Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: achrisproduction on December 05, 2009, 02:21:25 am
-
Currently using Canon EOS Digital system, 1Ds III 1D III 5D II. I mostly do Architectural and landscape work. Attracted by Nikon's noise control and their new Nano zoom lenses. (I have 3 AI Nikkor lenses and a few F bodies) I know Nikon D3s and D3x aim at different photographers but both of them have very good noise control. For sure D3s does have less noise at higher ISO due to pixel density but D3x offers more details. Its really hard to choose. What do you guys recommend?
-
If you are using a tripod for your work I would go for the for the hi res Camera option.
Also note that Canon are due to release their new 30+MP Camera next year. This maybe worth a look especially with their new ts-e lens. Who knows it could be the best option around for architectural and landscape in the FF arena.
-
If you are using a tripod for your work I would go for the for the hi res Camera option.
Also note that Canon are due to release their new 30+MP Camera next year. This maybe worth a look especially with their new ts-e lens. Who knows it could be the best option around for architectural and landscape in the FF arena.
thanks for the reminder bro. Yes, I think the best solution is to wait for the 1Ds IV.
-
D3x has amazing image quality, handled correctly (on a tripod, low ISO). I get 24x36 inch and larger prints of high detail landscape out of it all the time (and sell them in galleries) . The fact that a D3x gives its best image quality on a tripod (or handheld at a very high shutter speed) is not a flaw in the D3x - it is simply a reflection of the fact that that much resolution is going to show any tiny vibration. Canon's new pixel monster will be at least as bad in that regard. I find Nikon's interface and short lenses to be superior to Canon's (but wish Nikon had Canon's long glass), plus the D3x is a decent-sized step up in image quality (not just resolution, but phenomenal dynamic range) from anything Canon has right now. It'll be interesting to see what their new camera does - I've heard rumors of an oversize sensor on the new Canon (but the same rumors swirled about the D3x, and it came out with a conventional 24x36mm sensor). I wonder how radical the new Canon will be - the D3x is in fact a very conservative design apart from the sensor and AA filter (it's a D3 in every other way) - will Canon follow the same path, or will they release something that is unexpected in some way? Interestingly, both Nikon and Canon are on three year cycles with this type of camera, but close to 18 months apart, so they'll always be playing leapfrog (unless one releases something unexpected that the other has trouble catching)!
-Dan
-
1ds Mark III s are going for a song nowdays. I just got mine! Woot!!
-
D3x has amazing image quality, handled correctly (on a tripod, low ISO). I get 24x36 inch and larger prints of high detail landscape out of it all the time (and sell them in galleries) . The fact that a D3x gives its best image quality on a tripod (or handheld at a very high shutter speed) is not a flaw in the D3x - it is simply a reflection of the fact that that much resolution is going to show any tiny vibration. Canon's new pixel monster will be at least as bad in that regard. I find Nikon's interface and short lenses to be superior to Canon's (but wish Nikon had Canon's long glass), plus the D3x is a decent-sized step up in image quality (not just resolution, but phenomenal dynamic range) from anything Canon has right now. It'll be interesting to see what their new camera does - I've heard rumors of an oversize sensor on the new Canon (but the same rumors swirled about the D3x, and it came out with a conventional 24x36mm sensor). I wonder how radical the new Canon will be - the D3x is in fact a very conservative design apart from the sensor and AA filter (it's a D3 in every other way) - will Canon follow the same path, or will they release something that is unexpected in some way? Interestingly, both Nikon and Canon are on three year cycles with this type of camera, but close to 18 months apart, so they'll always be playing leapfrog (unless one releases something unexpected that the other has trouble catching)!
-Dan
D3x's DR is kind of same as 1Ds Mark III. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page21.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page21.asp)
-
since you're already set up with Canon, that is what I would stay with.
you already have some great kit there, being able to cover pretty much anything IMO.
1dIII :speed(raw speed )
1dsIII: massive quality in a nice, weatherproof package, can act as a 2nd hammer when you need it to
5dII: better low-light performance, with 1080p video to boot!
thanks for the reminder bro. Yes, I think the best solution is to wait for the 1Ds IV.
