# Should I get the Nikon D3s or the Canon 1D Mark IV?



## schumionbike (Feb 11, 2010)

Hey guys, I'm going to be be shooting a wedding in two weeks for any ex-girlfriend of mine, which one of these camera should I get??


Okay, just kidding guys.  

I found this video review comparing them head to head.  Not the most scientific one in the world but it give a sense of performance of the two cameras.  For me, I can't afford either of them but it's fun to see cameras with these rediculous perfornmances.  Not to mention, the video is rather humorous.  Btw, if you have any beef with the video, please leave the comments on youtube 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkg7pAxi4gE[/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkg7pAxi4gE"][/ame]


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2010)

Fun video! Major difference in the default, out-of-camera JPEG renderings between the Nikon and Canon. I liked the fun, light tone of the video.

A side-by-side comparison of the same two cameras, with the Canon 5D Mark IK thrown in is found here.

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV vs. Nikon D3s: ISO Comparison | neutralday

EDIT on Feb 13,2010: Since I posted this, Rob Galbraith and his staff have published their month-long evaluation of the EOS 1D MArk IV and its autofocus performance. Their conclusion is here,and I think Canon executives will not like the conclusions.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484


----------



## inTempus (Feb 11, 2010)

Yeah, I saw that a while back.  It's a good video, very fun.


----------



## cfusionpm (Feb 12, 2010)

Nikon really cranks up the saturation in their default JPG settings!

Funny video though, and was at least somewhat imformative. lol.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 12, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Nikon really cranks up the saturation in their default JPG settings!
> 
> Funny video though, and was at least somewhat imformative. lol.


Yes they do, some folks think that heavily saturated images look better.  

I shoot in "standard" mode with my Canon's and choose to control the color saturation myself depending on what I'm doing.  You can bump the saturation way up in JPGs from Canon if you want to though.  I know you probably know this, I'm just mentioning it for others here who aren't familiar with Canon bodies.


----------



## skieur (Feb 12, 2010)

Well, comparing images side by side, if you want sharpness go Canon 1D Mark !V.  If you want low noise at high ISOs, go Nikon D3s, and if you want full frame at a cheaper price with sufficient add on features to shake a stick at, then go with Sony A750.

skieur


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 12, 2010)

Nikon's jpegs have a golden hue to them making the model look more Asian than the Canon's jpeg.  In short, if you want to look more Asian (otherwise known as bronze in America), buy the Nikon.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

skieur said:


> Well, comparing images side by side, if you want sharpness go Canon 1D Mark !V.  If you want low noise at high ISOs, go Nikon D3s, and if you want full frame at a cheaper price with sufficient add on features to shake a stick at, then go with Sony A750.
> 
> skieur


You left out if you want the best autofocus system on the market, get the 1D4.  And if you want the best HD video, get the 1D4.


----------



## skieur (Feb 13, 2010)

inTempus said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Well, comparing images side by side, if you want sharpness go Canon 1D Mark !V. If you want low noise at high ISOs, go Nikon D3s, and if you want full frame at a cheaper price with sufficient add on features to shake a stick at, then go with Sony A750.
> ...


 
It depends on what you mean by best autofocus system. If you mean picking the right area to focus on, then you may be correct. If you are talking about speed then you are wrong, according to lab tests by Popular Photography magazine. Sony apparently has the speediest autofocus.

In HD Video, I suspect that the Sony A750 beats the ID4 with stereo sound, 60 fps, full HD, integrated live view and fast autofocus while shooting and this is on an inexpensive full frame camera.

Nevertheless the ID4 may beat the Nikon D3s in those areas.

skieur


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

skieur said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


In terms of AF accuracy in tracking moving targets, you know, the whole reason why people buy a body like this in the first place.  

The 1D4 does 60fps in full HD as well and has full stereo sound (using an external mic).


----------



## skieur (Feb 13, 2010)

inTempus said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > inTempus said:
> ...


 
Actually I find that most cameras track moving objects pretty well. In my gallery there is a sharp image of a dog running full tilt straight toward me.
The weakness I find in autofocus is in the still shots where it focuses on something in front of or behind your main subject.  That is where more time is spent shifting to manual focus.

I notice you have not said whether the ID4 has autofocus or liveview use while shooting video.???

skieur


----------



## GeneralBenson (Feb 13, 2010)

It seems from all these comparisons, that the 1D4 has some chroma-noise problems.  Ang I use the word 'problems' lightly, seeing as how it's still a pretty darn amazing machine, and has very usable low light results.  But in the comparison of the D3s, 1D4, and 5DMKII, the 1D4 has considerably more chroma-noise across the boards, and despite the fact that it's newer and has higher ISO options than the MKII, it does noticeably worse.  I would have expected it to at least be equal on the lower setting like 1600-6400.  Still a beast though.  They said that everything had in camera NR turned off, but the D3s files still look pretty smoothed out and softened.  Looks like it stil had NR running.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

GeneralBenson said:


> It seems from all these comparisons, that the 1D4 has some chroma-noise problems.  Ang I use the word 'problems' lightly, seeing as how it's still a pretty darn amazing machine, and has very usable low light results.  But in the comparison of the D3s, 1D4, and 5DMKII, the 1D4 has considerably more chroma-noise across the boards, and despite the fact that it's newer and has higher ISO options than the MKII, it does noticeably worse.  I would have expected it to at least be equal on the lower setting like 1600-6400.  Still a beast though.  They said that everything had in camera NR turned off, but the D3s files still look pretty smoothed out and softened.  Looks like it stil had NR running.


That's because the D3s most likely does have NR being applied in camera even to RAW files which is why they have such muddy details at high ISO.  I prefer to do my own NR and having the D3s doing NR that I can't stop would be annoying.

The chroma noise isn't that bad in the 1D4 and isn't really all that obvious until you hit ISO 6400.  It's definitely there at 12800, but it still retains amazing detail (something the D3s doesn't).  With good post NR like that by FlexNR it cleans up VERY nicely.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

skieur said:


> Actually I find that most cameras track moving objects pretty well. In my gallery there is a sharp image of a dog running full tilt straight toward me.
> The weakness I find in autofocus is in the still shots where it focuses on something in front of or behind your main subject.  That is where more time is spent shifting to manual focus.


I've found that subjects running towards you isn't that tough of a test for any camera, including my 5D2 which has a pretty weak AF system by comparison.  

It's when you have a subject moving in zig-zag directions (like a basketball player or football player) that you challenge an AF system.  Not all cameras can handle that, and they certainly all can't handle ignoring other players that dart in and out while staying focused on the target.  That's why people want 1D's and D3's.  If all cameras could do it, there would be no market for it.

Do you have a 1D or D3 to compare to other bodies?



> I notice you have not said whether the ID4 has autofocus or liveview use while shooting video.???


Yes, the 1D4 has live view.

It has AF but not real-time.  You can activate it at any time, but it doesn't run the whole time you're filming.  How many pro studios are using Sony DSLRs for video production?  How many movies or television shows have been made using Sony DSLRs?  I only ask because I honestly don't know.  

I do know that Canon's are being used for all sorts of stuff from making music videos to short feature films right now.  You can find out more here.  It's interesting.  

In your AF speed test you mentioned above, I was curious what lens or lenses they used in this test.  Not all lenses are created equal.  Did they average between lenses or pick the fastest lens offering from each manufacturer to do their tests?  Just curious.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 13, 2010)

Guys guys guys, this is just for fun.  If you have either of these cameras and you're complaining about noise, we need to ban you from photography.  And if you get an OOF shot with either one of these, we'll ban you for that too .   Shouldn't we be talking about "Suk Mi" rather than these two cameras?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2010)

I think Canon's executives will cringe when they read the conclusions of a one-month long test and review from one of the web's most-respected authorities on sports journalism and education and training seminars, ROb Galbraith and his staff, including Mike Sturk, who side-by-side compared the Nikon D3s with the Canon 1D Mark IV.

