hurt them big time once nikon updates their flagship body for sports.

  • “Far superior” is Canon’s HD video. Nikon’s effort, with ancient codec and pitiful restrictions, is a joke. You can keep your 1 f-stop advantage in the dark.

    Not to mention, why let Nikon people dictate by what standards a camera should be measured ? It’s always what Nikon is good at at any given time.

    Oh and, nice job on the crumbling 70-200 VR II.

  • Freaking right. High ISO is needed to shut off the flash at the free throw line in a pathetically lit gym when an intense rebound is under way. High ISO is needed to catch a dancer’s leap in air with only the available spot light providing light. High ISO is also needed to increase depth of field and detail while still stopping action with a faster frame right. High ISO low noise is very important and has nothing to do with being to lazy or stupid to use a flash. Some photography actually occurs in pathetic lighting conditions and 12K ISO that provides low noise is VERY helpful.

  • “Canon’s decison of going 1.3 crop could hurt them big time once nikon updates their flagship body for sports.”

    I normally do not think much about pixel density but the difference in performance between the D3s and 1D4 at ISO 6400 and 12800 is astounding to say the least.

    Canon should seriously consider going down the in-camera RAW NR route. Everyone is doing that now (Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Olympus). It’s the only way to stay competitive.

  • Oh yes you can! Ever hear of “dragging the shutter” when using a flash and very slow shutter speeds, like 1/8 sec. The subject moves (and hopefully the photographer doesn’t) then the flash goes off and creates a sharp image at the end of the blurred exposure. Otherwise, I would agree with you.

  • “Well, I’m very sorry to say for me personally it shows that you misunderstand the existing technology and its limits.”

    And, of course, you understand these perfectly! The days when grainy, blurry, low resolution photographs are acceptable as “artistic” and “capturing the mood” are long past.

    I said that I WANTED to use f/2.8 zooms. What I actually use are: 24 f/1.4 L, 35 f/1.4 L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2.

  • Many good points made above. You can’t satisfy everyone, but I think Canon has been doing a great job with the 5D, 5DII, and 7D at reasonable price points (and even my 40D gives great pics at a low price).

    I’ve come to expect great surprises with new releases, so I’ll wait til February and then re-evaluate.

    There’s so much potential refining the HD movie mode that I almost expect to be blown away, after all the 5DII was their first effort in a DSLR, and it is being used for feature films. That is impressive, even if it is not perfect.

  • gotta say the 5d MKII kicks some ass…. not quite as clean at the higher end as the nikon but its clearly better than the new 1d…. they should’ve done 16 mega pixels… in an FF format… stupid 1.3x, oh well guess they’ll learn one day

  • there is so much badmouthing and talk of nikon and other equipment being superior to the whole canon line bottom to top i think this should be called the canon bad mouth rumors site.why do people who own canons do this mine have never failed me film or digital in 40 years.

  • lol…. didn’t canon set the standard for a while…didn’t all the canon users scream from the rooftops about how our hi iso was so much better? Now that nikon is better you just bash them? Im a canon user… mainly b/c of the affordability of my 5D (and its awesome IQ…still love the classic) and the adaptability of the EOS mount (which I think is one of the systems best attributes)…. I’ll most likely be staying with canon in the near future but I’m certainly not going to be holding back any criticism against them… how else would you expect to have them change? Anyway, canon does have great video now (or so I hear… I take photos, not videos) but these are still SLRs and when Nikon catches up with video… well, I think canon needs to rethink some old strategies… its a big corporation so it has many resources but unfortunately it also has a lot of inertia which typically keep them from making big, important changes fast….

  • +1

    Well considering the price difference, it’s fairly obvious which one is the better bang for your buck. I personally don’t find the d3x to have hugely better IQ in most situations, infarct in many I’d say the 5dII has the edge, but again it all depends on which measures of quality matter to the individual.

    I’m a bit sick of the whole “the 5dII is the insult to all insults of poor cameras” drama, yes, it’s AF leaves a lot to be desired (I own one and I myself find it letting me down occasionally), but really that aside it’s an amazing product at it’s price point, and it’s market share reflects that. I could be way off, but I’m pretty sure sports shooters (and all other photographers for that matter) got great shots before AF was widely available or as sophisticated as it is today.

  • “And, of course, you understand these perfectly! The days when grainy, blurry, low resolution photographs are acceptable as “artistic” and “capturing the mood” are long past.”

    Well, I like to think that I understand that making sweeping, generalized statements like that is pretty silly. You are absolutely right, B&W and grainy as a form of artistic expression is dead, everything and I mean everything, even moody, smoked-filled jazz clubs look so much better in vibrant, sharp, full-colour. Everything else is dead.

  • This confirms that the 5dii is still the best camera that Canon makes, and at its price is a great deal.

    When Canon releases the 5diii they’ll have their next big winner.