I think that this is the best reccomendation though. since you already have the glass.
but definitely try out the D3x though, just traded a weekend's use of it from a friend for use of my rz kit, boy, these massive raw files are really tempting. too bad I don't have 8k to invest in one . rent b4 buying is what I always recommend.
-Dan
-
D3x has amazing image quality, handled correctly (on a tripod, low ISO). I get 24x36 inch and larger prints of high detail landscape out of it all the time (and sell them in galleries) . The fact that a D3x gives its best image quality on a tripod (or handheld at a very high shutter speed) is not a flaw in the D3x - it is simply a reflection of the fact that that much resolution is going to show any tiny vibration. Canon's new pixel monster will be at least as bad in that regard. I find Nikon's interface and short lenses to be superior to Canon's (but wish Nikon had Canon's long glass), plus the D3x is a decent-sized step up in image quality (not just resolution, but phenomenal dynamic range) from anything Canon has right now. It'll be interesting to see what their new camera does - I've heard rumors of an oversize sensor on the new Canon (but the same rumors swirled about the D3x, and it came out with a conventional 24x36mm sensor). I wonder how radical the new Canon will be - the D3x is in fact a very conservative design apart from the sensor and AA filter (it's a D3 in every other way) - will Canon follow the same path, or will they release something that is unexpected in some way? Interestingly, both Nikon and Canon are on three year cycles with this type of camera, but close to 18 months apart, so they'll always be playing leapfrog (unless one releases something unexpected that the other has trouble catching)!
-Dan
Dan,
I don't want to steal this thread but I noticed you mention you wish Nikon had Canon's long glass. I am in the initial phase of buying a 500mm or 600mm. For the price of the Nikon glass I can buy a Canon lens and (almost) a 5DII. This is a pretty compelling reason to add Canon. I thought the new Nikon VR long glass was comparable to Canon's?
-
Nikon D3s or D3x?
both :-)
-
I think Nikon's long glass is superior.
Look at images of those sport shooters at the latest Olympic games?
90% Nikon,because the AF of Nikon is the best at he moment anyway.
Best,
Willem.
-
For now, the D3x is one step ahead of the 1DS MKIII
dxomark D3x/1DS III (http://tinyurl.com/ydmqha9)
change or wait for the MKIV... )
-
I think Nikon's long glass is superior.
Look at images of those sport shooters at the latest Olympic games?
90% Nikon,because the AF of Nikon is the best at he moment anyway.
Best,
Willem.
Thx Willem. For the price difference it better be. It is quite significant. Especially with the 500 which is still the lens that looks like the one it is going to be (but the 600 is very tempting).
For the original question. Quite frankly these 2 bodies are so different that it seems odd to me that someone is wondering which to get? From the type of work you do it appears to me that D3x would be the way to go but you should know that better than anyone else here.
-
D3x's DR is kind of same as 1Ds Mark III. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page21.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page21.asp)
DPR's testing methods are not optimum. For a better analysis, I would look at those done by DXO:
[attachment=18391:DXO_NikonCanon.png]
D3x (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3X)
Canon 1Ds MIII (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Canon/EOS-1Ds-Mark-III)
-
I think Nikon's long glass is superior.
Look at images of those sport shooters at the latest Olympic games?
90% Nikon,because the AF of Nikon is the best at he moment anyway.
Best,
Willem.
90% Nikon, here did you get this info, please take a look at this:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-9314-9563 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9314-9563)
Cheers
T
-
For now, the D3x is one step ahead of the 1DS MKIII
dxomark D3x/1DS III (http://tinyurl.com/ydmqha9)
change or wait for the MKIV... )
Well for sure because D3x was released after 1Ds III right?
-
At the risk of getting a little off topic, we can discuss Nikon v. Canon v. others until a large herd of cows come home! Use what you like. The only thing I would say is that a must-have lens is the tilt/shift, whatever platform you use. It is remarkable for extending depth of field and reducing distortion in architectural pictures. The decision for me is not whether to buy one (and they are pricey), but what focal length to get. Actually, all three would be great.
