Printable View
Comments regarding equipment have been so cordial I thought we could handle a Canon VS Nikon thread.;)
Below is a link to DXOMark's test results comparing the brand new Canon Mark IV to the Nikon D3s.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...V-vs-Nikon-D3s
I'll start the comments off by offering my interpretation of the test results.
The Nikon D3s smashed the Canon Mark IV in picture quality.
James
So much for being cordial. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by James Shadle
I heard the other day that 2004 called Nikon and asked for their 12 megapixels back:)
"I'll start the comments off by offering my interpretation of the test results.
The Nikon D3s smashed the Canon Mark IV in picture quality.
James"
Someone pass the popcorn, this is going to get good. :D
I ain't getting on this one, claiming the 5th....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lacy
Awesome!!!!!!:):)
Love it Don!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lacy
Likewise James, I tried to stir things up about teleconverters in a different thread. Looks like folks took the bait!!! It's not hard- just say something like the other company makes lenses for your grandmother. It works.
Apologies to all grannies out there.
Haven't seen a good flight for a while, duke it out!!!
This post has been up for hours and no fights have broken out? Man, BPN folks sure are mature :)
Ok I will play again,
After reading the DXO artical I decided to sell my canon system (40D, 500 f/4, 300 f/4, 70-200 f/4, 17-40 f/4, 100 f/2.8 marco, 28-135 IS and 550 EX flash) and switch to Nikon Can't wait for my D90 and 50 f/1.4 lens to arrive:D
Don
I can see you changing the bodies but why on earth would you step backwards and also get new lenses. Should have kept the good white ones and used adapters....:D
Bill
The dxo results are dominated by pixel size. In focal length limited situations, like bird photography with the subject small in the frame, there is more to image quality than simply pixel size. The pixel size difference is 8.4 microns for the nikon and 5.7 microns for the canon, for a ratio of 1.47. So if the canon had a 500 mm f/4 lens and the nikon had a 1.47*500 = 735 mm f/4 lens, then the Nikon would win (duh). But since there is no 735 mm f/4 lens on the market the argument is moot. Given the same lens on the two cameras, the canon will give more detail on a subject (e.g. both cameras having 600 mm f/4 lenses). Dxo does not discuss this situation.
In non-focal length limited situations, where you change the focal length to match the field of view then the nikon would win in image quality. E.g. canon with a 50 mm f/1.4 an the nikon with a 50*1.3 (the 1.3 factor is the sensor size ratio) 65 mm f/1.4 lens, the nikon will produce lower noise low light images but with slightly lower resolution. Assuming the read noise and fixed pattern noise is similar in the two cameras (a tall order with canon's new technology), the nikon images would be very nice. I'll hold judgment until I see read noise and fixed pattern levels on the D3s.
Roger
D3S works well for me :) and do I care how many megapixels it doesnt have :)
Apples v. Pears?
Full frame v 1.3 sensor.
Comparison pointless!
Not true Ken. Comparisons are very useful in this case. There are trade-offs in each system as explained by Roger above and they have to do with pixel size rather than sensor size. The D3s has big, high quality pixels resulting in lower noise, but does not lay as many over a given area of image as the mk IV, thus resulting in a reduced ability to capture fine detail. The result of the trade-off as I understand it is a sweet spot in IQ at around a pixel size of 5-6 microns (Roger please correct me if I'm wrong here), although the mk IV is performing like it had bigger, higher quality pixels than it does because of latest technology advances Canon has made.
I'd just like to point out that noise impacts our ability to "see" the fine detail captured by a higher resolution camera, especially if that detail is of a random nature (e.g. most landscapes). From my perspective we are talking about a trade-off between (1) more initial detail but captured at the expense of noise and (2) lower noise but captured at the expense of less initial detail. So, how can we truly evaluate A-camera versus B-camera, is there any way to perform the trade-off other than comparing two prints of equal size?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Chardine
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
As a bird photographer, I would want to look at crops producing identical fields of view in a focal length limited situation. You have to compare cameras by devising a test that duplicates your typical photographic conditions. In this case put a 500mm lens on each body. Mount them on a tripod in a fixed position relative to a photographic subject. Then crop the D3s image to match the one you get from the 1D Mark IV. Compare image quality when you have to crop by 25%, 50%, and 75%.