Rob Galbraith DPI: An analysis of EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance 

After a solid month's testing, largely with lenses calibrated by Canon, these are some of the conclusions the site reached:

"Add it all up and the conclusion is inescapable: the EOS-1D Mark IV has an AF system that is capable of greatness but is also so bewilderingly variable that there's no way to trust it, especially for outdoor sports. Indoors, EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance has been less variable, but our results from speedskating and basketball are simply not up to par. If this is the best the company could muster, after the autofocus debacle of the EOS-1D Mark III, then it's official: Canon has lost their autofocus mojo."

And, near the conclusion of the article:
"It's worth noting one other fundamental difference between the AF system in the D3S and that of the EOS-1D Mark IV. When Nikon focus is out, it doesn't tend to be way out. More often than not, peak action frames that are not perfectly focused aren't that blurry, making some of them still viable. That is, if you're of a mind that it's better to have a slightly soft frame of a great peak moment than a totally blurry one. The EOS-1D Mark IV, on the other hand, produces many more frames that are too soft to use for anything, no matter how sweet the moment."

"To sum up, our experience with the D3S' AF system is that it's trustworthy and dependable enough for us to be confident using it for peak action sports. Not perfect: it needs to be a bit faster off the line, in addition to the other quibbles we've mentioned. But it does work as needed most of the time, which is in stark contrast to the experience of the EOS-1D Mark IV in the last month."

For those who wish to actually SEE for themselves, the good and the bad, Rob is graciously hosting a huge collection of actual Canon 1D Mark IV files.

Rob Galbraith DPI: Seeing for yourself

Here, you can download apprx. 900 EOS 1D Mark IV files,shot with 	
        	EF 85mm f/1.8
		EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (focus calibrated by Canon service)
		EF 300mm f/2.8L IS (focus calibrated by Canon service)
		EF 400mm f/2.8L IS (new and supplied by Canon USA; before shipping its focus was checked by Canon service)
		EF 400mm f/2.8L IS (borrowed briefly to compare to Canon USA supplied 400mm)
		EF 400mm f/2.8L II (used briefly to compare to newer IS version)

Nearly all of the downloadable pictures were captured with the calibrated EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, calibrated EF 300mm f/2.8L IS or focus checked EF 400mm f/2.8L IS. These large, high-quality photos are spread over 5 large zip files ranging from 176 megabytes to 868 megabytes, and 139 to 344 camera files in size.


----------



## Montana (Feb 13, 2010)

Whats funny is that he is the only pro shooter with these issues. Many shooters are shooting the exact sports he claims that the camera falls on its face.  What is even more funny is all the Nikon ads on his page.  And for an even better laugh, many pro sports and BIF shooters are questioning Rob's custom function settings pertaining to autofocus.  LOL  

I say take everything you read there with a huge grain of salt.  Not saying he didn't have issues, but there are some discrepencies already shown.

However, if Canon did flop again, it will be a serious kick in the rear end.  The only flaw in the testing of my mkIV thus far has been me.  LOL   I have just started dialing in my autofocus settings.   I have one lens yet to test, the 600 f/4 IS.  

I am curious what the post olympic photogs will have to say.  


Where is the popcorn munching smiley?


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)




----------



## Montana (Feb 13, 2010)

I am not saying Rob didn't have issues, but I am also a firm believer that its human nature to be biased.  I am sure that there is some bad blood between Rob and Canon.  I can only hope that he is not right.......or that I don't ever have to shoot a soccer match.  LOL

I still question his use of some of the default settings that he didn't change.   I know it'll be more than a few months before I have my settings figured out.  Too bad there is so much snow and nothing to shoot.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

Montana said:


> I am not saying Rob didn't have issues, but I am also a firm believer that its human nature to be biased.  I am sure that there is some bad blood between Rob and Canon.  I can only hope that he is not right.......or that I don't ever have to shoot a soccer match.  LOL
> 
> I still question his use of some of the default settings that he didn't change.   I know it'll be more than a few months before I have my settings figured out.  Too bad there is so much snow and nothing to shoot.


Yeah, if you recall the whole 1D3 flap that he helped to uncover, he never updated his article once the fix was made available.  Some speculate bad blood between him and Canon since he dropped it after so much ta-do and never commented once things were resolved.

Every independent review I've read (e.g. people that don't take money from Nikon or Canon for that matter) has shown the 1D3 significantly beating the D3 in AF performance.  The D3s and the D3 share the exact same AF system.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

There are others out there (pros) using the Mark IV who seem to disagree with Robs findings (and settings).

Example



> Another remark from my experience... After spending month and half on (more or less well lit) hills shooting mainly skiing (with pretty much linear and quite predictable movement of athletes), I was shooting handball Champions league match today... sport even worse then basketball, when it come to focusing (at least for me basketball is piece of cake, while handball is not).
> If on skiing mk4 is a bit better then mk2, in this pretty dark (yeah everything is pretty dark if you are used to shooting on snow with iso 400 f3.2 and 1/2000sec
> 
> 
> ...



And there are reviews that take a different view point as well.

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV Digital SLR Camera Review



> As always, what matters is reality - how the design works in real life. And in real life use, the statement I am continually telling myself while reviewing my 1D Mark IV shots (especially those taken in AI Servo mode) is ... I'm impressed.
> 
> Canon's DSLRs typically perform very well in One Shot AF mode. Like the 1D Mark III, the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV One-Shot-focuses very fast and very accurately. I don't perceive any differences in AF lock timing between the two.
> 
> ...



So, I don't put too much weight in a single review by a guy that likely has an axe to grind with Canon... not to mention one that takes paid advertising from Nikon.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 13, 2010)

> Shouldn't we be talking about "Suk Mi" rather than these two cameras?


I thought I heard her name to be Fuk Mi and was looking for twin Fuk Yu


----------



## Montana (Feb 13, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> > Shouldn't we be talking about "Suk Mi" rather than these two cameras?
> 
> 
> I thought I heard her name to be Fuk Mi and was looking for twin Fuk Yu




LMAO:lmao:


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 13, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> > Shouldn't we be talking about "Suk Mi" rather than these two cameras?
> 
> 
> I thought I heard her name to be Fuk Mi and was looking for twin Fuk Yu


 

It's Phuc Mi and Phuc Du not your Americanized spelling


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

Another shootout by two professional sports photogs including a SI shooter.

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S

Seems to disagree with Rob's findings, they make no mention of any of the issues he brings up.  RAW files provided at the link above.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 13, 2010)

...and another SI photog that says Canon gets it right:

Baseball Stock Photography: Finally, Canon gets it right with Mark IV :: Mangin Photography Archive



> I have been waiting for over two years to be able to shoot with a Canon camera that I could really depend on, so this test was going to be a real confidence-builder for me. It might sound obvious, but I really need a camera that is capable of delivering sharp pictures. To do my job as a sports photographer, I cant be distracted by paranoid chimping all the time, worried if my pictures were sharp or not.
> 
> 
> This camera performed flawlessly.


----------



## epatsellis (Feb 14, 2010)

Of course you do realize for those of us who learned to focus manually and anticipate (gasp!), this entire conversation borders on the absurd. 

While I can understand the need for AF in some situations, I can count the number of times I used it in my own work on one hand. Granted I don't shoot sports but c'mon, are you really willing to let your ability to make a compelling image depend on the focusing system above all else?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Of course you do realize for those of us who learned to focus manually and anticipate (gasp!), this entire conversation borders on the absurd.
> 
> While I can understand the need for AF in some situations, I can count the number of times I used it in my own work on one hand. Granted I don't shoot sports but c'mon, are you really willing to let your ability to make a compelling image depend on the focusing system above all else?