  • We are comparing the 1d mark 4 and the D3s because of the price range and the consumers that it targets.

    People who need the d3s or 1dmark 4 are sports shooters/photojournalists, and these people usually shoot in the dark. And right now, the d3s seems to be more fitted to be better. FF or 1.3x crop is irrelevant, and it’s pretty much an excuse because the price range of these cameras are practically the same.

    Now let me address why you DO need higher ISO. The thing about the D3s is that not only does it raise up the ISO, but it also makes existing common ISO that people use (1600,3200,6400) look a LOT better. Personally that’s all I care about, that ISO 6400 looks great. And it seems that the D3s does a great job at that and the 5d mark ii keeps it pretty well.

    Another example of when you need high ISO; Imagine you are in a gym with f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 1600 and you get a pretty tack sharp image.

    Now that’s pretty good, however some people want to use f/4 to maybe get a little more depth of field. With the D3s, they won’t hesitate to use iso 3200 without that much noise anymore and go f/4, 1/500/ iso 3200.

    That’s the beauty of it.

  • I use the 5d mark II as the secondery camera when i shoot professional soccer matches paired with 70-200mm. Yes it is not the best tool for the job. But it does a pretty good work and the final pictures are extermly good. Believe it or not, sport photographers don’t Brust shoot all of the time. They don’t use the Camera as a machine gun.

    The focus system is not at all a problem. It track subjects pretty well provided that you know what your doing and you configure your camera and custom settings correctly.

    Fps is sometimes an issue. But with experience you know when to press the shutter.

  • I should say that I’m seprised since the 1d have the same pixel size as the 5d mark II so it should of at least gave us the same results.

  • I will be converting to Nikon, but not because of this test. I have a 5D MkII and just aren’t that happy with it. I was thinking about selling it and buying the 1DIV, but it’s not really a viable option considering my needs. I could wait for the “3D” but don’t think it’s worth the wait, that’s if it ever does come out. I’ll be cutting my losses, selling my Canon equipment and purchasing a D700. At least then I don’t have to spend upwards of $10,000.00 AU to get a Full Frame camera that is already out that has autofocus that works, weather sealing, and at least 5fps.

    I don’t particularly want to “sell up” but I’d rather spend “future dollars” on quality equipment.

  • I was under the impression that with the greater reach of the 1d Mark 4, you can use less expensive glass and maintain the same quality since you’re only using the center of EF mount lenses, and since you have more intrinsic reach, you can use smaller and more compact lenses since wide-angle is normal for you and super-wide is wide. And at the lowest iso settings (100-400? 100-800?) the 1D Mark 4 delivers superior image quality to the D3S.

    That’s not to say the 1D mark 4 is overpriced and that at current prices, ignoring lens commitments, the D3S is a better buy.

  • I hope so but i fear the 5Diii will propably have a 32 MP FF sensor so Canon can give a camera with same noise as the 7D. Wish those guys at Canon are starting to read the writing on the wall that users want IQ and not MP.

  • But they dont have the same pixeldensity

    Pixeldensity

    MarkIV 3.1 MP/cm²

    5D II 2.4 MP/cm²

    D3s 1.4 MP/cm²

    If MarkIV were fullframe it would have about 27MP

    So in my world, in nature I would have to compare a 12MP camera against a 27MP, in normal light, maybee upp to 2000 ISO.

    For me as a birdphotographer with a 400mm 5.6 Canon gives me with the MarkIV higher pixeldensity and less noise and better AF compared to my MarkIII.

    I think Canon have made a good trade off, between pixeldensity and noise.

    If I went with Nikon D3s I would probably need at least a 600mm f/4.

  • Dont forget a big group of photographers, the bird/ wildlife photographers, it aint just sport photographers that uses the 1D cameras.

    I normally shoot around 320-800ISO.

    In that light I think it is better to have a more pixeldensity camera like the MarkIV that have about 27MP if it were fullframe against the Nikon D3 at 12MP.

    I heard that sportphotographers from a magazine went from 1D? canon + 400mm 2.8 to Nikon + 600mm f/4 to compensate for fullframe but they loose one stop of light, from f/2.8 to f/4 and some of the noise advantage will be lost.

  • Uh…not really. I’ve got a machine over 2 years old with a Quad-core (C2D) at 3.2GHz.

    By the standards of five-ten years ago, I’d be able to buy either an Octa-core @ 3.2GHz or a Quad-core @ 6.4GHz. At least. Potentially it could (should?) have been a Quad @ 16GHz or a ~20-Core @ 3.2GHz.

    It didn’t happen. i7 is nice, but it doesn’t compare to the speed boosts of the past. Remember going from 600 MHz Pentiums in 2000 to 3.06 GHz P4s in 2002?

  • don’t forget it can go up to 8fps with a grip on. i wish i was in your position. i am way to deep into canon lenses (that i am very happy with) to switch, but the FF option for action just isn’t there for us. :-/

  • Ken Rockwell has spoken, end of discussion!!

