Nikon D3 vs Canon EOS 1Ds mkIII
Trying to decide whether to buy a Nikon D3? Or maybe thinking of selling your Nikon stuff and getting a 21 MP powerhouse from Canon? I was. Here are my conclusions after studying the problem:
1. If you shoot primarily landscapes from a tripod or have Canon lenses already, and can spare $8000, get the Canon. It’s a no brainer.
2. If you shoot animals in morning and evening light, and you already have a D2x, save your money for the next full-frame offering from Nikon.
I’ve been shooting Nikon equipment for about 20 years. I bought a D2x in 2005 when they were first available in the states. It’s a fantastic camera that I’ve used modestly shooting about 20,000 frames. It has taken many great pictures, but it has always annoyed me that it’s a non-full-frame APS-C sensor. Why? Well, I’m carrying about 40 lbs of lenses that are much bigger, hence heavier and more expensive than they need to be to form the small image that my sensor can capture. That is, my non-DX lenses are forming a beautiful, sharp image that falls squarely on the inside of the camera body where it is never captured. I’m guessing that if Nikon designed a 400m f2.8 lens that was specifically made for APS-C sensors, its weight, size, and cost would be about two thirds of the full-frame lenses I lug around in my back pack. That would make a big difference to me!
In early 2007, I issued a mental ultimatum to Nikon: either make me some professional DX lenses that are cheaper and weigh less, or make me a full-frame sensor camera that justifies that 9+ pound monster in my pack, or I’m switching to Canon! The result: in late 2007 Nikon announced its D3 with an underwhelming 12 MP sensor that was full frame. Almost simultaneously Canon announced its masterpiece, the 21 MP ful-frame EOS 1Ds mkIII.
Great. Now the camera I want is not compatible with my $14,000 worth of Nikon glass, and the full frame body I wanted from Nikon has fewer pixels than my D2x. Argh! I waited like many folks for the first reviews of these bodies to become available and read through a few like these.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1ds-mk-iii.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/MKIIIs.shtml
Meanwhile I contemplated possible sources for the many thousand dollars a switch to Canon would cost.
My impressions from reading these and a host of other reviews and comparing the images shot side by side with the two cameras were that the Canon took amazingly high resolution images (subject to some minor focusing difficulty in high temperatures) with very good light sensitivity, and the Nikon shot fast (9FPS) and had excellent light sensitivity. Speaking very roughly, it seems as though if I shot my D2x at ISO 100, I could get the same excellent noise level from the Canon at ISO 200, and from the Nikon at ISO 400. (Remember these are very rough and will certainly depend on the subject being photographed.)
Let’s say for the sake of this discussion that the ISO equivalents above are reasonable. You can put in any numbers you want and do your own analysis. I came to two conclusions. First is that for shooting landscapes, or animals in landscapes, where long lenses and high shutter speeds are not critical, it appears that the Canon truly is in a class by itself. If you can afford the Canon, get it and take great pictures!
The second conclusion is that if you are always shooting at the edge of your camera/lens envelope, the cameras are basically the same. Okay, okay, calm down. Let me explain. The highest sensor pixel density is on the Nikon D2x. That’s right, the Canon has 21 MP (156 pixels/mm), but the D2x’s 12 MP (183 pixels/mm) are packed closer together in the middle of the frame. The D3 (119 pixels/mm) is not really even close. I use pixels/mm rather than pixels/mm^2 to allow a functional equivalency to lens focal length, which is proportional to the magnification of an image in one direction.
Now imagine a typical morning shoot for me; Nikon D2x, 400mm f2.8 lens, @ f4.0, ISO 200, 1/400th sec shutter speed, and a big tripod which I will shoot from while hand holding the camera and actively tracking moving animal subjects. I can’t shoot slower and stop all the motion of my lens and/or subject. I shoot f4.0 to get my lens in a “happy place” for sharpness in high contrast details, and ISO 200 because that’s all the light I’ve got. Assume the subject does not completely fill my lens, so I need all of the lens I’ve got. In order to get slightly more image detail with the Canon, I’d need a 500mm f4.0 lens, which I’d want to shoot at f5.6 to get that same “happy place”, and I’d need 1/500th sec shutter speed to compensate for the longer lens. So now I’m at an ISO around 500. By my previous observation about noise/ISO equivalents across the bodies, this means that I have gained only at the margins. The noise is about the same, the image is bigger, but the subject already wasn’t filling the lens, so I’m just going to crop the extra megapixels away. Same thing for the D3. You need a bigger lens (600mm), faster shutter speed, and higher ISO so you need all the extra sensitivity the D3 supposedly provides just to get the same noise and resolution. Now read my conclusions at the top of the page again, and feel free to disagree!
Updated 5/5/2008 -
You are welcome to comment on this by using my guestbook or the 'contact" feature on this website. If your comments are polite, I'll happily post them.