That's a good question epatsellis. But, if you don't shoot sports, you're probably not aware of how amazing the newer AF bodies and lenses actually are. I grew up in the manual focus era,and the biggest difference there is that the viewfinder screens were coarser, and film SLR's reflected almost 100 percent of the light that hit the mirror, upward and to the viewfinder screen and then the pentaprism. The viewfinder images were HUGE compared with the crop-body Canon 1D-series bodies (the 1.3x models) and the Nikon D1 and D2 series bodies. Now, one HUGE difference is that the newer AF cameras siphon off as much as 40 percent of the incoming light: the mirrors are now roughly 60/40 reflective/transmissive. The AF systems receive their smaller amount of light right THROUGH the mirror, and that is how the AF systems get their input, when the mirror is down; the other 60 percent or so of the light goes up, to the screen, and to the prism, and then your eye. TO compensate for the 40% loss of light to the AF sensors located in the bottom of the mirror box, at the bottom, the camera makers have gone with viewfinder screens that are HUGELY brighter than in the F2/F3 era you and I grew up in. It's not just "the focusing system" one decides upon here in the D3s vs 1D mark IV--it is the lenses, the flashes, the sensor, and the entire imaging chain---a d-slr is film and camera all in one. Unlike film shooters, once you buy the camera, it is permanent. No "different films".
This discussion is not about the focusing system, except for those who want to shoot op to 21st Century expectations, and not those of the 1980's or 1990's.

Let's put it this way: if you've shot sports on assignment, and I have, for any publication within the last few years, you'd be a fool not to buy an AF camera. The days of manual focusing are basically over for the most part--the cameras are worse than 1970's and 1980's bodies for manually focusing, due to the partially-transmissive mirrors. The viewfinder screens are optimized for rather slow lenses, so the coarse, contrasty SNAP! in- or out of focus of an old Nikon F2 or F3 is long-gone. The viewfinder screens now show depth of field equivalent to around f/4.8 (this is a fact, and I have stats and quotes from Canon's Chuck Westfall,and other experts). You're old enough to recall the Olympus OM series vs the Nikon F series "wars"; a brighter viewfinder screen,even a magnified one is not always easier to achieve focus than a darker, dimmer screen that has just the right optimization. The Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 had larger,brighter viewfinder screens than Nikons and Canons for over a decade--but the Canon and Nikon cameras had coarser focusing screens that were darker, lower magnification, but much more contrasty, and which were actually easier to manually focus with accuracy and repeatability. One thing the human eye and brain are superb at, is spotting something that is *different*. Coarser,more-contrasty viewfinder focusing screens in older bodies, like Nikon F3, were about the very pinnacle of manual focusing. The FE-2 series had a nice finder too.

So, where is this going? Well, I'll tell you. If you use manual focusing lenses, which have rather long focus throws, manual focusing is reasonably easy on the best of the best bodies, like the Nikon D1-D2-D3 series. But consumer bodies today have lower-grade finders. And ALL AF bodies have much light lost through the mirror, with anything mounted. The viewfinder screens on AF bodies are optimized for automatic focusing and so are the newer AF lenses, which have extremely short focusing throws from Infinity on in to about 2 meters; that makes modern AF lenses extremely hair-trigger when focusing at typical sports distances of 200,150,100,75,50,40,30,20 feet; a modern AF lens traverses the Infinity to 2 meter distance in as little as 20 degrees of focusing ring travel. A mere human can not focus an 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor by hand and eye on an autofocus body with anywhwere NEAR the same degree of speed,accuracy,and repeatability of the much-older 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF Nikkor of the 1980's--I know. I shot the 300/4.5 ED-IF as a 20-something sports shooter in the later 1980's, and re-bought one a few years ago; it is a great manual focusing lens on an F3,and it is a pretty good manual focuser on a modern d-slr. The same with the contemporary top-gun, the 1976-designed 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF Nikkor, the world's fastest 400mm when it was premiered at the Montreal Olympics. On a top-level Nikon DX body like D1h or D2x, this old lens still focuses pretty well by hand and eye--because the lens has the perfect focusing system, designed to be focused by hand and eye; the throw is long and slow from Infinity to about 60 feet, then gets faster and faster, but it was designed as a spots/action lens, designed for a HUMAN to focus it. The modern 300/2.8 AF-S-II has a focus throw that goes from Infinity and immediately in to 5 meters, before you know it....the thing is damned near impossible to get reliable,accurate,repeatable MANUAL focus on a modern AF body--because it is optimized for a machine to focus!

Now seriously epatsellis, I've seen your 35mm lens collection photo. I own a lot of the same old Nikon Ai and Ai-S lenses you do. I've been a Nikon 35mm shooter since the early 80's. Autofocus since the mid-2000's has become much better than it was in the early 2000's. For daylight baseball, I have no issues shooting the 400/3.5 as a manual focus lens, and it's actually pretty good for track and field and daylight football too. Frame rates in manual focus are slower, but today's autofocusing lenses, even the big pro glass Nikkors and Canon L's, are NOT designed to manually focus--the lenses are optimized for a computer and a motor to focus, and 40% of the incoming light is being siphoned off on an AF body, and the viewfinder screen is now so smooth,and so bright, that there is almost no contrast! 

The "effective" aperture of the most-recent viewfinder screens like that in the Canon 7D, is in the f/4.5 range. Do the test yourself with a wide-aperture prime: mount it and look thru the finder and stop the lens down: the "apparent" depth of field shown on the viewfinder screen, in a modern AF body, is that of the lens stopped down to around f/4.5 to f/4.8. That is a huge departure from manual focusing cameras designed decades ago. In a word, todays modern AF bodies from all manufacturers are sub-optimal for manual focusing. In a word, they "suck"; an F3HP or an old Canon F1-n from the mid-1980's has a BETTER viewfinder for manual focusing than a new top-tier d-slr that costs $5,000. Why? I've gone over it all above. Different eras. Prop plane. Jet aircraft. But why are crop-dusters old-school bi-planes?

I used manual focusing Nikon's for two decades. But today's AF bodies allow a sports shooter to shoot a pole vaulter running down the runway, and will autofocus and track the runner as he plants the pole and as he moves upward at an angle, and over the bar, and down. In the 1980's, the same type of focusing was achievable with only the ED-IF Nikkors; the old, helicoid-focusing, straight-tube 300/f 4.5 Ai Nikkor can NOT follow focus anywhere near as well as its Internal Focusing stablemates. Old manual focusing MF cameras can not deliver the same focusing speed on moving subjects as a modern d-slr. A jet is faster than a prop plane. If manual focusing lenses are used, manual focusing is easier on AF bodies than it is with an AF lens switched into manual focusing mode--because MF lenses were designed for manual focusing. I am intimately familiar with manual focusing 35mm,6x6 and 645--but those were all built with fully-silvered mirrors, not 60/40 reflective/transmissive mirrors.  Cameras had viewfinder focusing screens,focusing helicoids or Internal Focus mechanisms, and pentaprisms--all were optimized for manually focusing with hand and eye.

You say you don't shoot sports. Well, today, "waiting and timing" is no longer good enough, because well, a new Canon or Nikon can shoot more than 36 frames at a go, and the cameras fire faster, and it's simply possible now to have very high hit rate AND sustained firing rate, where back in the 1980's on sports/long lens work you had to focus and frame and shoot, and as focus drifted you had to re-acquire it, shoot, focus a bit more...you know the drill. But that was the--this is now. Prop-driven DC-3 versus Boeing 737. The equipment is different. AF lenses are designed to have the fastest,often sloppiest, loosey-goosey AF travel you can imagine; the lowest degree of mechanical resistance is the goal of most AF lens designers. Why don't more airlines run propellor-driven, 50-passenger aircraft instead of small jets?

Sorry epatsellis, but the conversation does not border on the absurd for those living in this century,and who shoot action/sports/news/remote camera/remote trigger/high-speed photography where 21st century technology is in the hands of moms and dads. The days of the Nikon F3 and the Hasselblad 500 C series for action work are long,long over. Manual focusing lost its grip on the entire 35mm style camera industry in the early 1990's. Lenses changed. Camera viewscreens and mirrors changed. AF bodies, especially the lower-end pentamirror ones with 1.6x and 1.5x bodies are REALLY quite inferior as manual focusing tools. The old silky-smooth,long travel manual focusing lenses I (and you too!) learned and grew up on are long,long gone. Today's new AF cameras operate as fundamentally different tools than 1950's Medium format designs, or 1970's 35mm designs, and so on. It's hard to understand maybe if you do not shoot stuff where the priority is modern, digital images, shot with what are currently state-of-the-art tools. The slow,contemplative medium format and large format tripod-based stuff you're so good at is pretty different from people doing sports/action stuff. The old-style manual focus cameras, lenses, and viewing/focusing systems have been replaced.