    As we all know very well, Krockwell is TEH equipment measurebator par excellance, and when this God of Light-gathering says the Nikon “is a serious pro camera”, we should believe him even though he’s not a pro, was never a pro, and takes JPEG-only pictures whose artistic merits are inferior to any teen-aged kid’s shots with the cheapest point&shoot. Also, when he pompously states that the “5D Mark II is just another consumer electronics product”, we should trust him since he is, after all, the #1 gadget-collecting Nikon fanboi this side of Thomland and he actually “reviews” products he has never used nor even touched. :P

    All hail the Level-0 Photography Level champion that is Krockwell!

  • MP is a facet of IQ. If Canon makes different trade-offs than Nikon, it doesn’t mean that Canon is chasing marketing benefits over image quality.

    That said, a 3D with lower pixel density is pretty overdue, don’t you think?

  • Of course I have but it’s not an effect that everybody likes.Did you read my first post!! It still loses the atmosphere. Any flash effect loses the atmosphere.

  • The contest seem to be very fishy.

    The crops in the blogs are NOT consistent with the full pictures posted on flickr! And the areas outside of the crops seem to be much to soft for a high class sensor of Nikon. The Nikon pictures seem to be softened.

    I wait for good tests bei DPreview or DxoMark.

  • Yes, I read your first post. If the “atmosphere” is highly animated, almost chaotic, with performers moving frequently and quickly, then the technique emphasizes the atmosphere. But you’re right, it’s a technique that isn’t appropriate to most situations.

    Another application of flash to set it 2-3 stops below ambient and use it for SLIGHT fill to reduce contrast slightly.

  • The 1D4 sensor pixel “density” is way higher than the D3s, therefore the noise level will be higher. One can certainly argue whether higher pixel density, at this level, is a good thing or not (I would think >90% of users can not actually benefit from it), but from CMOS sensor technology point of view, the 1D4 sensor is much higher tech device than the D3s. I think Canon engineers should learn that higher tech does not necessarily sell products. On the other hands, I have to say that I do admire Canon’s small-size, gap-less CMOS sensor. That technology is so advanced. Hopefully, someday Canon will have a team of good optical engineer plus good marketeers to utilize better their own CMOS technology.

  • Well if they applied that “higher tech” sensor technology to a lower pixel density sensor what would you have?

  • It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the excuses you are all making. Canon was pushing the 1D Mark IV as the evolution of photography. Well that was until the D3s was released days before the 1D Mark IV.

    The fact is smart people should know you dont need 20+ megapixels with clean ISO 25,000 to be happy. It’s not hard to use programs like genuine fractals to make those 12megapixel files print extremely large.

    That being said I seriously hope both Nikon and Canon focus more on image quality, high and low ISO and forget about pushing megapixels. I’m rarely using my D3x anymore and using the D3s more and more.

  • @ 50/50.

    some of my best images have been taken on what was in my hands at the time, in most cases it was a olympus om4ti, the current camera I have now has enabled me to catch up somewhat. I now have acquired the use autofocus which has proved helpful… my capture rate (in focus images) is even better

    I believe that what 50/50 could be indicating here is that regardless of all the great technological advances and ones to come too… people has still managed to capture shots are astounding and this was prior to the advent of such technologies, these images are still captivating us in 2010.

    I’m a believer that if you are good photographer, you can use what’s in your hands in order to produce a good image.

  • I too am now in wait mode…..other than the 7D…which I would use for sports…..there is no other Canon body I am interested in….none…..kind of sad……wait to see what the rumored Nikon D800 will be….I am not so invested in Canon that would stop me from switching….in fact since I bought all my lenses on sale, most of them now sell for more than I bought them for.

  • Back when the forum on this site was still up someone had posted some links to sample ISO photos from the 1DIV. They looked excellent, all the way up to 12800. They were not crops, they were actual full size photos.

    I think people are making way too much of this comparison. Who really gives a crap about crops? Not to mention that if you learn some post-processing in Photoshop noise is usually not that much of an issue anyway.

    I shoot at ISO 1600 on my 450D all the time. I just do noise reduction where it’s needed–important parts of the photo, peoples faces ect.

    Disclosure: I have no interest or need for either one of these cameras. They both look excellent IMO.

  • neither the 1D IV nor the 3Ds are withing my budget range. But from what if seen so far, Nikon wins. I am not trolling. I am a 30D user. But, we cannot support a brand for support’s sake. I won’t jump ship. But imagine, if Nikon one day would choose to build its own sensors….designed according to their needs…

  • Yea, I’d switch right now if it weren’t for my incredibly awesome 70-200 2.8 IS. Oh yea, I forgot that I also bought three flashes too. You sound smarter than I as you bought lenses on sale and may be able to make the switch easier. I’m jealous. I can just Hope, Hope, and Hope some more that Canon will stop acting like a heel and put out a 3D to please a larger proportion of its customers rather than focusing on a special minority for each camera. Come on with the 1.3X crop on 1DMIV! That would have been such a spectacular camera if it had been FF with 16mpx!!! I know this is repeated over and over but Canon has to see some of these comments requesting/begging for a similar camera.
    Good luck with your wait mode. I’m with you.

