D3 Vs 1D/s

Eighth Avenue

Eighth Avenue

Messages
1,254
Name
Iain
Edit My Images
Yes
Can someone tell me if I've got this right:

Nikon D3 - Full frame, 9fps, 51 focus points
Canon 1D MkIV - Crop sensor, 10fps, 49 focus points
Canon 1Ds Mk - Full frame, 5fps, 45 focus points

The majority of fottball toggers on here have Canon cameras, surely (and it pains me to say it) you get the best of both cameras in the Nikon, or is it lacking something?

Really don't want this to turn into Canon vs Nikon or a willy waving contest, just want to know if i've missed something

Iain
 
1d Mk4 is a 'crop' but its 1.3 not 1.6, so mid-way between the two (1.6 and FF). I have a mk2 and the IQ is the same, between the two but of course its a brick outhouse compared to 1.6 croppers or even the small 5D with IQ to nearly match the FF.

Matt
 
Last edited:
Your post seems to be more of a statement than a question or start of a discussion.
Are you asking if the Nikon is a better camera?
If I was a football tog I'd probably go for the 1d mkiv. Crop sensor will give a bit more reach on a 2.8 lens, you'd maybe have had to go for a more expensive lens or an f4 lens to get the same reach on ff.
Nikon have really only had a competitor for the 1ds range since they launched the D3x.
 
It's well known that most Sports Canon users that have moved from the 1D to the D3 miss the 1.3 crop factor.
 
I would doubt it
 
admirable said:
I would doubt it
Click to expand...

Well presumably it would be a little better if was full frame with the same MP count since it would have a lower pixel density.

But I think it's about equal to the D3 anyway?
 
squishy said:
Well presumably it would be a little better if was full frame with the same MP count since it would have a lower pixel density.

But I think it's about equal to the D3 anyway?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the D3/D3s still is unrivalled for high ISO work.

That and the fact that Nikon's AF systems works out of the box first time would lead me to side with the D3 (see Gary Coyle's tales of woe with Canon AF after her switch back to Canon from Nikon, and then back to Nikon again)
 
NorthernNikon said:
Sorry, but the D3/D3s still is unrivalled for high ISO work.

That and the fact that Nikon's AF systems works out of the box first time would lead me to side with the D3 (see Gary Coyle's tales of woe with Canon AF after her switch back to Canon from Nikon, and then back to Nikon again)
Click to expand...
One persons bad experience is hardly reason enough to reject a maker, regardless of which manufacturer, fair enough he hated his Canons and a lot of pros have been tempted away but a huge number still remain using Canon, perhaps they work around whatever "issues" others have. Or maybe they are so financially comitted they cant bear to swop :)
I'd agree however that the latest crop of Nikons do seem to have high Iso sorted and I for one wish Canon wouldnt chase teh Mp count as the Holy Grail of photography.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
One persons bad experience is hardly reason enough to reject a maker, regardless of which manufacturer, fair enough he hated his Canons and a lot of pros have been tempted away but a huge number still remain using Canon, perhaps they work around whatever "issues" others have. Or maybe they are so financially comitted they cant bear to swop :)
I'd agree however that the latest crop of Nikons do seem to have high Iso sorted and I for one wish Canon wouldnt chase teh Mp count as the Holy Grail of photography.
Click to expand...

AF issues are not just limited to Gary's experience but I mentioned him as his tales of woe contain a lot of info and references about these issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top