If tomorrow I had to shoot a track meet on film, I have OLD lenses,50,85,135,180,200,300,and 400mm Nikkors from the 1980's that I would take and put on my F3-HP and MD-4 and an FE-2 and feel pretty confident I could get "usable shots" by using 30 years' experience overall and 15 years' uninterrupted use of those two camera models and their associated Motor Drives. I could do baseball with those cameras as well.
But I could NOT get as good a result using modern AF lenses on a modern d-slr--the OLDER manual focus lenses work best for manual focus. If I wanted to get the most good shots, with the highest chance for success on each and every race and event, on each and every shot opportunity, I would take a modern flagship d-slr, Canon or Nikon,and modern AF lenses, every single time. There is only "one heat" of the 100 meters at a dual meet, and it is over in less than 11 seconds.  Less than 11 seconds, and most of the best shooting occurs in the last 5 seconds. AF kicks butt in the last 20 meters.

It's all well and good to talk about the absurdity of something that's not important to us, personally. But the cameras and lenses of the 60,70's,80's are long gone now. People used to telegraph. Then the phone was invented. Then the FAX machine. Then e-mail. Then texting. Cameras??? Manual focusing is so,so 1980's! As an aside, I was watching a 2003 MMA fight with Noguerra and another fellow in Japan,and the ringside press guys were shooting film Nikons! I watched as one guy unloaded an F5,magic-markered something on the film can, then reloaded as fast as he could! That brought back memories of feeling terrified at frame 30 that something "big" might happen just after shot 36 was tripped!


----------



## MrLogic (Feb 14, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Every independent review I've read (e.g. people that don't take money from Nikon or Canon for that matter) has shown the 1D3 significantly beating the D3 in AF performance.  The D3s and the D3 share the exact same AF system.



How many independent reviews have you read?

The one you posted here some months ago may have been "independent" by your definition, but was in fact written by (what appeared to be) a Canon fanboy. (He listed all his L glass in his sig (on that website), the vast majority of his posts were about Canon, didn't seem all that familiar with Nikon, etc.)



inTempus said:


> Another shootout by two professional sports photogs including a SI shooter.
> 
> Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S


_
"Autofocus performance is excellent on both cameras, with the Canon being slightly more responsive." _ 

Hmmm. So... if the D3s and the D3 share the exact same AF system, and the AF performance of the 1D*4* is only slightly more responsive than that of the D3S, then how can the 1D*3* be significantly better than the D3 and the D3S when it comes to AF performance? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > Every independent review I've read (e.g. people that don't take money from Nikon or Canon for that matter) has shown the 1D3 significantly beating the D3 in AF performance.  The D3s and the D3 share the exact same AF system.
> ...



What is hard to understand about that?  It appears that once Canon fixed the issues, most folks are very happy with the 1DmkIII.  And I think the mkIII may be a tad more forgiving.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 14, 2010)

Montana said:


> What is hard to understand about that? It appears that once Canon fixed the issues, most folks are very happy with the 1DmkIII. And I think the mkIII may be a tad more forgiving.


 

If D3=D3s and if D3s~1DIV and if 1DIV> 1DIIII then D3>1DIII.  That's what's he trying to say and that should be a true statement unless you're assuming that there isn't much different then 1DIII and the 1DIV.  Even if there isn't much different between the 1DIV and the 1DIII, there's no reason that the 1DIII would be significantly ahead of the D3 if the D3s and 1DIV are fairly similar in term of perfomance on the field.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 14, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> The one you posted here some months ago may have been "independent" by your definition, but was in fact written by (what appeared to be) a Canon fanboy. (He listed all his L glass in his sig (on that website), the vast majority of his posts were about Canon, didn't seem all that familiar with Nikon, etc.)


Try this one.

AF-C comparison test plus K20D and K200D test in german "fotoMAGAZIN": Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The D3 had the same percentage of in focus shots as the 40D.  I've yet to find one test where the D3 produced more in focus shots than the 1D3.  If you can find one, I would enjoy reading it.


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

schumionbike said:


> Montana said:
> 
> 
> > What is hard to understand about that? It appears that once Canon fixed the issues, most folks are very happy with the 1DmkIII. And I think the mkIII may be a tad more forgiving.
> ...




Okay I get it.  

Here is my take.......1DIII, 1DIV, D3, D3s= heaven.  Any real difference between the four is likely very negligible.  Hair splitting differences for the most part.  If not, then there is a problem.  I believe that Canon did have a problem with the mkIII, thus all the fixes.  But should a person expect better performance in autofocus in each generation?  I don't know.  I would a assume that there will be a limit eventually.  Have we reached it?  Is 100% keeper rate ever gonna be obtainable (discounting user errors of course)?  

Heck, you could prolly darn near throw the 1DmkIIn in the mix as well.  Technology has come a long way in other areas such as ISO performance, pixel densities, deeper buffers, faster write speeds, but perhaps we are hitting the rev limiter on autofocus.  Who knows?  I know what my shooting requires and thats all I honestly care about.  I don't think you can go wrong with any of the above mentioned camera bodies though.

Both the D3s and mkIV have had firmware updates already.  So long as Canon and Nikon find/rectify problems we are good.  Not that the majority of us would ever see those limitations in our shooting though.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 14, 2010)

I agree.  When I was working as a fanfoto phographer at Minutemaid Park last summer, the AP guys were using Canon 1D Mark II n and they get the shots and get them published.  No one was doing AF tests


----------



## MrLogic (Feb 14, 2010)

inTempus said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > The one you posted here some months ago may have been "independent" by your definition, but was in fact written by (what appeared to be) a Canon fanboy. (He listed all his L glass in his sig (on that website), the vast majority of his posts were about Canon, didn't seem all that familiar with Nikon, etc.)
> ...



Thanks. That's embarrassing, if true. The 40 ****ing D. I mean, I really like the 40D... but damn. :thumbdown: 

Would be nice if the actual test was online somewhere, though. LOL


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

FWIW, my 40D averaged about a 75% keeper rate in Servo.  Thats not bad at all really.  100% is pretty much unobtainable.  90% is a great camera.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 14, 2010)

I searched and searched and searched when considering buying my 1D4 or a D3s to find a comparison where the D3 out performed the 1D3 in AF.  I never found a single test that showed the D3 having the advantage.  I've read countless opinions by people saying they felt the D3 was superior, but not once could anyone back it up.

I still can't find anything.  It's always the 1D3 on top.

Which I find kind of amusing.  Everyone ran away from the 1D3 to the D3 because of the original article by Rob... yet the 1D3 still produced more in focus shots than the D3.  

Here we are today and he's claiming the 1D4 has problems and the D3s is superior.  He's the only one I can find saying this... and I've found plenty of comments saying the D3s is really no different than the D3 in performance by those that own them.  Some say they "think" it's a little snappier despite the fact it has the exact same Multi-CAM 3500 FX AF system the D3 has according to Nikon.

Other sports photogs are saying the 1D4 tops the 1D3, especially in straight on action, and is faster focusing.  So it would appear Rob is the only one that can work the D3s and who can't work the 1D4.

Interesting indeed.

Toss in the Nikon ads on all four corners of his website and I think most rational people would say "hummm".

I'll continue to see what others using the 1D4 for a living have to say about it, people who aren't taking advertising money from Nikon.  Right now I've yet to read a single report from any of the big time sports photogs using 1D4's saying they feel there is a problem with the body or that it's "unpredictable".  Conversely, I'm reading comments like "Canon got this one right".