  • The latest one is that gadget geeks with zero photography skills prefer Nikon to Canon because they all they do is view full-res pictures 100% with their barely 2MP, 6-bit, low color gamut LCD screens and they never print those pix because they are too cr4ppy to waste ink on…

  • The conclusion of this comparison is obvious – Nikon is better than Canon. Since I shoot Canon cameras I therefore feel very bad about myself. If I use inferior products I am no doubt an inferior person. Time to schedule an appointment with the therapist.

  • Nikon does make its own sensors for the the D3/D3s/D700. In the D3x and D300 they use a Sony sensor.

    The rumored new Nikon release in Feb is supposed to use a Nikon in-house sensor.

  • Nikon definitely looks better in this comparison. I agree 100%. But, I think people outright saying that the 1DIV sucks when they’ve never even shot with one is bit ridiculous.

    They only reason I bought a Canon DSLR is because I had EF lenses from my film cameras. I want to buy a new camera this year and I’m really hoping the 60D is something that appeals to me. Otherwise I’d love to have a 5DII, but I don’t think I want to spend that much on a camera.

  • Ditto that! My canon camera and 85 1.2 can take pictures in the DARK without adding any noise, simply because my iso stays under 400.

  • Film is only dead if you don’t like 6×6 square format, and/ or don’t want to spend 25k on a new digital MF back (none of which are presently square format either; and I don’t like to crop). Sorry but you are so off on that it’s pathetic.

  • I am an old school guy (slide film user for over 25 years) and rarely shoot above 800 – my Canon files from the 5D II and Mark IV are both amazing. According to this site the Nikon files are great too -esp at the stratospheric ISO’s.

    The way I see it you can always complain about the technology you use- but if you make a living with a camera (and computer) you have wonderful choices right now.

  • look beyond your perception of technically perfect flash-lit photos; some people don’t like to shoot that way. Photography is an open form of expression/ capturing of the moment…

  • +++++1 The 3D will be Canon’s only chance at redemption. If that fails, prepare for a new era in undisputed Digital SLR supremacy- the Nikon D3-4-5 era….

  • Fractal Printing?

    Wow, are there such software (print driver) available on the market! Or is this just a BS blogging?

  • understand your point charles bronson, but as I have eyes to see, it ain’t no need to own a 1DIV to rate IQ. There’s a lot of people rating IQ and nois when a new body hits the streets without putting hands on. I always welcome any samples someone puts on the net. concerning the 3Ds it was just obvious.

  • Genuine fractals is for resizing photos with.

    FWIW, a 1DIV user has stated that properly exposed photos @ ISO 1600 look like ISO 200 (and the high ISO performance is better than the 5DII).

    I wouldn’t be worried about anything other than the price point if I were you!

    Oh and one point, don’t expect a cheapo lens to return great photos on a 1DIV or any other camera with a high pixel density!

  • You know originally I wasn’t happy about the AF system on the 5D Mark II but the more I use it the happier I’ve been. I love the image quality, sharpness, and flexibility of this camera. I’ve used it for sports photography and moving cars and I’ve haven’t had any issues so far.

    Going back several posts above this, someone suggested to all these negative posters that they might need to take a photography class. I would very much agree with that.

    In the days of film, and before the time of AF guided machine gun shooting, photographers still produced beautiful images. If the 5DmII is useless, I’d hate to see what these people would say about my Canon AE-1 (I’m still in my 20s if you’re curious).

    There are just too many arm chair photographers who love to compare pixels and iso ranges. I’ve got a few jobs lined up this weekend, so my useless 5DMII isn’t so useless.

    One more thing…
    Now that I shoot at 21megapixels there’s no going back for me. Trust me, there’s definitely a use for it, its not a 5% of the time thing, for me the pixel count comes in handy 40% of the time. Clients love it.

    While Nikon is doing amazing things at 12MP I am happy that my Canon is doing fairly great things at 21MP. When you’re not analyzing pixels you won’t see the difference in quality between Canon’s 21MP vs. Nikon’s 12MP.

    Thanks.

  • Aand since the 1Ds4 will have like 32MP it will also likely be stuck at only 5fps, 32MP and 5fps are kinda nasty for sports and action.

    Until canon ditches the annoying 1D/1Ds system they are stuck.

    Forget about a small (5D2/D700) factor FF with any speed.

    Heck, forget about even a large, expensive FF with any speed.

    A 5D2 with a faster mirror box and dual-digic 4 and 1D2n AF would’ve really been something, gets you much nicer reach than the nikons, decent speed, solid sports/action AF, nice small size.

