K.Y.Lee wrote:
> This is the second part of this thread:
> [url]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=24976463[/url]
>
> Updated, tripod, evaluative/matrix metering, WB 5000k, AV priority.
> All NR off, no sharpening, AF center focus point and where did the
> camera chose can vary and lens/user factors also contributed to
> sharpness. I will have another thread for sharpness later.
>
> NEF converted with ViewNX, CR2 converted with DPP
>
> 1D3 + 24-105 F4L vs D3 + 24-70 2.8
>
> I will try to put up all original files later for downloading.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ISO25,600
Well, we knew this would start to happen. Some cameras work better after post processing, the D200 is a prime example. And though it is ok, the 24-105 L is not the greatest lens in the world either.... (and from what I'm hearing, the 24 -70 Nikkor very well could be)
Still, the D3 doesn't have a direct print button. If thats straight out of the camera results, maybe it bloody well should!
j.curtis wrote:
It does appear that Nikon now has better focus, better metering, better lighting system, and now better high ISO.
What can Canon shooters say now? Maybe more options on glass, but who really needs that many options?
The one thing they can say is that they have a wide angle tilt/shift and that about it! But they lack a few things like a 200-400VR and an 18-200VR and things like and FX to DX crop and CLS ...
Andre Labonte wrote:
The one thing they can say is that they have a wide angle tilt/shift and that about it! But they lack a few things like a 200-400VR and an 18-200VR and things like and FX to DX crop and CLS ...
But I want a wide angle tilt/shift!
in that case you need to abandon ship. i don't think nikon will make that tilt/shift in the near future...
Have you tried the 1DmkIII? i did. it felt pretty good. and since i never shoot in caves i don't mind that it's so bad in high iso. hahaha.
it's just my current load of nikon lenses that keep me on the dark side. hm and i tried the D3 and that is not so bad either.
Better noise? Maybe but we're comparing full frame Nikon vs a cropped Canon dSLR so most expected better noise already. Sharpness? Can't be determined here. 24-105 doesn't even compare to the 28-70 in that regard so the Canon image is already at a disadvantage. If possible someone needs to do a test with the same lens on both cameras using a Nikon to EOS adapter. Pick a sharp prime lens. I like the 1D3 colors in these pics, less yellow cast and yes, my monitor is calibrated. Both cameras are capable of amazing image quality so it doesn't matter to me who wins the challenge. The 1Ds MKIII will beat both cameras in IQ so Canon is still the company to beat for ultimate IQ. For camera features and ergs Nikon is the leader.
Oct 04, 2007 at 09:55 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
...The 1Ds MKIII will beat both cameras in IQ so Canon is still the company to beat for ultimate IQ. For camera features and ergs Nikon is the leader.
Better resolutions from the 1Ds MKIII but better IQ ?? That is yet to be determined. More pixels does not equate to better IQ as there are many other factors. At any rate, based on what I see the D3 is kicking the but of the 1D MKIII. Remember that the D3 was designed for sports and PJ just like the 1D MKIII. Though, you do have a good point about the lenses.
I'll take the noise level of either camera; but, I won't trade the focus and ergonomic of Nikon. I was real glad to see that Nikon didn't scrap the D2Xs body and controls in creating the D3. It should be a pretty easy transition from the D2's to the D3. The Canon Mark II owners were not too happy that the Mark III didn't adopt the Mark II controls/menus.
James R wrote:
I'll take the noise level of either camera; but, I won't trade the focus and ergonomic of Nikon. I was real glad to see that Nikon didn't scrap the D2Xs body and controls in creating the D3. It should be a pretty easy transition from the D2's to the D3. The Canon Mark II owners were not too happy that the Mark III didn't adopt the Mark II controls/menus.
I disagree I think most of us were very happy with the new controls. Much easier to navigate then before.
James R wrote:
I'll take the noise level of either camera; but, I won't trade the focus and ergonomic of Nikon. I was real glad to see that Nikon didn't scrap the D2Xs body and controls in creating the D3. It should be a pretty easy transition from the D2's to the D3. The Canon Mark II owners were not too happy that the Mark III didn't adopt the Mark II controls/menus.
I disagree I think most of us were very happy with the new controls. Much easier to navigate then before.
The negative comments were from sports shooters who post on Sportsshooter.com. Now that you have disagreed, I will change my post to state "many" or "some." My point is still I'm glad Nikon didn't make wholesale changes.
I must say that Canon is making progress in terms of build and handling... I shot with a 40D tonight for the first time and for the first time came away impressed that a Canon consumer / prosumer camera didn't feel too "plasticky" and - forgive me Canon shooters - a little cheap to me. The 5D and the 30D both didn't impress me this way. I still find the controls foreign of course, and would never give up that sublime Nikon ergos and layout and build, but it doesn't appear to be the gap I used to feel it was. Except for the 1D series, the 40D was the first Canon I've handled that felt like it could withstand regular abuse, similar to the standard of the D200 this way.
Competition is a good thing... it's nice to have the two big guys to keep each other honest, and now that Nikon is again a serious competitor - if not the new leader - in the pro bodies (after a few years of nothing new to compete with), it's good for everyone on BOTH sides of the line.
But they lack a few things like a 200-400VR and an 18-200VR and things like and FX to DX crop and CLS ... 