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

Mojo?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2010)

Yes, Rob says Canon has lost its autofocus mojo. Yesterday I went to the Rob Galbraith web site and downloaded the six zip files with the more than 900 images. I looked at ALL the images, for over 2 hours. I looked closely at the sequential shots, and the Mark IV performed very poorly under situations where I would expect a pro sports camera would excel. Considering that Canon provided Rob with a calibrated 1D Mark IV body and multiple calibrated lenses, and Rob bought a body, and also used two borrowed 1D IV's, the results are hard to stomach.

Each photo has the AF points selected in red overlayed, and the blue ancillary "assist points". Each image has pertinent EXIF info overlayed on it. As a poster above said, with his 40D in AI servo he was averaging a 70% keeper rate. Well, the one-month-long test across multiple sports has nowhere near the kind of keeper rate I expect from my D2x and 70-200 VR, 200mm f/2 AF-S, and 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. Seriously...I thought Rob was exaggerating and being extremely hyper-critical when he wrote the conclusions. But then I looked at the images; he was not overly-critical.

The thing is--the blogger reviews are all ONE-event, one-off deals, in lower light levels--San Francisco afternoon football the third week in December, indoors one night at a dingy, really dingy sports center with athletes wearing walking autofocus targets in the form of lacrossse uniforms with a 6 foot long stick, plaid side panels, gloves with cross-hatching on the sides, a white helmet with facemask: in other words, walking,running High-Contrast targets. Let's be honest: the 1D Mark III was lauded by Rob Galbraith as being the FASTEST-EVER LOW-LIGHT one-shot INITIAL AF acquisition. That is what Rob said when he tested the 1D Mark III in 2007--truly superb, class-leading world-class initial acquisition, especially in low-light. But the Mark 3 had problems with sequential autofocusing,and as light levels went up, the Mark 3 got worse and worse in terms of AF performance in sequential shooting and on STATIC targets.

I downloaded the 900+ files in zip form, and went through them last night. Unlike a one-hour "test" at one or two low-light venues or on baseball, which is a DEAD-easy AF sport, with action occurring at pre-determined locations, the sample sports assignments Rob and Mike Sturk shot were designed to keep the AF point on the athlete and see how well the camera can acquire and track focus...in all situations. Early morning slanting light; afternoon front lighting; back- and side-lighting, at night in the rain, indoor basketball, and indoor speed skating at the brand new Olympic venue. The 900 shots show many,many **Sequences** shot with pro-quality, Canon-serviced L-glass 70-200,300/2.8,and three different 400/2.8's. It's one thing to see 1 or 2 or 3 "selects", but looking at sequential shots, many of them, in all types of scenarios over 30 days...with 1 Canon-calibrated body, 3 Canon-serviced lenses, and three "other" bodies, and THREE different 400/2.8 lenses, from both the 1 and II generation...being shown the entire sequences reveals a huge amount about the way the AF system works

But do not take my word for it. As Rob suggests, "see for yourself."

Rob Galbraith DPI: Seeing for yourself


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

Its not the shots in question, its the settings in the CF's that are question.  From my playing around with mine, I can question some of his settings myself.  There is a setting he left at default that would catch swinging arms, crossing players, or anything else that crossed between camera and subject.  I think the camera is too damn fast at the default.  I set mine to the slowest setting.  Thats 2 stops down from default.  

Still odd that Rob is the only one with issues.  I still honestly don't believe he gave the mkIV a fair shake....and that is sad.    All the other pros speak highly of the camera, but if Rob's experience turns out to be in error, he will have mucho eggo on his face.  LOL

Where are all the sequential D3s comparison shots?

But I will say this....if I personally find a problem with my mkIV that Canon cannot fix.....I will jump to another company that can handle my shooting requirements.   It would be costly as hell, but I don't care what gear I use to get my final product.   No one will be able to tell outside of EXIF info anyways.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 14, 2010)

Never mind the 1Dmk3 and 4 i don't miss many shots with the 1Dmk1 and mk2's in fact i get as many as my friend with his D3 if not more when you take into account what i paid for mine i'm on a winner


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

^ Thats really what its all about.   I wish I was out taking photos rather than reading crap on the internet all day.  LOL


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]


----------



## inTempus (Feb 14, 2010)

Another very well known SI shooter, Peter Miller, who's been using the Canon 1D4 for over a month and is "thrilled with the results".

Peter Read Miller shares his Canon EOS-1D Mark IV secrets

He even shares his custom function settings.  And unlike Rob, he's actually had a 1D4 image on the cover of SI.  But then Peter shoots sports professionally and probably knows what he's doing with a 1D4.



> "I have been shooting the Mark IV for over a month now and I have been thrilled with the results," said Miller when asked how he liked shooting with Canon&#8217;s new flagship professional camera.


All these pros actually using the body for a living and they love it.   I wonder what Rob did wrong?  Obviously something is amiss.  How can everyone else be wrong and he be right?


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

I just got done trolling everything I could find online in regards to the mkIV.  Shoot after shoot of every sport imaginable is coming in with rave reviews.  Unbelievable.  I sure wish i wasn't stuck at work right now.

Tim take a look on FM at the NCAA basketball game shots!  Damn!  

I think RG will have more than 1 egg on his face.  Its the worst he could have done to himself.  Total discredit in one day......wow.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 14, 2010)

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV - impressions - Ron Scheffler

Seem to be a fairly unbias review as he's a Canon shooter and doesn't seem all that well verse with Nikon.  Take it as you will.  His conclusion kind of support both sides which is kind of funny but whatever.  I figure you guys would talk about the girl or something but here we're arguing about AF system.  Not even ISO sensitivity but the AF system???  I don't remember arguing about that before the 1DMark IV show up.  It was always about noise before.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 14, 2010)

Yeah, I'm certainly not an expert sports photographer and I've shot exactly two basketball games in my life.  I shot one immediately after getting my 1D4.  It was indoor at night, lighting was horrific, fast action, and all I had was my trusty 1D4 and 70-200 that hasn't been calibrated by Canon.

Here are a few shots from that night.















I found that even in my novice hands the 1D4 made easy work of the action.  I simply put the AF point I wanted on the subject, set the camera to auto ISO and Tv mode so I could select my shutter speed and poof, instant pictures that were in focus.

I also had the chance to shoot the Chicago polar bears.  This time I was outside (bitter cold - 18 degrees for 2 hours) and there was ample light.  Again, outstanding performance even though I was using gloves the size of Texas trying to keep my hands warm... the buttons worked flawlessly despite my gloved handicap and the camera rocked the event with in focus shots and amazing clarity.










Rob can tell me how bad the camera sucks all he likes, but I know from first hand experience this camera works.  Hell, even under the same poor lighting and fast action Rob was talking about having problems with, I seemed to do just fine.  Perhaps I should be doing his reviews for him.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 14, 2010)

We should have Intempus and Derrel have a shootout, whoever win get the prize


----------



## Montana (Feb 14, 2010)

schumionbike said:


> Canon EOS-1D Mark IV - impressions - Ron Scheffler
> 
> Seem to be a fairly unbias review as he's a Canon shooter and doesn't seem all that well verse with Nikon.  Take it as you will.  His conclusion kind of support both sides which is kind of funny but whatever.  I figure you guys would talk about the girl or something but here we're arguing about AF system.  Not even ISO sensitivity but the AF system???  I don't remember arguing about that before the 1DMark IV show up.  It was always about noise before.




Thanks for posting this one, I had not yet seen it.  I have the 600 f/4 IS and it is the only lens I have yet to test extensively with.  I know there were some issues with people that updated to the new firmware and the long lenses, but it seems things are sorted out. And people that had cameras shipped with the new firmware weren't experiencing the issues.  I wonder if he had the same issue?  Mine shipped with the new firmware.  I will finally be off of this oil rig tomorrow and hope to get to try the 600f/4 out some more.  Sure hope everything is good.  I would be sick to my stomach if my camera cannot track after dropping 5000 dollars on it.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 15, 2010)

From a discussion on SportShooter.com:



> Farmington | UT | USA | Posted: 6:13 PM on 12.26.09    -
> 
> >> Our newspaper is currently testing out a Mark IV. We wanted to put it through some real world testing, shooting in deep, dark high school gyms and candle light vigils etc. Places where it is hard to focus and the light is not that great, but places that we have to take photos in almost every day at a newspaper. Our management insisted that we perform real world testing before we committed to any purchases of new equipment. Frankly we had been somewhat disappointed with the performance of most of our Mark III's .
> 
> ...