    So basically with Canon you can get a small sensor and top AF and speed or a large sensor with great reach in either case.

    And from Nikon you can get large sensor and top AF/speed but limited reach.

    Canon actually has had the technology for well over a year to do both, but the dumb 1D/1Ds/1 series protection scheme has them stuck.

    I have a strong feeling Nikon will be the first to combine both, even though Canon could’ve accomplished it far earlier. Granted Canon maybe did milk a bit more profit out of it but I really wonder if they haven’t carried it a little too far and won’t lose out in the end.

  • That’s a bit overstated!

    Yeah the outerpoints are too off-on/slow for action, but the center point is better than on a 50D even for tracking sports (not that this says something amazing :) ).

    The frame rate is pretty sad though as are the mirror blackout and pretty much everything having to do with speed.

    Anyway I actually prefer it over a 50D for shooting sports.

  • Yeah sure!

    That’s why I need to go to at least ISO 1600 with a 35mm f/1.4 L to get shuter speeds fast enough to capture stage musicals.

    I wonder what you shoot in the dark with an 85mm f/1.2 ???

    Cityscapes at nighttime, tripod mounted?

  • Yeah, sure. Well, you just keep underexposing then.

    What a laugh! Every decent photographer knows better.

  • The iso performance is significantly better than the 5D Mark II.

    And Yes Genuine Fractals is all you really need for resizing images to make large prints without having really bad distortion. I’ve done 32″x48″ prints with photos from my 12mp Nikon D3s. I was a Canon pro shooter until this year when it seemed like Canon stopped caring.

    All I’m saying is both Canon and Nikon should stop trying to push huge MP sensors at us and just concentrate on things which are going to make a bigger difference. I’m sure we’d all agree if we could get a camera with 12-16mp that had ISO 25000 images that look like ISO 400 we’d be much more happier than if they were giving us a 32mp camera that wasn’t nearly as versatile.

  • I agree! 1d4 may not be able to outperform full frame D3s, but i really think the tests done were a little unfair to canon. First the sensor size is different, second I always feel that there is a little more processing in nikon cameras even though everything set to “low” settings, and third, remember 40D vs 50D… 50D is a much better camera than the 40D in my opinion because of the level of details it captures and features which surpasses the 40D. But because of the forums in the internet saying 50D is crap, its damage done is for good and 50D remains a low selling cameras; lets not do this for the 1D4… I’m sure its a great camera if used for its intended use.

    Everyone thinks that nikon is so great because of its high iso capabilities. I think, with Nikon high iso capabilities, there will be trade off somewhere. Nikon is unable to increase the pixel count because of this very reason and nikon shooters who love to make big prints can only settle for d3x… which is double the price to the d3s; whilst us, there we have the 5DII at a fraction of the cost.

    however, I do think that canon should make their top end cameras with 4 segmentation… landscape (5D2), wedding (3D), sports (1D4) and studio/allround (1Ds4).

    …oh yes and consumer all round pro (7D). With this line up, canon will cover for everyone needs.

  • TBH, the Nikon’s going to have what maybe 1 stop advantage over the 1DIV? The 1DIV has better high ISO capability than the 5DII (which is pretty good in its own right) so lets just use the right tool for the right job! (And this Canon vs Nikon is getting pretty tiring ESPECIALLY without any decent testing!)

  • you don’t know what you are missing out…i had canon, and once i tried nikon you will see you can do things that you couldn’t even imagine with a canon.

  • Try as I might, I don’t see Nikon pushing huge MP sensors at us :) Canon, on the other hand..

    I hope that Canon Inc. will soon wake up and realize that they’re loosing customers; all thanks to their unwillingness to listen to them.

    Not saying that more megapixels always compromises image quality, but I think Canon would be better off redirecting their R&D efforts towards better high ISO and better dynamic range, rather than throwing more and more megapixels our way.

  • I also enjoy iso 50 on the 5d2 I wish it had 25.
    my clients also enjoy the 1080p video.
    And they do ask for it.

  • 100% agree with you on that one! I’m sick of nikon lovers coming on a CANON site to talk about how much they love their Nikons. If you love it so much, go talk to other nikon shooters who share your passion. Quit wasting our time talking about products that DO NOT pertain to users with tens of thousands of dollars in lenses. If you seriously think Nikon is the best go ahead and switch, it won’t be long before Canon make a MUCH better product than Nikon even regarding extremly high iso, etc. Thats the way the market works, companies leap frog each other. The minute you buy your amazing Nikon, you will want the latest and greatest from Canon, who’s new camera will put Nikon to shame. If you want to keep switching back and forth over a one stop advantage on iso but a MAJOR hit on megapixels. Go Ahead! Personally I will keep my Canon, shoot as much as possible, and wait for the camera of my dreams to released by the Company I KNOW will produce it!

