leewoolery wrote:
But specs aside...I've shot with both and the D3s is the clear winner as to AF and high ISO performance for indoor lowlight sports.
However disappointing that might appear, the question remains if MkIV is good enough. I'd venture a guess that for most people that is the case.
I am still a happy user of 1DMkIIN and 1dsMkII although on occasion I struggle with AF, and hi ISO performance is really not very good. Yet for an amateur those limitations are rather inconsequential, and might be even viewed as opportunities and challenges hopefully leading to improved technique, workarounds etc.
Is anyone here really influenced by forum threads like these? The comparisons should be made between the 1D4 and what you are currently shooting. Is the 1D4 a better camera than what you're using now? Do you really care which camera is best, or is this a way to route for your favorite team at the varsity level?
I sold my D3 for a D3s. Current reviews/comparisons put the Mk IV at least 1.5 stops behind the D3s at hi-ISO. For me, the Mk IV's extra 4Mp of resolution are not going to show covered by the noise at the higher ISOs I use. Even though Canon has the best sensor technology Canon won't make what I want, a FF 1D (not an "s" I have no need for a 30Mp+ 1Ds MK IV with a sensor that out resolves both hi ISO noise and lens IQ) with 16-18Mp and 10fps.
I say, if you've got a collection of nice lenses already, stick with the brand you've got. Not that much difference in capabilities bet. the 1Dmk4 and D3s to justify taking a hit by buying new lenses.
If I were starting from scratch and I do wildlife (small birds, etc.), I'd pick the 1dmk4. Otherwise, I would go for the D3s. 4mp diff. is not that much and the hi-iso capability of the D3s is crazy.
Flawed test. Any comparison that doesn't begin with images having the same FOV from all cameras is pretty much meaningless. 1D4 or D3s? I wish I could afford both and the lenses that would be needed. Both are stellar cameras with somewhat different strengths.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
Flawed test. Any comparison that doesn't begin with images having the same FOV from all cameras is pretty much meaningless. 1D4 or D3s? I wish I could afford both and the lenses that would be needed. Both are stellar cameras with somewhat different strengths.
No, thats a reasonable test if one wishes to see which camera will produce better images for the reach limited shooter. In that context, yes the 1D4 will likely produce better images all the way to ISO 6400. Beyond that, the noise levels will start to seriously impact detail in which case the 'reach' advantage of the 1D4 will likely be negated.
thedigitalbean wrote:
No, thats a reasonable test if one wishes to see which camera will produce better images for the reach limited shooter. In that context, yes the 1D4 will likely produce better images all the way to ISO 6400. Beyond that, the noise levels will start to seriously impact detail in which case the 'reach' advantage of the 1D4 will likely be negated.
And if you aren't reach limited? Like I said, this is based on a particular viewpoint. It would be interesting to compare up to a certain focal length, say 300mm, without cropping either camera. You can get into the "bang for buck" argument about costlier lenses for the larger sensors, but that issue has always been the case.
All that said, I like the APS-H sensor. Wished it were available in a 7D body. Canon isn't going to do that.