----------



## inTempus (Feb 15, 2010)

I was waiting for this guy to chime in over on the Canon forums.  He's a Nikon guy historically (since the 1D3 problems) who tried the 1D3 no less than 3 times and returned all 3.  

He ordered a 1D4 and promised to post his findings once he had a chance to review the new camera.



> I hated the MKIII, returned several.
> 
> I spent this weekend with my MKIV. Complain, squawk, cry, all you all want. Trust RG, pixel peep, etc, etc, ect ...whatever. This camera rocks. 2000+ shots at wide aperture, ISO 6400+, fast AF tracking..... perfect.
> 
> ...


Link with sample pic: Canon Digital Photography Forums - View Single Post - Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

Also, download the AF users guide he links to in his post.  That's an amazing resource, lots of very useful info.  Perhaps Rob should have read it before heading out to the field with the 1D4.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 16, 2010)

Shooting sports ain't easy, but honestly either camera will work, and these are the two _premier_ cameras for shooting action in the world. If you have canon gear, get the canon, if you have nikon gear, get the nikon. if you have neither, _rent them both._ Than base a decision of of that.

Not rocket science, and they'll both be able to do exactly what you want.


I dunno, i've gotten some pretty nice action pics on my trusty old D70s, and that camera has never been regarded as fast in any area by anyone.


























Yeah that D70 is a real piece of sh*t..can't shoot a picture worth a damn, and if I was able to get lucky with shots like this, you could get lucky more often with either one, D3 or 1D.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 16, 2010)

Another interesting observation about the RG article.

His comments about the 1D4 are pretty tersely worded. He obviously is using very colorful metaphors and phrases when describing the issues he's seeing with the 1D4.  He's not simply reporting the problems he's seen, he's condemning the camera with sharp wording...



> *RG talking about the 1D4:*
> "there's no way to trust it"
> 
> "the AF system verged on total collapse"
> ...


However, when the D3S shows similar failings, he's dismissive about the problems and paints the failures in an almost positive light.   No comments about "Jekyll and Hyde" behavior, not comments about not being able to trust the D3S... just a few rosy "Oops!  It misses in bright light and occasionally does something it shouldn't that we can't explain, but there's nothing to see here!" comments.



> *RG talking about the D3S:*
> "it misses a few when it ought not to,..."
> 
> "...will at times front focus slightly in bright light."
> ...


I'm sorry, but that's *clearly* biased reporting and honestly shows RG to be little more than a shill for Nikon.  

When actual professional photographers start reporting problems with their bodies (assuming they ever do), then we might have something to discuss.  As it stands right now, all we have are the words of a single reviewer on the Nikon payroll that in all likelihood doesn't know how to use the 1D4 properly, or has a bias against the 1D4 as evidenced by his rather telling choice of words.  We also have many reports from actual working sports photographers who are saying the 1D4 is nothing short of amazing.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 16, 2010)

People are bias, that's nothing new, that's why you read more than one reviews.  To be fair though, RG did have a very nice review of 1D Mark II.   By the way, the link I posted to Ron Scheffler's page seemed to mention some of the quirk he had with the 1DIV without all the colorful language use by RG.  What do you think?

At the end of the day, I think both the D3s and 1DIV will net a very respectful amount of keepers and any different between the two will probably come down to the users.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 16, 2010)

There was an issue with the 1D4 that was addressed in firmware 1.0.6.  I don't believe Schefflers article was updated post 1.0.6.  I'll have to look again.  However, the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of those 1D4 users posting on the internet that reported the issue.  

The D3 (and likely the D3S) has a pretty well known problem with focusing in very dark situations, to the point many event photographers switch to manual mode so they can focus (this is discussed ad nauseum on the Nikon forums, on DPReview and elsewhere on the net). RG doesn't mention this failing in any of his reviews nor in his most recent comments.  I find that highly suspect.

Couple this failure to focus in darkness with its inability to focus in bright light reliably and you would think RG would have something to say about it... but he doesn't.  Well, he does mention the problems with bright light but quite dismissively as if it's not really a problem at all.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 16, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Another interesting observation about the RG article.
> 
> His comments about the 1D4 are pretty tersely worded. He obviously is using very colorful metaphors and phrases when describing the issues he's seeing with the 1D4.  He's not simply reporting the problems he's seen, he's condemning the camera with sharp wording...
> 
> ...




The bloke is a prick read one of articles once never again


----------



## gsgary (Feb 16, 2010)

inTempus said:


> There was an issue with the 1D4 that was addressed in firmware 1.0.6.  I don't believe Schefflers article was updated post 1.0.6.  I'll have to look again.  However, the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of those 1D4 users posting on the internet that reported the issue.
> 
> The D3 (and likely the D3S) has a pretty well known problem with focusing in very dark situations, to the point many event photographers switch to manual mode so they can focus (this is discussed ad nauseum on the Nikon forums, on DPReview and elsewhere on the net). RG doesn't mention this failing in any of his reviews nor in his most recent comments.  I find that highly suspect.
> 
> Couple this failure to focus in darkness with its inability to focus in bright light reliably and you would think RG would have something to say about it... but he doesn't.  Well, he does mention the problems with bright light but quite dismissively as if it's not really a problem at all.




I don't believe that Nikon are perfect


----------



## cfusionpm (Feb 16, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Another interesting observation about the RG article.
> 
> His comments about the 1D4 are pretty tersely worded. He obviously is using very colorful metaphors and phrases when describing the issues he's seeing with the 1D4. He's not simply reporting the problems he's seen, he's condemning the camera with sharp wording...
> 
> ...


So he's like the Rush Limbaugh of photography, eh?


----------



## Montana (Feb 16, 2010)

nice shots SwitchFX!

I have some shots from a 5DII in servo.  I was told this camera cannot shoot anything but portraiture and still life.  LOL    Mine works like a champ.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 16, 2010)

How did you get your dog to hold that pose Montana?


----------



## Montana (Feb 16, 2010)

It was 24° below zero.  He froze like that.  You shoulda seen it when I took a leak outside.


And you can call me Derrick, Tim.


----------



## FrankLamont (Feb 16, 2010)

I've been waiting a few days for someone to say it.

But I'll say it if no one wants to: _who cares_?

Offer me a free D3s with several Nikkor pro lenses, I'll gladly accept. But for now, I stick with Canon and upgrade to Canon, in keeping with my lens investments.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 17, 2010)

Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S


----------



## inTempus (Feb 17, 2010)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/igsemt.htmlIgsEMT, that link was posted back on page 2 (post 25).


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 17, 2010)

> IgsEMT, that link was posted back on page 2 (post 25).



oops,
I stopped reading about 10posts in 
thanks for heads up


----------



## inTempus (Feb 17, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> > IgsEMT, that link was posted back on page 2 (post 25).
> 
> 
> oops,
> ...


You missed all the good stuff!


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 17, 2010)

As long as he saw the video, he's good to go


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S




The one thing that would sway me is the $4000 difference in price to shoot at that distance


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 17, 2010)

gsgary said:


> IgsEMT said:
> 
> 
> > Unique Photo: A Unique Photo Shootout Featuring David Bergman and Robert Caplin: Canon 1D Mark IV Versus Nikon D3S
> ...


 

You know you can switch on the 1.2 or the 1.5 crop on the D3s if you want to shoot with shorter lens.  At 1.2 crop, it's still 8.9 megapixel which is plenty.  At 1.5 crop, it's 5.1 megapixel is probably not enough for stock images but it's enough for other situations.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2010)

schumionbike said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > IgsEMT said:
> ...