  • What surprises me about all this is the fact that only a handful of people, and 1 person, has mentioned the 1DIVs. The 1DIV is a 1.3 crop pro body camera. Aimed at sports photographers. Comparing it to the D3s is unfair. How about we wait a few weeks when canon announces the 1DIVs, the full framer, before we make assumptions and allegations. So many here forget (or dont know about the canon line, speaking about those nikon users on a canon rumor website) the fact that canon separates their pro bodies for different uses. 1d for sports and 1ds for landscape/portrait shooting. 1d 1.3 crop and 1ds full frame. Class over nikon users.

  • Take a look at this junk in low light, what a crappy camera.

    Please read specific information relative to the evaluation of this cameraLeaf Aptus75S
    Leaf Aptus75S
    DxOMark Sensor
    77.3
    100
    Color Depth
    24.7
    28
    Dynamic Range
    12.5
    15
    Low-Light ISO
    538
    2527
    © DxO Labs. Get this DxOMark widget
    Copy paste the following tag in your html page
    Close
    dxomark
    Launch Date 2006-09-26
    Indicative price 32995 USD
    Resolution 33 Mpix (6666 x 4992)
    Pixel pitch 7.2 µm
    Bits per pixel 14
    Focal length multiplier 0.72
    ISO latitude 50 – 800
    Frame rate 0.83 fps

  • LMAO you trust information from DxOMark Sensor. A site that also sells software to help improve image quality. LMFAOOOOO!!!! Yeah keep trusting that information.

  • I suppose if you keep predicting the APS-H death after each 1D release, at some point is going to happen. It doesn’t mean you were right though, so make sure you don’t beat chest…

  • I miss rumors. Nikon rumors site, I’m sorry to say, has an abundance of news and rumors on it, the torpid pace of new entries on this site, of late in particular, is kind of sad, if for no other reason than for these squabbles that run into the 200 posts range.

    4/3 and Nikon Rumors are more fun of late.

  • I think there will be alot of happy a new Canon users when they can produce a 7D with the ~21 MP FF censor from the 5dii whatever it is called?

  • Parker, I agree and it’s never surprising to me how FEW people post links to their own work, regardless of brand of equipment. In the end, it’s what a photographer produces rather than what is used. Creativity, imagination and a story are the elements which cannot be defined by brand/statistics.

    It’s the same on so many forums whether the subject is motorcycles, cars, handguns, camera or audio gear. Mine is better than yours is confined to what a team of engineers have designed and produced. What each of us DOES with those tools is a reflection of our own skills and that is so seldom talked about in any forum.

    For me focusing on the skills behind the lens is much more productive than nitpicking over equipment.

  • You don’t get it, don’t you. That’s why the D3s vs. 1D4 comparo shots are invalid, the D3s shots were underexposed compared to the 1D4 ones, so how can you make a valid comparison.

  • Two things you can’t run away from is that most lenses optimum optical performance are at approximately F5.6 – F8. Sometimes to shoot in that range you need to cranck up the ISO, but above 3 200 things becomes a bit academic in most run of the mill situations. So “high” ISO performance is important to keep the shutter running at low light and when tracking fast moving situations.

    This brings me to DLA. I am not a DLA “junky” but the following DLA apertures and camera IQ tells a story?

    Canon 50D (F7.6)

    Canon 7D (F6.8)

    Canon 5D2 (F10.3)

    Canon 1D4 (F9.1)

    Nikon D3s (~F15.6)

  • What I worry about is that Canon’s technology isn’t as good as Nikon’s for noise reduction even at the same pixel density. It’s pretty frightening that the D3x has better high-iso performance than the 1Ds Mark 3, which has a lower pixel count than the D3x.

    I have the sneaking suspicion that Canon believes they can’t compete with Nikon at the same pixel density and therefore they’re obliged to pump megapixels to compete asymmetrically.

    Who knows, it took Intel about 2 cycles to compete with AMD after the clockspeed mishap. Canon definitely cannot have the same quality R&D as Intel, which means that it may take another 3-5 years before Canon outclasses Nikon at high iso.

  • I apprecitate this honest statement. that’s what a forum is all about as there is freedom of speech. without having either a high quality 1DIV or a D3s I can see it in the samples that you are right.

  • i think you people belong on the nikon rumors site i do not post how much better canon is on that site and you must be dreaming if you think people would constantly switch back and forth between brands for a small upgrade canon is more affordable some of us are not rich enough to play the constant upgrade game you propose all that counts is the image are you creating images or constantly playing the hardware game.