Also, I did forget to give the obvious nod to the D3 for anyone who really likes to shoot up close in low light. I would think that portrait shooters who like to work in ambient light would be in heaven! -SC
1. If you shoot primarily landscapes from a tripod or have Canon lenses already, and can spare $8000, get the Canon. It’s a no brainer.
2. If you shoot animals in morning and evening light, and you already have a D2x, save your money for the next full-frame offering from Nikon.
I’ve been shooting Nikon equipment for about 20 years. I bought a D2x in 2005 when they were first available in the states. It’s a fantastic camera that I’ve used modestly shooting about 20,000 frames. It has taken many great pictures, but it has always annoyed me that it’s a non-full-frame APS-C sensor. Why? Well, I’m carrying about 40 lbs of lenses that are much bigger, hence heavier and more expensive than they need to be to form the small image that my sensor can capture. That is, my non-DX lenses are forming a beautiful, sharp image that falls squarely on the inside of the camera body where it is never captured. I’m guessing that if Nikon designed a 400m f2.8 lens that was specifically made for APS-C sensors, its weight, size, and cost would be about two thirds of the full-frame lenses I lug around in my back pack. That would make a big difference to me!
In early 2007, I issued a mental ultimatum to Nikon: either make me some professional DX lenses that are cheaper and weigh less, or make me a full-frame sensor camera that justifies that 9+ pound monster in my pack, or I’m switching to Canon! The result: in late 2007 Nikon announced its D3 with an underwhelming 12 MP sensor that was full frame. Almost simultaneously Canon announced its masterpiece, the 21 MP ful-frame EOS 1Ds mkIII.
Great. Now the camera I want is not compatible with my $14,000 worth of Nikon glass, and the full frame body I wanted from Nikon has fewer pixels than my D2x. Argh! I waited like many folks for the first reviews of these bodies to become available and read through a few like these.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1ds-mk-iii.htm
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/MKIIIs.shtml
Meanwhile I contemplated possible sources for the many thousand dollars a switch to Canon would cost.
My impressions from reading these and a host of other reviews and comparing the images shot side by side with the two cameras were that the Canon took amazingly high resolution images (subject to some minor focusing difficulty in high temperatures) with very good light sensitivity, and the Nikon shot fast (9FPS) and had excellent light sensitivity. Speaking very roughly, it seems as though if I shot my D2x at ISO 100, I could get the same excellent noise level from the Canon at ISO 200, and from the Nikon at ISO 400. (Remember these are very rough and will certainly depend on the subject being photographed.)
Let’s say for the sake of this discussion that the ISO equivalents above are reasonable. You can put in any numbers you want and do your own analysis. I came to two conclusions. First is that for shooting landscapes, or animals in landscapes, where long lenses and high shutter speeds are not critical, it appears that the Canon truly is in a class by itself. If you can afford the Canon, get it and take great pictures!
The second conclusion is that if you are always shooting at the edge of your camera/lens envelope, the cameras are basically the same. Okay, okay, calm down. Let me explain. The highest sensor pixel density is on the Nikon D2x. That’s right, the Canon has 21 MP (156 pixels/mm), but the D2x’s 12 MP (183 pixels/mm) are packed closer together in the middle of the frame. The D3 (119 pixels/mm) is not really even close. I use pixels/mm rather than pixels/mm^2 to allow a functional equivalency to lens focal length, which is proportional to the magnification of an image in one direction.
Now imagine a typical morning shoot for me; Nikon D2x, 400mm f2.8 lens, @ f4.0, ISO 200, 1/400th sec shutter speed, and a big tripod which I will shoot from while hand holding the camera and actively tracking moving animal subjects. I can’t shoot slower and stop all the motion of my lens and/or subject. I shoot f4.0 to get my lens in a “happy place” for sharpness in high contrast details, and ISO 200 because that’s all the light I’ve got. Assume the subject does not completely fill my lens, so I need all of the lens I’ve got. In order to get slightly more image detail with the Canon, I’d need a 500mm f4.0 lens, which I’d want to shoot at f5.6 to get that same “happy place”, and I’d need 1/500th sec shutter speed to compensate for the longer lens. So now I’m at an ISO around 500. By my previous observation about noise/ISO equivalents across the bodies, this means that I have gained only at the margins. The noise is about the same, the image is bigger, but the subject already wasn’t filling the lens, so I’m just going to crop the extra megapixels away. Same thing for the D3. You need a bigger lens (600mm), faster shutter speed, and higher ISO so you need all the extra sensitivity the D3 supposedly provides just to get the same noise and resolution. Now read my conclusions at the top of the page again, and feel free to disagree!
Updated 5/5/2008 -
You are welcome to comment on this by using my guestbook or the 'contact" feature on this website. If your comments are polite, I'll happily post them.
Also, I did forget to give the obvious nod to the D3 for anyone who really likes to shoot up close in low light. I would think that portrait shooters who like to work in ambient light would be in heaven! -SC