It makes no sense to me to simply move the D3s tripod closer to the subject; it negates the advantage of the Mark IV in a focal length limited situation and doesn't duplicate real world photographic conditions (where we often can't get any closer to our avian subjects).
We can and it is not difficult, for equivalent focal length situations D3S provides a cleaner image and the extra 4 mpixel of MKIV do not provide a noticeable difference in visual detail levels in an average scene as shown nicely by dpreview.com reviewQuote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Kurkjian
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kIV/page26.asp
In the case of fixed camera to subject distance (FL limited) 1DMKIV will provide 2.25 times more pixels on the subject which will enable it to render finer feather details unless the ISO is very high and noise starts to impact detail.
Which one is better? depends on your shooting condition, I can adjust my distance to the bird in the field for the type of species that I photograph most of the time, sometimes even clip the wings! So for me the deciding factor is tracking AF performance.
If you are simply talking about comparing the camera's capabilities, I think it makes sense to do that. To me, it actually makes no sense to compare a cropped image of D3s against a non-cropped image of the Mk IV, given that the latter has more pixels to work with to begin with. Besides, some photographers may actually be able to get real close to the birds/animals :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Brown
Then it seems to me you're bringing in other elements into the picture, the skills of the photogragphers, for example. A crop-factor camera such as a D300 would make shooting from a distance easier for the photographers, but I don't think you can say it's image quality is better than a D3.Quote:
it negates the advantage of the Mark IV in a focal length limited situation and doesn't duplicate real world photographic conditions (where we often can't get any closer to our avian subjects).
I disagree Desmond. It makes perfect sense to crop a D3s image to the same FOV as a Mark IV image taken from the same distance to subject. More often than not we are focal length limited as bird photographers (people doing setup work are the exception). If you and I are standing on a boardwalk and a bird is on the water a fixed distance from us, unless you plan on swimming to the bird with your gear, you are going to take the photo from the same distance that I am. The extra pixels give the Mark IV an advantage that you would attempt to neutralize. You are trying to give the D3s a handicap. It's no different than saying that because the D3s, with its FF sensor and 12 MP count, has a high ISO advantage over the Mark IV, we should compare ISO 1600 images from the D3s to ISO 800 shots from the Mark IV to even the playing field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
This is turning into an interesting discussion.
How good is good enough? I have a wrap around magazine cover from the 4 MP Nikon D2H.
If the Mark IV's FOV is an decisive advantage over the D3s, why not use the 7D?
More often than not we are focal length limited as bird photographers (people doing setup work are the exception).
This is a statement I must humbly disagree with. We can be focal length limited , but in my experience not "more often than not". Otherwise, why buy anything other than a 1.6 crop factor camera?
If you and I are standing on a boardwalk and a bird is on the water a fixed distance from us, unless you plan on swimming to the bird with your gear, you are going to take the photo from the same distance that I am. The extra pixels give the Mark IV an advantage that you would attempt to neutralize. You are trying to give the D3s a handicap.
"Run what you brung" is an old drag racing slogan. Great photographers create images regardless of the FOV.
Create images with the gear available, if your not "long enough", there are almost always other opportunities that can be had with shorter lenses or a greater FOV.
I own a D300 and a D700. Should I use the D300 exclusively because of the 1.5 crop factor?
No. They are two completely different tools.
Here is how I decide what tool to use:
Wide angle work - (no brainer) D700
Poor Light - D700
General bird photography including BIF - D700
Approachable small subjects - D700
Small difficult to approach subjects - D300
As you can see, I prefer the wider FOV with it's clean image quality. I may need to move a few feet closer to my subject, but that's not usually a problem.
It's no different than saying that because the D3s, with its FF sensor and 12 MP count, has a high ISO advantage over the Mark IV, we should compare ISO 1600 images from the D3s to ISO 800 shots from the Mark IV to even the playing field.
Kinda like a handicap in a golf scramble? :)
I'm not much of a farmer, so having a sensor crammed full of pixels is not as important to me as a clean, sharp image.
As Ken said earlier, apples and pears. But it's fun to discuss.