  • These comments over the past few days have gotten rather heated with Canon and Nikon users,Well i’m a 5d mk11 users and own only L lenses to go with this beauty of a camera mine.
    Shooting with the EF 70-200mm IS, and my prime EF24mm mk11 both great lenses.
    the IQ from the 5dmk11 is fantastic only standing still with no movement.
    I had a Canon 1dmk4 on order from last year now this week i changed my order for the Nikon 3Ds.
    It has blow en me away ,it’s a full frame rocket ship ,that can shoot in full frame ,1.2 crop 1.5 crop this is what made the sale from canon.Canon should have this in their camera as well.
    Canon might have high IQ but i bought this camera for the same price as the 1D mk4,and it my not have amazing Video but the photography of this camera is amazing.
    As for me i have not finished with canon I just love there IQ with high Pixels ,so my next camera this year will be the 1Ds mk4 .
    As i believe that nikon will not be able to match this camera in any way.

  • If any of these assclowns had a 1D4, like, say, me their opinion might actually matter. That insecurity on the part of some Nikonians is pretty sad. Maybe that 720p Yugo codec got them down. Shouldn’t you be counting specks, air bubbles and cracked threads on the Nikon 70-200 vr ii ? That the CR guy would cute such a biased test from an obscure site is a bunch of crap, too.

  • Seriously, the comparison between the 1DMk4 and the D3s isn’t even close.

    It’s almost worth buying just the D3s and a few faster lenses for low light, and keeping your old Canon stuff.

    Nobody should reward Canon by buying the *noisemonster* that is the 1DMk4.

    If this isn’t enough of a wake-up call to the corporate types at Canon in Japan, then nothing ever will be.

  • Well, I guess you are missing a point, Gerald. There is freedom of speech. Therefore you are allowed to express your opinion too. But, in my opinion, your description of posters (including me) is a bit off target. Everybody here can compare any cam to another. And that’s the way the story goes, have a nice day amigo.

  • Well, then they’re on top for a couple of years. Just wait, and Canon wakes up again. It’s been like that for years, and it will go on. Oh guys, i’ve been waiting for the perfect camera to show up for years now. No noise to ISO 6400, faster focus than you can blink, oh, and below 2K$ please. Didn’t exactly stop me from buying a decent camera though ;) When that perfect thing shows up, i’ll switch to whoever makes one, but i’m not holding my breath. Them Nikonians are screaming that the D3 has too few pixels, that there are no decent affordable tele-lenses, and so on. Just so you know it :P

  • I’m knew here, so somebody explain – I don’t get this site. This is what it seems – you are a Nikon owner and you absolutely love Nikon but you are so so worried that Canon may produce a better camera than yours that you have to go to a Canon fan site and post how your camera is much better!! You don’t show any links to your own work you just bore everybody with scenarios we, as photographers, are only in occassionaly and say that clinches it. Good for you – but you Nikon boys remind me of android phone boys putting down the iphone. If you love Nikon – hey, I’m pleased for you – go to a Nikon site!! I buy products that I like and suit my needs, unlike some here who are more interested in “mine is bigger and better than yours” bragging rights.

  • Agreed.

    That’s why I have assistants during my weddings. They carry my external flashes around.

    The most I’d go is ISO 3200 for weddings anyway. I prefer creative lighting than being stuck with ambient light. Photography was and is always about painting with light. If there is not enough light, then add some more. :) Those who say flashes are bad, then why don’t you take a look at http://www.strobist.com

  • 5d2/1D3 is better since it has less pixels jammed on the FF sensor.

    24mp is pushing it! Shame on Nikon.

    Now, why don’t we get comments like this? :) But we certainly get lots of comments why Canon did not make a D700 like 12mp FF. 5D was 12mp but AF wasn’t as good as the D700.

  • regardless of pixel count and affordability of tele lens, the facts are out that the latest Canon top of the line “sports/ action” camera is sub-par to Nikon’s older model. Canon has officially went from 2 steps ahead of Nikon in the 1D MKI/ MKII era to 2 steps BEHIND in the MK4 (just released last month, while Nikon had already released their latest camera over 6 mos. prior and probably well on their way to releasing an even more improved camera), with no signs of drastic improvments in the next model on the horizon. Sorry, (and I’ve been a diehard Canon supporter for over 15 years) but I think the Era of white lenses reigning supreme in numbers are about to end within a year or so.

  • It it absurd to say it’s unfair to Canon. Canon specifically targeted the 1D4 for the same market as the D3. It doesn’t matter what chip they decide to put in said camera. Then why arent’ you complaining about Canon not making a FF “sports” camera in the same market as the D3? If that was the case about not comparing different sensor cameras, that means the D3 really is a class above. :-)

  • Sure, when you spend the 5k on a new camera for me, I’ll stop complaining about inferior products…

  • raising the bar is good for consumers only if the price goes down,otherwise all you are getting is minor updates and u end up paying much more for every new gen cam.

    as it stands right now canon is trying to catch up nikon not only in the technical stuff but on pricing level also,we are paying too much for cams at pro level from both companies simply because there aint a third company to challenge them.

    a 7D + a better AF + Body + 1 to 1 1/2 stop better iso = 1dMK4 and you pay how many 1000$ more?

    a nik d700 + a better body + 1 stop iso = d3s . a few 1000$ more,
    why cos no other brand makes a good enough com to compete

  • Just looked it over… apparently the 32 mp 1Ds Mark 4 is supposed to have the same noise levels as the 16 mp 1D Mark 4. Scaling based on pixel count, the 32 mp 1Ds Mark 4 has eight thirds the pixels of the D3s. That should come up to about one and a third stop from pixel count, and the 1D Mark 4 on a second look is 2 stops distant from the D3s. That comes out to two thirds of a stop difference post-noise reduction / scaling, making the 1D Mark 4 very competitive with the D3s on high iso noise.