No thank's i'll keep my Canon, used a D2x once and hated it with a passion


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2010)

Well, if you want to actually see side-by-side image comparisons between the two bodies, there are some comparisons located at http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/.


Bottom line: the D3s is the high-ISO champion of all d-slr cameras on the market. Bottom line: The Canon 1D IV is the fastest-shooting camera in the sports/action class, at 10 frames per second. I think it is interesting to actually "See" the different way the larger sensors from both Nikon and Canon handle noise,and the above comparisons compare the 1D IV to both Nikon,and Canon, full-frame sensor technology. When the shoe was reversed and the Canon 1D Mark II was bettering Nikon's lame D2h as the top sports/action camera choice, and everybody knew that the Canon was the vastly better camera in terms of noise handling,all the web fora were abuzz with how great Canon was and how bad Nikon was. But now with the situation arguably reversed,  it seems the Canon faithful have a hard time accepting the fact that it is no longer 2004 or 2005. Today I saw an indoor photo of two baseball caps hanging off of a chair as "proof" of how great the Mark IV is at high ISO settings, and yet, side-by-side comparisons above would indicate that the "proof" would not hold up in a side-by-side, apples to apples comparison. One shot, without any context, doesn't prove much.

The two camera makers have had a history of leapfrogging one another. Nikon changed the game by going to a larger sensor, with larger pixels, in order to maximize image quality at dramatically elevated ISO settings. Sports and action shooters would often prefer better high-ISO performance over higher megapixel counts. Canon and Nikon seem to try not to compete exactly head-to-head with one another, so the two cameras are not quite comparable. Most people answer the question of which to get based on familiarity or system commitment. The people that actually make the choice between these two cameras usually are professional sports/news shooters or the buyers for large organizations, like newspapers with pools of 10 or 15 or even 20 shooters. Looking at the current Vancouver Olympics, it seems like the sports shooters of the world have realized that it is no longer 2004 or 2005. I find it amusing that after such a long period of white lens dominance at major sporting events around the world, that the white lens set comes up with all sorts of excuses for all those big, black Nikon supertelephotos the top pros are using at major sports events.

Seriously though, for the majority of the people reading this forum, the question, "Should I get the Nikon D3s or the Canon 1D Mark IV?" the answer is ,"NO! Buy a camera you'll actually want to carry and use!" The cameras in this class are big, and heavy, and obnoxious. MOST people should buy a smaller,lighter camera like a Canon 50D or 7D or Nikon D300 or Nikon D90, or a somewhat smaller Nikon D700 or Canon 5D-II for full-frame imaging for those who want to use traditional focal length lenses at traditional shooting distances for weddings or portraiture work, in which shallower depth of field and a larger degree of background control is what separates true professional work from that done with cameras that Uncle Bill or Aunt Cathy also has access to. When one really comes right down to overall, total image quality, Canon's original 5D, the 12.8 MP model, is actually a very slight bit better than the original Nikon D3 up to about ISO 1600. Currently, the 5D Mark II has image quality that is basically the same as Canon's flagship, the 1DS Mark III, the 21 megapixel, rugged FF body.

It could be argued that for many people here, on *this forum*, the $2,400 Canon 5D-II is the best choice for image quality, scoring extremely well against cameras that cost over twice as much,from both Nikon and Canon. Big sensor, superb high ISO performance, high-quality video....the 5D II is actually a heck of a camera for many people. You can buy two  5-II's for the price of one Nikon D3s,and have almost $400 left over.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 17, 2010)

gsgary said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


 

I'm just giving the options available if you want more reach


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2010)

schumionbike said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > schumionbike said:
> ...



I'll keep my 1.3 crop for sport


----------



## inTempus (Feb 17, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Today I saw an indoor photo of two baseball caps hanging off of a chair as "proof" of how great the Mark IV is at high ISO settings, and yet, side-by-side comparisons above would indicate that the "proof" would not hold up in a side-by-side, apples to apples comparison. One shot, without any context, doesn't prove much.


I'm supposed to be on your ignore list.  What, you couldn't bare the thought of me saying something you couldn't read after all?  

What you saw was proof the 1D4 can provide print quality ("photojournalistic") images at high ISO... something you claimed it couldn't do. It has nothing to do with "side by side", it has to do with "can the 1D4 deliver usable images at high ISO" and the answer is "yes, it can" despite what you try to tell people.

You're the one that can't seem to accept the fact that the 1D4 is a very capable body in the above ISO 6400 range.  You live and die by Rob G and Thom Hogan articles and race to the boards once you find something (*anything*) that might cast Canon in a negative light.  You take every opportunity to bust Canon's balls over anything you can possibly find, then you have the audacity to say Canon users can't stand it when the shoe is on the other foot?


----------



## Montana (Feb 17, 2010)

Bingo!  ^


----------



## Derrel (Feb 18, 2010)

SportsShooter.com - 1D4 Thoughts After a Couple Games

A professional sports shooter, complaining about the "inconsistency" of the Mark IV on sports. I have to laugh about the fellows who have been shooting for 18 months and who do not know who robgalbraith actually "is". It's hilarious to hear a newbie photographer trying to badmouth a guy who has been a professional sports photographer in Canada for over 20 years, a professional photojournalist for over FOURTY years, and who has covered BOTH Gulf Wars! Also, Rob Galbraith wrote the first guidebook for professional photojournalists on digital cameras, back in 1994,and was one of the WORLD's first photojournalists to use the then-state of the art d-slr body made by Kodak....Rob is a FORTY YEAR veteran of photojournalism! Not some newbie part-time hobby shooter with a good day job and 2 cameras...

Sorry, but efforts to discredit Rob Galbraith are pretty pathetic attempts, all by novice shooters who simply do not "know" who the man they are trying to impugn actually "is" in the world of photography! It's kind of lame, since I know "who" Rob actually is--as do tens of thousands of working photojournalists....he's the guy that got Canon to finally admit there was a huge AF problem with their MARK III camera,after they denied it,vehemently.And then Canon spent months working with him--because of how much influence and experience he actually has among people "in the business". Trying to badmouth other people in order to justify one's own purchases is a reprehensible behavior--manifesting itself on many internet forums. Rob was one of the first-ever "experts" in d-slr use and workflow, and in this forum we have a novice shooter with less than 2 years experience trying to discredit the man,over and over and over. It's a case of internet fanboyism--trying to knock down long-time experts who teach other professionals how to handle digital camera operation,workflow,and processing. Thom Hogan has written 19 guidebooks on Nikon SLRs...and yet we have an individual in this forum that repeatedly bashes the guy, based upon no real qualifications, nor much experience. It's internet fanboyism...who does one trust these days? The guy who talks a good game, but has been into photography for a matter of months, of people in their 50's and 60's and with decades of experience?

Already, the people in the business, are reporting some problems with the Mark IV's **inconsistency***. Read closely, and it's clear--the camera has a very inconsistent pattern of behavior on peak action sports. THere is a blog post linked earlier here where the author goes through problems he is having with his new Mark IV, including a button already sticking...

The pro I refer to says, "I have to say that for me that set of parameters
was pretty inconsistent. Granted I was shooting
through the glass for hockey which had it's fair
share of puck marks and smudges but I was
hoping for a bit better out of Canons latest. The
basketball court was even more problematic in
my opinion. I would definitely not use expansion 
there again. The AF simply grabs other players 
too randomly. I'm going to try using the slow 
sensitivity at some point but I don't have much 
confidence in it. "  and also "For whatever reasons it was just very inconsistent. There
were times when I thought I was locked onto a single player
with no one else around her yet the photos came out slightly
out of focus. Other times I thought I had acquired initial 
AF tracking on a player yet as I followed the player for 
a few frames it was in and out of focus. These were not 
very fast motions either, simply players dribbling from one
side of the court to another. You would think that in 
standard sensitivity it could keep up. "

Other working pros who are **honest** are reporting issues with "inconsistent" AF performance in the Mark IV. Not people shooting static stuff, but actual,working professional sports and news shooters.

The camera is barely out on the market yet.