But you live in Florida and I live in New Mexico James! Big difference as far as approachability goes. If I could get as close to the birds as you Floridians do, I'd probably consider a FF body for birds. I'm not sure I've ever used a 70-200 for birds in New Mexico! :)
The whole point of the 1.3 crop is that it's a nice compromise between the 'reach' of a 1.6 crop sensor and the image quality of a FF sensor.
Great photographers do make great images regardless of FOV, but it's always nice to get more pixels on the bird (especially if it occupies a relatively small portion of your FOV). In the case of the Mark IV vs. the D3s, the Mark IV holds its own all the way up to ISO 3200; that's about as high an ISO as I would ever consider using for birds. But I get better detail with my 16 MP than you do with your 12, and I'm able to crop more aggressively if I need to.
"But I get better detail with my 16 MP than you do with your 12, and I'm able to crop more aggressively if I need to." <!-- / message -->
Are you saying your a farmer?:)
Thanks for the laugh, great reply.
John, I agree with everything you said. I have said the I believe the optimum pixel size is 6 to 8 microns, but that was based on technology (mostly pixel fill factors) from several years ago. Basically we want pixels that collect enough photons to deliver high enough signal-to-noise ratios to be pleasing. With improved technology today, my opinion is the optimum pixel size is about 5 microns. That is based on a subjective level of about 50,000 electrons at base ISO. Figure 1 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/
shows that the 1D4 meets that requirement, as does the 5d2, 1D3, Nikon D3 (and I'm pretty sure the D3s), but the 7D is only half that (about 25K electrons).
It will be interesting to see some bird images with two people side by side with 1D4 and D3s with the same focal length lenses where the bird is small in the frame.
Roger
While the grass may seem greener on the other side of the fence (and you know what, it actually is) you have to stop and consider the horrible humidity those Floridians have to put up with. So pick your poison, you can either (1) sweat all day and shoot birds with a FF/17-40 or (2) stay nice and dry but carry around a 15 pound lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Brown
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
i think if i had to photograph the head of a Black Mamba and had the 1DMK 4 and the D3s both with a 500f4
i would use the 1DMK4 as the image would be bigger :)
Rob
But would it be as sharp? Black Mambas move quickly! The argument will continue forever but, what feels best in your hands, what are you used to - that camera is the one to produce the sharpest and best shots be it Canon or Nikon. I moved to Nikon mainly to obviate the redundancy of two systems in our household and, although I miss some of the Canon features know that I can get the same results with both systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hardy
The grass will always be greener but in my case, photography is a passion and not a lens/camera contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hardy
With stacked converters!:)
It was a bit of a joke Deborah ie you would have to be closer with the Nikon :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah Harrison
Rob.
Also, 12 vs 16 MP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Watkins
Has anyone uprezd the 12 MP and compared?
It should be compared with a full frame 1DS IV whenever it is released. One should also remember that a full frame camera with 12 MP is too less for many people.
Since there are so many variables, it is better to listen to the esoteric analysis of folks like Roger, Emil Martinec, Christian Bull et al.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Nikon will not stay with 12mp in their FF cameras in the future, so if you like the situation now, it's not going to last. I still have my beloved 5D 12 mp FF camera (circa 2005!) and after selling the 50D a while ago (in anticipation of getting the mk IV) I was forced to use the 5D in a focal length limited situation- making images of Bald Eagles at a fixed distance. Although I was happy with the results, I really noticed how limited I was in composing and cropping in post-processing compared to the 50D. This is simply caused by the fact that the 5D (and D3, D3s) pixel density is relatively low- the equivalent of a 5mp camera at 1.5/1.6 crop factor, and has of course nothing to do with sensor size.
Roger Clark, You always make my brain hurt. LOL. But you sure are informative.
Thanks. That's great. Like a good physical workout, exercise for the brain is equally good. Use it or lose it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Grady Weed
Roger
I can live with 1.7 stops less light for over double the pixel density. I need reach and the 1D4 delivers.
Wish it has more dynamic range though. :(
I don't have either camera but am interested in replacing my 1D Mark II and have been reviewing all threads involving the Mark IV. See the following links: http://www.prophotohome.com/news/201...ocus+mkiv+robg+ and the following: http://www.prophotohome.com/news/201...ocus+mkiv+robg+ :confused:
