- This topic is empty.
Nikon vs. Canon
-
Has anyone seen any good reviews/comparisons between the D3 and the 1DS III?
I know they’re not directly comparable,
but maybe somebody has done it…j
Thanks for those links gentlemen-
haven’t gone through them properly yet-
though talk of a D3X sounds good-
I have seen the rumors before-
presumably the new Sony 24Mp sensor?Will have a proper read this evening-
Thanks again-
j
While Sony have a sensor, I’d say it will be a number of months before they have a body to market.
I have a 1D MkIII (Not a 1Ds MkIII), and find it brilliant, but I’ve never yet had to shoot higher than ISO 1600.
randomway wrote:
Are you actually thinking about buying a to-be-released D3x?
Of course-
until I think about the money…The idle speculation concerning the sensor includes a prediction that it’d be extremely difficult to maintain the noise performance of the D3.
Now this doesn’t concern me that much,
since I’ll always use a low iso anyway, where possible-The D3 is an attractive proposition for a lot of reasons-
but talk of a D3x in time for the Olympics might stay my hand for a little while longer-j
i own or have used neither, but my speculation, according to whats out there is the d3 has much better noise supression in the software and the sensor leading to the usual soft canon jpegs, yes i know its a nikon, and the ds’ 21 mp is totaly unnecessary unless your printing at silly sizes a0 ish. so save your money and buy a d300 or 5d
If you need high-res and don’t shoot high iso, why not check the older Canon 1dsmkii or the 5d? If it was me, I would rather get a mf digital back than a 1dsmkiii at that price…. but I guess I’m silly even talking about it since I can’t afford either.
Thanks for the extra responses-
I’d like to stick with Nikon if possible-
and a full frame would be good to go along with the new 24mm shift-I have some experience of uprezzing pictures,
and the most important thing is having a clean sharp image-
something which the Nikon can provide, as much as the other cameras listed-
and possibly more, if you take the particular lens I’m interested in into consideration-I have no particular desire to buy into canon-
and start from scratch-And I can’t afford to buy a MF digital back, and two camera and lens systems to stick on the front of it-
I can already exceed the quality offered by it with the equipment I already have,
and for the purposes I use it for-
Though elimination of the processing stage (for transparencies)
and the scanning stage would be a real treat-Of course, all this could change-
nothing stays still forever-
and resources are always useful, you can’t beat one of everything-The IQ of the Nikon looks really good-
but I really don’t need 9fps-
and that’s a big chunk of what you’re paying for with that camera-But as Zoltan already mentioned- it is coming down in price…
j
If I was a Nikon shooter, I would buy a D3 now without hesitation. As it is, I am a Canon shooter, and I am thinking of buying a……..
……………………….
……………………..………………………..
Nikon D3 :oops:
By the way, there is a short review of the two cameras here http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Canon-EOS-1Ds-MkIII-vs-Nikon-D3
If you don’t need the high iso, I think, your d200 will do almost everything the d3 does, except that the 24mm shift lens is not really useful on dx. By the way, do you have the 24mm already?
No, no 24mm yet-
Comparatively useless without a full frame sensor-I’ve had very good results with large pictures from a D200,
so I can’t argue with that-However, the areas where they can’t compare (for me)
would be high iso- particularly available light portraiture,
and the few outdoor action pictures I take-I like bigger sensors-
even though the D3 isn’t that much bigger-
but they do require longer lenses
which gives more magnification,
which gives less depth of field-And that can be a good thing-
Sometimes, you get tired of having everything sharp….
j
randomway wrote:
I think, your d200 will do almost everything the d3 does
that’s a definite no! :D
The d200 is a nice camera, but that statement is just wrong. I own both BTW.
EDIT : I bought the march issue of Professional Photographer magazine, it mentions in the APril issue there will be a 1dsIII vs D3 article.
cheers
I admit, I was wrong with that statement.
I didn’t want to offend anybody owning a d3, and as a matter of fact, i’m going to buy one shortly… but i think that the d200 is still a competent tool and at low iso values it’s able to produce very high quality images. You are using both bodies so you could tell what’s the difference at low iso, on architectural/landscape/studio shots? Is there a big difference on prints?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
