I shoot primarily film but have a D30. I have an assignment for Castles and Cathedrals and was wondering if picking up a used 1DsII or the new Nikon D3 would be a better choice. Lenses and camera system familiarity aside, which body is going to be better equipped for monopod or handheld shooting inside dimly lit castles and cathedrals?
i haven't used either, but from what i've seen, id say the d3. It has great high ISO abilities. Is the 5D out of the option? that camera still has awesome high ISO shots. they always look very natural.
I know you said lenses aside, but if you're not going to be on a tripod, you should probably consider if either Nikon or Canon has an IS lens in the focal length you want, and pick the body that matches.
I would suggest you get the Mark III @ ISO 3200. The D3 has imho insufficient high iso quality. I shot with the D3,did not likte the ISO performance. To much in camera noise reduction.
I just spent the last week comparing a 1D3 to a Nikon D3. The D3 does have a lot of in camera noise reduction at high ISO, but you can turn it down. Even with it turned down the D3 has about a 1 stop high ISO noise advantage at ISO 3200 and beyond. The D3 also retains better color and dynamic range.
Comparing the 1D3 to the 1Ds2 I found the 1D3 to have about a 2/3 stop advantage in high ISO noise, again with the 1D3 retaining better color and dynamic range at higher ISOs.
If its between the 1Ds2 and D3, the D3 will definitely be the better camera for this purpose.
Get a D3 and 14-24/2.8 lens. That combo is superb for shooting indoors. The Canon 1Ds III and Nikon 14-24 (with adaptor) would be even better, but that's stretching it.
I'd also go for the D3... good high-ISO files, 14-bit files that (in theory) you can squeeze more out of, wireless flash built-in, and that 14-24 lens that even canonites drool over!
The D3 has even at the lowest setting of in camera noise reduction still TO MUCH noise reduction. The NEFs I got were altogether washed out, kind of muddy. I am honestly totaly disappointed of the high iso IQ from the D3. But this is my personal opinion based on the shots I took.
I actually have both Canon and Nikon gear, which is why suggestions on a better body, regardless of lenses, etc. would be helpful. Does the recommendation change since I have capable lenses for both manufacturers already?
linesplice wrote:
I actually have both Canon and Nikon gear, which is why suggestions on a better body, regardless of lenses, etc. would be helpful. Does the recommendation change since I have capable lenses for both manufacturers already?
Well if you're not getting more glass I'd go with the D3. Looking at your profile it looks like your Nikon Glass set is more suitable for indoor use since you have a bunch of fast glass.
the answer seems pretty easy to me....you are comparing two cameras which by virtue of available iso settings have different capabilities. if high iso performance is an important factor, the only canon that can get you there at this moment is the 1d3 and that was not on the list of options you are considering. the resolution difference between the 12 mps of the d3 and the 1ds2's 16mps should be about the same as the difference between the 5d and the 1ds2...which was depending on who you ask, might be considered relatively small.
if low light and high iso capability is a priority, the d3 would seem to have the advantage over the 1ds2.
I disagree with EOSDNG. I own both the Mk III and D3 and have shot 1000,s of images with both and PPed 100's. I print up to 24x36" with my D3 set at 6400 ISO and rate the Mk III @ 3200. The D3 trounces the Mk III at hi ISO (RAW thru CS3s ACR).
Also consider that interior architectural can demand some wide lenses. Nikon makes the excellent 24-70 F2.8 (better than, my, Canon equivalent) and the world's best 14mm-the 14mm end of their 14-24 F2.8. It is much better than even the Canon 16-35 Mk II. However, the Canon 15mm FE (defished or not) is better than the Nikkor FF equivalent.
SoundHound wrote:
I disagree with EOSDNG. I own both the Mk III and D3 and have shot 1000,s of images with both and PPed 100's. I print up to 24x36" with my D3 set at 6400 ISO and rate the Mk III @ 3200. The D3 trounces the Mk III at hi ISO (RAW thru CS3s ACR).
Also consider that interior architectural can demand some wide lenses. Nikon makes the excellent 24-70 F2.8 (better than, my, Canon equivalent) and the world's best 14mm-the 14mm end of their 14-24 F2.8. It is much better than even the Canon 16-35 Mk II. However, the Canon 15mm FE (defished or not) is better than the Nikkor FF equivalent....Show more →
I shot with both Mark III and D3 for a while, Mark III for over 30,000 shots and D3 for around 5k.
To be honest the IQ from Canon is still the best while the D3 is a great leap from D2X for sure......
I shot churches in Italy and Castles and Abbeys in Ireland using nothing more than a 20D. It had some limitations. I'm talking about the interiors- but I wasn't doing it for a magazine, just travel slide presentation. So you shouldn't consider me a pro.
I'm sorry to recommend the 1D III again like others, but I upgraded to this and was amazed at being able to shoot dark churches in Denmark. There is a 10th century crypt under a church in Aarhus with just a bit of window light and a couple of candles...the 1D3 locked AF in one shot mode on things I could barely see details of myself. I can't remember if I had an ST-E2 on or not, but it was still impressive. I shot 16-35L Mark I wide open ISO 3200 and 6400.
With the 20D, esp in Irish castles I had to resort to flash more often than I desired. I wish I had had the 1D III then.
Your style may be better than mine, but there's no way I could fit a tripod in an Irish staircase. Or anywhere in Italy (very crowded) either. Monopod possibly. Denmark I felt to be more tripod friendly.
Look out for those Irish spiral staircases btw. They built them with varying steps to trip unfamiliar intruders up.
Edited by Jim Hayes on Mar 27, 2008 at 09:31 PM GMT
if you have some really good appropriate lenses like the 14-24. and the 24-70 or the 28-70. you will come home with lots of pictures you will cherish
in the case of the 1Ds2 (i used to own). if it wasn't for the lack of any competition between the canon 16-35 or the 14-24 iwould probably have to go with the 1Ds2. but as we all know the camera is 2 parts. the balance of the 14-24 and the 24-70 on the D3 makes up for the lack of balance in the 1Ds2 and the 16-35. i have the 16-35 II and it is a good lens but the 14-24 is just that much better.
I understand the MK3 is a great camera, but it's $8K vs. the $4K of the D3, right?
Going for the 1DsMK2 is that I already have the 24-70L and some good primes. I would have to purchase the 14-24 for the Nikon.
It's a price vs. performance equation. I need to have a capable body that will suit my needs, but would like to provide the highest quality images at the same time. I'll be up in the Alps taking some landscape shots while I'm in the region as well. I have a feeling people are going to side with the 1DsMk2's slightly higher resolution for the landscape shots, but I'd like to hear some opinions.
Churches and landscapes. Which camera rules the day besides the twice-as-expensive MKIII?