  • First off, the 7D isn’t at the same level of the D700, in terms of price and specs (especially in relation to sensor size) you have to compare the 5D MkII and the D700, and in that respect, the price to go up from either of those to the MkIV or the D3s is the same.

    I HATE pixel peepers, it’s because of you guys that there aren’t any real substantial upgrades in these camera tiers in terms of dynamic range, speed, ergonomics, features and innovation. Stop peeping, just stop. Isn’t there other ways to judge a camera? I’ve been asking that for like a year now and no one wants to give me an answer, they just want to argue over ISO performance at ISO 12800 and higher. Who uses that ISO range anyway, I never would. I would probably never use anything over 400 or 800. Why would you? Doesn’t anyone use a flash? It isn’t hard you know, and you can get great shots with a flash that look like you’re ambient light. I don’t get it, maybe I’m old fashioned from the days of film when you didn’t want to go over 800 ISO. Oh well, have fun peeping, I’ll have fun shooting, and worrying about the right angle, instead of how my camera is going to perform at an ISO level I’m never going to use.

  • Did not notice if discussed somewhere here already but wondered why in the 1D4 EXIF there is “Software: Digital Photo Professional” even though claimed to be directly from the camera.

  • high ISO is hugely important to us event/wedding photographers. I can’t fire powerful flashes/studio strobes inside a catholic church. Yet now with the D3/D700 class camera’s I can get amazing stuff for the couple even in super dark churches. That said, I would love a wider dynamic range (i *am* a weddding photographer. lol). Nikon Ergonomics are great.

    We need more/better video functions, iso 3200 IQ at 25,600, more DR, and *much* better WB and auto-WB.

    Oh, and lower prices :)

  • Totally agreed, Canon’s 5D series has always been a massive winner, and in my eyes Canon’s best cameras have always been the 5D & 5DMK II. Fantastic balance of size, weight, functionality and price. High Iso/Noise wise it also outperforms the MK4 according to DXOMark which is in my opinion absolutely reliable.

    As a Nikon user i must say i feel safe at the moment with my choice in brand. As a landscape / low-light action photographer the 5DmkII is the only real competitor to the entire Nikon lineup, compared to the D700 it serves better as a landscape camera. Just depends weather i feel like doing landscape / low light, id rather have both!

  • Yes, I have owned a Nikon D3s, and every single digit D-series body before it, as well as every single digit F-series bodies up to the F3, and have used them extensively under all extremes and conditions. As a photojournalist for the past 26 years, Nikon has been my choice. Until now.

    Now I have begun to seriously contemplate a change-over to the Canon 1D line because of the exacting standards and demands in today’s print media.
    As the bar is constantly set higher in terms of resolution and manageable noise for publication purposes, I have found the Nikon product lagging. Most photojournalists do not have time to play around with photoshop or other software to refine their shots, especially when they are shooting a few thousand at a time, and need to have them filed immediately thereafter. Very little today, (in print media), is shot over 6400 anyways, so super high ISO’s aren’t really that important at all. Besides, the photographer isn’t the one who decides which shots are to be used, that’s the job of the editor. Full Frame or 1.3 crop, isn’t really relevant, not by today’s digital print/publishing standards. Detail, and sharpness, as well as that “right moment” which comes with speed are the determining factors that count.

    I came to this site looking for valid comparisons between the 1D MK IV & D3s, but found only squabbling amongst amateur users. I would appreciate it if there were any MK IV owners out there who could share their experiences and impressions.

Leave a Reply

Latest Post

Canon PowerShot V1 vs G7 X Mark III
A New “G” Series PowerShot is Coming
Canon PowerShot
TAMRON completes the G2 Trinity, announces Ultra Wide-Angle 16-30mm F2.8 G2 Zoom
Industry News
Canon Summer Trade-in Event, Get up to $500 Trade-in Bonus
Deal Zone
Exploring The History of Innovation: The Canon EOS 5 Series
Canon EOS R
Lowepro Adventura Go BP 150 Backpack $29 (Reg $99)
Deal Zone
DZOFilm Pictor 14-30mm T2.8 Super35 Parfocal Zoom $1199 (Reg $2629)
Deal Zone