-
At the risk of getting a little off topic, we can discuss Nikon v. Canon v. others until a large herd of cows come home! Use what you like. The only thing I would say is that a must-have lens is the tilt/shift, whatever platform you use. It is remarkable for extending depth of field and reducing distortion in architectural pictures. The decision for me is not whether to buy one (and they are pricey), but what focal length to get. Actually, all three would be great.
yea I got TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II.
-
I find Nikon's interface and short lenses to be superior to Canon's (but wish Nikon had Canon's long glass)
Canon had the advantage in long glass a few years ago, but not any more unless you mean _cheap_ long glass. The Nikon super-tele's have been updated with VR and are quite excellent. They're also substantially more expensive than Canon's offerings though.
-
I thought the new Nikon VR long glass was comparable to Canon's?
I don't see how a lens could be significantly better than the 300 f2.8 VR. It far outresolves the D3x accross the frame at basically all apertures, has super nice bokey, a VR that works extremely well...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see how a lens could be significantly better than the 300 f2.8 VR. It far outresolves the D3x accross the frame at basically all apertures, has super nice bokey, a VR that works extremely well...
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Do yourself a favor, compare the long lenses yourself.
I swapped from C to N, but that doesn't mean that C gear is always inferior.
Edmund
-
It'll be interesting to see what Canon does about the color in the next high megapixel 35mm camera. Hopefully they stay away from the "yellow" red channel that they've been doing since the 50D/5dii in order to improve high ISO noise. I'd personally go Nikon.
-
It'll be interesting to see what Canon does about the color in the next high megapixel 35mm camera. Hopefully they stay away from the "yellow" red channel that they've been doing since the 50D/5dii in order to improve high ISO noise. I'd personally go Nikon.
I think their CMOS technology is more and more geared to video - it can work with low light and gives very smooth images which many say are ideal for film-makers. Most of us who really want really good low-light AF and sharp hi-ISO images with good color have moved to N already.
This is not to say that Canon are bad - it's just that N have come back from nowhere to score a home run with the D3, D700, D3x and D3s. Canon needed a kick in the pants, it has now definitely been administered.
Edmund
-
Bernard,
Do yourself a favor, compare the long lenses yourself.
I swapped from C to N, but that doesn't mean that C gear is always inferior.
Edmund,
Not saying that it is inferior, only that it cannot be much superior in the particular case of the 300 f2.8.
Do you own the Nikkor 300 f2.8 VR?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Edmund,
Not saying that it is inferior, only that it cannot be much superior in the particular case of the 300 f2.8.
Do you own the Nikkor 300 f2.8 VR?
Cheers,
Bernard
No, the only "real" tele I own is the old Canon 200/1.8 which is quite decent for an antique. See attached image.
You really shouldn't underestimate the "good" Canon teles if you haven't tried them. I tried the Nikon 200 F2. ROTFL.
Edmund
-
No, the only "real" tele I own is the old Canon 200/1.8 which is quite decent for an antique. See attached image.
You really shouldn't underestimate the "good" Canon teles if you haven't tried them. I tried the Nikon 200 F2. ROTFL.
Edmund
I have the Canon EF 300 f/2.8L IS too and its a stunning lens. However, after the push from Nikon I am Canon will release Mark II with hybrid IS for all current teles except 282 IS and 856 IS. Now back to Canon vs Nikon. lol
-
I own a Nikon D700 and Nikkor 14-24/2.8. This is a replacement, or upgrade, to my Canon 5D with Sigma 15-30.
Unfortunately, I cannot find an upgrade in the Nikkor repertoire to the Canon 24-105/F4 IS, nor the Canon 100-400 IS, two lenses which I use a lot.
Image stabilisation is a great invention and, in my view, more significant than any moderate increase in sensor pixel count. A D3s with some good quality Nikkor lenses featuring the latest and best VR technology, would probably be irresistable for me.
-
I think their CMOS technology is more and more geared to video - it can work with low light and gives very smooth images which many say are ideal for film-makers. Most of us who really want really good low-light AF and sharp hi-ISO images with good color have moved to N already.
