Best low light 35mm digi

[JTFOTO]

Hey All!

I have been a Canon user for about five years and before that was a Nikon Diehard.  I went Canon because of the full frame chip.

I like the Canon, but my 1Ds Mark II bodies are wearing thin.  I ma about to make the jump and wondering if I should go to Nikon or Canon.

My question would be what is the best in low light at the full frame size.  I know the D3 has received rave reviews but I do want to go to 20+MP.  So that really leaves the D3x or the 1DsMIII.  Which performs better at 800 to 1600?

Any advice will be much appreciated.

I think I am going to rent a D3X this week and play around and then rent a 1DsMIII


JT

[SeanBK]

Based on info I have found on Internet   . I believe D3x still would be better, as I personally have not compared it with Canon Flagship. Do let us know what your finding is.

[lovell]

These days you can't go wrong with either Nikon's or Canon's best models.  A year ago the only DSLR to have was a Canon.  But that was then.  Today either Nikon or Canon best will provide low noise at the higher ISO's.

[PeterAit]

Hey All!

I have been a Canon user for about five years and before that was a Nikon Diehard.  I went Canon because of the full frame chip.

I like the Canon, but my 1Ds Mark II bodies are wearing thin.  I ma about to make the jump and wondering if I should go to Nikon or Canon.

My question would be what is the best in low light at the full frame size.  I know the D3 has received rave reviews but I do want to go to 20+MP.  So that really leaves the D3x or the 1DsMIII.  Which performs better at 800 to 1600?

Any advice will be much appreciated.

I think I am going to rent a D3X this week and play around and then rent a 1DsMIII


JT

The Nikon D700 is renowned for great low light performance. You really must try it if that's your main criterion. It's also a fantastic camera all-around.

Peter

[Dan Wells]

The only problem with Nikon is that their fantastic low-light performer (D700/D3) is NOT the same camera as their 24+ MP image quality monster (D3x). I shoot (and love) the D3x, and its image quality is very good up to ISO 1600, but its SPECIAL image quality - the quality you buy the thing for - is at a noiseless ISO 100 (with ridiculously high dynamic range). The D3/D700, on the other hand, have superb IQ up to ISO 6400 (with "emergency modes" still higher) - IF you can accept 12 MP. (Nikon guru Thom Hogan says that he prefers a D3x over a D3 up to somewhere between ISO 800 and 1600, making the same size print, then the low light performance starts to matter more than the resolution) That said, I don't think any of the other "pixel monsters", either Canon or Sony, have any better high-ISO performance than the D3x (the a900 is worse, and I think the Canons are about the same). The only way to get the low-light performance of the low-resolution Nikon FF DSLRs is to accept that their low resolution is part of the package.

                                         -Dan

[dwdallam]

If yuo need to shoot jpgs, I'd go with one of the Nikon, since at high ISO, the D3X is suppose to have a little less noise than the 1DSMKIII. However a lot of that noise, if not all, can be mitigated in processing. So it's not a big deal if you are shooting RAW.

The other thing to remember too is that Canon will probably announce it's new flagship early next year.

[DaveCurtis]

I shoot with the Canon 1DMrk3 which I'm very pleased with. However if the best is what you require the Nikon D3x is currently number one. I dont think there is any debate about that.

You can checkout the pixel peeping stuff over at diglloyd (paid site). The Nikon has cleaner shadows and a greater DR. Obviously you pay for the best! Best value for the $$ is another matter of course.

Canon are due to release there next generation 1 series probably next year it you wish to wait that long.

Currenly I think I will say with Canon as it's too much hastle changing lens and I don't want to run two DSLR systems. The other issue is Canon are now finally producing some decent wide angle lens and of course the Zeiss 21mm ZE is due out about now.

However to be honest you cant go wrong with Canon, Nikon or Sony.

[KevinA]

Hey All!

I have been a Canon user for about five years and before that was a Nikon Diehard.  I went Canon because of the full frame chip.

I like the Canon, but my 1Ds Mark II bodies are wearing thin.  I ma about to make the jump and wondering if I should go to Nikon or Canon.

My question would be what is the best in low light at the full frame size.  I know the D3 has received rave reviews but I do want to go to 20+MP.  So that really leaves the D3x or the 1DsMIII.  Which performs better at 800 to 1600?

Any advice will be much appreciated.

I think I am going to rent a D3X this week and play around and then rent a 1DsMIII


JT

I would rent them at the same time and shoot them together, small differences in low light can make a big difference to noise.

Kevin.

[bjanes]

The only problem with Nikon is that their fantastic low-light performer (D700/D3) is NOT the same camera as their 24+ MP image quality monster (D3x). I shoot (and love) the D3x, and its image quality is very good up to ISO 1600, but its SPECIAL image quality - the quality you buy the thing for - is at a noiseless ISO 100 (with ridiculously high dynamic range). The D3/D700, on the other hand, have superb IQ up to ISO 6400 (with "emergency modes" still higher) - IF you can accept 12 MP.

Another thing to consider is that if you really need high ISO because of poor lighting conditons, you will probably be shooting at a large aperture and low shutter speed and may not get enough sharpness to make use of even 12MP, let alone 24MP. Image stabilization/vibration reduction helps, but won't freeze motion and many sports shooters turn it off.

[eronald]

I switched from C to N (1Ds2 to D3x). The Nikon has the edge over the Canon in focus performance and general "snappiness" and yields sharp and slightly grainy 1600 ISO which I use as a standard setting;  the Canon lenses have an edge over the Nikon. Find a used pro Canon sample which can focus and you'll probably be happy cheap - and BTW the 5DII can do many astonishing things, but focus like a pro it can not.

Edmund

[KevinA]

I switched from C to N (1Ds2 to D3x). The Nikon has the edge over the Canon in focus performance and general "snappiness" and yields sharp and slightly grainy 1600 ISO which I use as a standard setting;  the Canon lenses have an edge over the Nikon. Find a used pro Canon sample which can focus and you'll probably be happy cheap - and BTW the 5DII can do many astonishing things, but focus like a pro it can not.

Edmund

Strange how people see things differently, my brother has a 5DmkII and Nikon 700, he thinks the 5DmkII much quicker to find focus than the Nikon.

Kevin.

[JTFOTO]

Thank you for all the advice and the mature and perfect responses.

It has been a pleasure to read.

In my field I won't ever need more than 1600.  I really don't see the point of higher than that unless you're doing investigative work.

I have been a canon shooter since 05 w/ 1DsMII's and it is time to upgrade.  I hate to chase technology, but I wonder if Nikon will come out with another D3 improvement in six months and leave me wanting for more.

JT