I challenge anybody who thinks the camera is without problems to go and download and looka t the 900+ pictures here: Rob Galbraith DPI: Seeing for yourself

It's free to download the zip files, and it gives a good example of sequential AF problems and inconsistency across a wide spectrum of actual sports shooting, not carefully hand-picked one day set-ups conducted by Canon at Canon's behest. Not at NFL stadiums with killer lighting, but "real world" college and HS sports.


----------



## Moe (Feb 18, 2010)

:banghead:
I apologize in advance. I don't think this counts as a rant, but...

We get it. These two cameras are top of the line. They each are super-capable for shooting sports, among other uses. They each have small advantages over the other. One may be better at this or that, but not by much in the grand scheme of things. These advantages aren't major in most people's eyes. However, they are enough to make someone sway one way or the other. To each his own. 

I've seen the main two characters in this thread have many...we'll say...disagreements. Let me say that you aren't going to get the other one to concede. It's like you are trying to convince yourselves as much as you are trying to convince the other guy. There is always going to be someone who is unhappy with the best (or has trouble correctly operating the best). I've done research on many things before buying. No matter what the object, or how expensive it is, I can always find negative reviews, and many of them. TV's, hard drives, cars, computers, I could go on.  

I'm not trying to get on anyone's bad side. I've learned a lot from you guys, as have many of the people here. But come on, how much more?

BTW, I know I can choose not to view these threads, but sometimes it's like a car crash. Tough to look away.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

> I'm going to try using the slow
> sensitivity at some point but I don't have much


Oh, you mean he might actually read Canon's white paper and tune his AF system for the sport he's shooting at some point?  Well golly gee!  That would be ideal!

Ironically, the D3 requires tuning as well if you want it to be even remotely reliable in such situations.  But let's not mention that.

A button sticking!?!?!?  OMG, no way!  You mean there might be a defective 1D4 out there with a sticking button?  It's time for a recall!

:lmao:


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 18, 2010)

This thread was suppose to be a fun thread that turn into a discuassion about AF system   I did get to read a lot of articles from the links every one provided which was kind of fun.  By the way Moe, how do you like your Sigma 18-50 2.8, I want to get one but I'm a little nervous about reliablity problems with Sigma.  Any thought?


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

The second post from the thread you cited.



> ->> Gregory:
> 
> I was very happy with my 1DIV's AF performance shooting NCAA basketball.  I posted a thread with some photos/impressions here:  1DMKIV Round 2: NCAA Men's BB - FM Forums
> 
> ...


Did the OP post pics of his issues?  Nope.  But the first responder to his post did, of a NCAA game no less.  I would say judging by his shots he knows what he's doing.

As I said before, Derrel likes to find the negative (and coincidentally ignores the positive) then races to the forums frantically trying to prove Canon sucks.  Objectivity?  He'll have absolutely none of that, there's an agenda that needs tending to.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

Moe said:


> I've seen the main two characters in this thread have many...we'll say...disagreements. Let me say that you aren't going to get the other one to concede. It's like you are trying to convince yourselves as much as you are trying to convince the other guy. There is always going to be someone who is unhappy with the best (or has trouble correctly operating the best). I've done research on many things before buying. No matter what the object, or how expensive it is, I can always find negative reviews, and many of them. TV's, hard drives, cars, computers, I could go on.


Yeah, I know that people having discussions on discussion forums can be a bit taxing at times.  I suppose we could have the Admin immediatley lock threads after the OP posts so no further discussion could take place.  Or perhaps we could have a new rule that says you can only agree with the OP and we'll have no disagreeing or sharing of alternate viewpoints.

That would sure perk this place up, it would be infinitely more fun and educational.


----------



## Moe (Feb 18, 2010)

Having an educational discussion is one thing, but I think 5 pages of back and forth, "this says this," and "that says that," gets a little old. It's not about having a different viewpoint. If that were the case, there would be no talk of ignore lists, etc. There would be no criticism of others' work. It goes from being educational to just trying to prove the other wrong, which as I said is not going to happen. At some point it goes from being "fun and educational" and "disagreeing and sharing of alternate viewpoints" to a pi**ing contest.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

If the back and forth is too much for you to bare, and if you can't control your urges to view it despite it aggravating you to no end, technology is here to help!


----------



## Moe (Feb 18, 2010)

And the beat goes on...


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

Moe said:


> And the beat goes on...


Apparently you're interested in now going toe to toe with me on the subject of post content.  Ironic to say the least.  

How's about a big old fashioned hug?

:hugs:

Now, let's forget our differences and move along.  If I didn't make your ignore list that is.


----------



## Moe (Feb 18, 2010)

BTW, shchum, I love the Sigma. It has its weaknesses, but I love it. Such a step up from the kit (which isn't saying much). I didn't try the Nikon version but I'm sure it's better, just not enough to justify the price for me.


----------



## Moe (Feb 18, 2010)

No, it's fine man. No problem here, I just hate to see you two guys do that after so many pages. Just the mood I've been in, I guess. I just didn't see the point after a while, and I posted. 
No, I definitely don't want to go toe to toe. You have quite the ability to debate. I didn't mean to bring any heat this way.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 18, 2010)

I can't believe what i have just read 
Quote
 The AF simply grabs other players 
too randomly. I'm going to try using the slow 
sensitivity at some point but I don't have much 
confidence in it. 

It is common knowledge that you use moderatley slow or slow servo for field sports where there are lots of player, some pro he is, i think most of the problems are people buying cameras that they don't know how to use


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

gsgary said:


> It is common knowledge that you use moderatley slow or slow servo for field sports where there are lots of player, some pro he is, i think most of the problems are people buying cameras that they don't know how to use


Bingo.  

People seem to think that if you take the camera out with factory default settings it's supposed to do everything perfectly.  No, that's why they have so many custom function settings.  You need to adjust your body for the type of shooting you're doing.  Passing judgment on the performance of a body when you don't even understand what the custom settings are for is silly.

There's a reason D3 shooters that know what they're doing immediately set A1 AF-C Priority Selection to "release + focus" before stepping foot on the playing field.  If you don't, the D3 will just shoot regardless if it has focus or not by default.

Many will also switch from 51 points to 21 or even fewer to get better AF performance from the D3 (A3 Dynamic AF Area).

There are other custom functions that you need to set as well to tune your D3, but this is one of the first things most shooters will change from factory default.  If you're a noob to Nikon and don't do this, you'll go online and ***** about the results...

The D3s has the exact same AF system as the D3 before it.  People are used to it as they've been using it now for a few years.  There's been plenty of discussions out there helping people find the ideal settings for sports shooting with the D3.  The 1D4 on the other hand has a completely new AF system, and new settings that do things completely differently than the bodies before it.  People are still figuring out the best settings for any given application.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 18, 2010)

When i'm using my MK2's i have different custom settings for different sports eg Horses, rugby, cricket no setting is the same for these 3 sports


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

I just stumbled across this...

A Response to Rob Galbraith&#8217;s Canon Autofocus Article  Photofocus

An article from a Nikon shooter regarding the 1D4 AF.  



> While Rob admits that the Canon 1D MK IVs autofocus performance has improved, he also claims the camera is not reliable enough to depend on it in a professional setting.
> 
> 
> _I disagree._
> ...


----------



## inTempus (Feb 18, 2010)

As a side note, here are some 1D4 Olympic photos.

Captured Photos


----------



## Moe (Feb 18, 2010)

Those Olympic photos are very nice. However, I think the biathlon photos are a little to detailed...


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 18, 2010)

Those Olympic photos are very nice


----------



## usayit (Feb 19, 2010)

Those Olympic photos and the photog's hardwork/talent required to create them really makes this whole Nikon vs Canon stuff really silly...

Doesn't it?

Really..


The few minutes enjoying those photos versus looking at stupid DxO graphs...  honestly.


----------



## Dao (Feb 19, 2010)

usayit said:


> The few minutes enjoying those photos versus looking at stupid DxO graphs...  honestly.




:thumbup:


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2010)

We just want to give Nikon and Canon engineers credit for their works


----------