This is not to say that Canon are bad - it's just that N have come back from nowhere to score a home run with the D3, D700, D3x and D3s. Canon needed a kick in the pants, it has now definitely been administered.
Edmund
I think it's less about the CMOS tech, and more about the cfa they're putting on top of it. CFAs are becoming more and more transparent with worse color seperation. Nikon falls between Canon and Sony in this regard.
-
You really shouldn't underestimate the "good" Canon teles if you haven't tried them. I tried the Nikon 200 F2. ROTFL.
Are you talking about the current 200 f2.0 VR?
It is universally considered to be one of the best lenses ever designed for any mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Are you talking about the current 200 f2.0 VR?
It is universally considered to be one of the best lenses ever designed for any mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Some lenses are special, unique to their users in some way, and do not really have substitutes.
My N 85/1.4 is sadly in no way a replacement for my old C 85/1.2. although the N lens is very nice.
My *old* 200/ 1.8 C lens also seems to be in a class of its own, the new C 200/2 is not quite an equivalent for some reason, I believe, nor the N 200/2.
Edmund
-
Bernard,
Some lenses are special, unique to their users in some way, and do not really have substitutes.
My N 85/1.4 is sadly in no way a replacement for my old C 85/1.2. although the N lens is very nice.
My *old* 200/ 1.8 C lens also seems to be in a class of its own, the new C 200/2 is not quite an equivalent for some reason, I believe, nor the N 200/2.
Edmund
Edmund,
I own the N 200/2.0VR and dont see how a lens could me much better than this.
At f2.0 it is already sharper than the 70-200/2.8 stepped down to f4.0.
It focuses blazingly fast, super sharp, and creamy bokeh.
Sorry - even if one lens is a little better or worse I dont see how anybody could not be satisfied.
-
Bernard,
Some lenses are special, unique to their users in some way, and do not really have substitutes.
My N 85/1.4 is sadly in no way a replacement for my old C 85/1.2. although the N lens is very nice.
My *old* 200/ 1.8 C lens also seems to be in a class of its own, the new C 200/2 is not quite an equivalent for some reason, I believe, nor the N 200/2.
Edmund
few lenses that Nikon has to catch up with. EF 24 f/1.4L II, EF 35 f/1.4L, EF 50 f/1.2L, EF 85 f/1.2L II, EF 100 f/2.8L IS, EF 135 f/2L, EF 180 f/3.5L....etc.
-
Edmund,
I own the N 200/2.0VR and dont see how a lens could me much better than this.
At f2.0 it is already sharper than the 70-200/2.8 stepped down to f4.0.
It focuses blazingly fast, super sharp, and creamy bokeh.
Sorry - even if one lens is a little better or worse I dont see how anybody could not be satisfied.
Canon's EF 200 f/2L IS is the same too but ages ago Canon already had EF 200 f/1.8L.
-
few lenses that Nikon has to catch up with. EF 24 f/1.4L II, EF 35 f/1.4L, EF 50 f/1.2L, EF 85 f/1.2L II, EF 100 f/2.8L IS, EF 135 f/2L, EF 180 f/3.5L....etc.
More to be found at www.bythom.com
Nikon lens line up has many holes in it, no doubt. I would say though that they have gotten many of their recent releases right... this being said 90% of my images are shot with a Zeiss lens...
The true beauty of stitching is that changing system has become a whole lot easier... were Canon or Sony to release something really appealing in the high end, I would be able to invest in that, buy the very best lens available for that mount between 80 and 120mm and keep shooting the exact same way. Life is great!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
More to be found at www.bythom.com
Nikon lens line up has many holes in it, no doubt. I would say though that they have gotten many of their recent releases right... this being said 90% of my images are shot with a Zeiss lens...
The true beauty of stitching is that changing system has become a whole lot easier... were Canon or Sony to release something really appealing in the high end, I would be able to invest in that, buy the very best lens available for that mount between 80 and 120mm and keep shooting the exact same way. Life is great!
Cheers,
Bernard
Benard, I think it doesn't matter what system. The image is the main thing. I like your images, your landscape work is the best landscape work I ever seen to be honest.
Cheers,
Chris
-
I dont feel that the Nikon 24PCE, 28/1.4, 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4 for Nikon, 85/1.4, 105DC, 135DC, 180/2.8 are the limiting factor, even if some of the Canon counterparts might be slightly ahead. For those who use zooms its probably the other way around.
Personally I have never seen a reason to switch to Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. The only lens which I didnt like that much is the 70-200/2.8VR Nikon and thereforesold it.
-
I dont feel that the Nikon 24PCE, 28/1.4, 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4 for Nikon, 85/1.4, 105DC, 135DC, 180/2.8 are the limiting factor, even if some of the Canon counterparts might be slightly ahead. For those who use zooms its probably the other way around.
Personally I have never seen a reason to switch to Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. The only lens which I didnt like that much is the 70-200/2.8VR Nikon and thereforesold it.
Same here, I also sold the 70-200VR. I now have the VRII which is very different. Much better! Finally I am happy with the 70-200VRII.
I just wish Nikon would come with a 70-200VRII/4.0. Nikon is bound to be updating its line of primes. It is pretty much the last thing they have not updated recently. Rumors are there is a 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and a new version of the DC in the pipeline. I hope these rumors become true...
-
Nikon's long glass problem, as I see it, is not the fast supertelephoto primes (other than their prices) - it is the 70-200 (new one may have fixed this), the very old 300 f4, and the 80-400. For a long while, the 70-300 mm consumer AF-S VR zoom was the best stabilized Nikkor longer than 120mm and less expensive than the 300 f2.8 (on FX). The first 70-200 f2.8 VR was really a (superb) DX lens, with corner sharpness issues on FX that were worse than the 70-300, the 70-200 f4 VR doesn't exist, the 300mm f4 isn't stabilized, and the 80-400 is a very old lens with slow AF and some sharpness problems (the newest 70-300 AF-S VR is a sharper lens than the 10 year old 80-400). The fast primes and the 200-400 are superb lenses (as are Canon's equivalents, and for that matter Sony, Pentax, Leica and Mamiya versions of similar lenses - superteles are expensive to build, but not all that hard to design), but both expensive and very heavy (inherent in the type of lens, not Nikon's fault). Hopefully the new 70-200 will be a true FX lens, and fill some of that gap, and Nikon will release a mid-priced (much more expensive than the 70-300 AF-S VR, but cheaper than the 300 f2.8) lens that replaces the old 80-400. If we had a truly good 70-200 FX (we may now) plus a mid-priced modern 100-400ish, Nikon would have a good line of long glass that bridges the gap in price and weight to the expensive big primes and the 200-400.
-Dan
-
Benard, I think it doesn't matter what system. The image is the main thing. I like your images, your landscape work is the best landscape work I ever seen to be honest.
Cheers,
Chris
I agree with everything you say here
Edmund
-
I agree with everything you say here
Edmund
Thanks a lot for your kind words Edmund and Chris!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
few lenses that Nikon has to catch up with. EF 24 f/1.4L II, EF 35 f/1.4L, EF 50 f/1.2L, EF 85 f/1.2L II, EF 100 f/2.8L IS, EF 135 f/2L, EF 180 f/3.5L....etc.
You might like to educate yourself about the Nikon micro lenses.
-
I prefer Nikon simply because I like the way their cameras feel in my hands, handle and the user interface. Having said that, I now work with both systems - Nikon has nothing in the 400 AF F4 or F5.6 arena. Yes the 200-400 zoom (too heavy to hand-hold and lousy with a TC); and the old 80-400 - neither cut it image wise compared to Canon primes (400mm). Nikon has to do something to address this otherwise I may just jump ship altogether - after all I can use the good Nikon glass with adapters on Canon bodies. In the meantime I will shoot the Canon af F5.6 and the DO F4 lens for birds in flight. Wonderful lenses both - Nikon needs to address the wildlife shooters who need high image quality without the weight (read F2.8 max aperture). Many people need ease of movement with telephotos for birds in flight not haevy weight telephotos...and with the ability to shoot at 800-1250 with low noise, the faster F stops are not always needed - unless you want to completely blur the background.