Canon ? vs. Nikon D3

I am at my limit when it comes to shooting either in stadiums at night or indoor arenas. I am looking for a body

that will give me excellent image quality (21mp) at a high ISO (6400+) and a high per second frame rate (10fps).

 

As a freelance photographer shooting college and high school athletics, I find that I either have to sacrifice

image quality on enlargements or settle for motion blur, especially from a fast moving ball. I find myself

shooting at 1600 ISO, f2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/400sec. Unfortunately, a fast moving volleyball, football,

or other such projectile blurs under 1/500sec. Pushing an underexposed RAW file at ISO 1600 results in way too

much noise, hence my dilemma.

 

At a recent SportsShooter's Bootcamp, I witnessed the D3 in action. It produces fine images at 3200 (the limit

for my 40D, which is quite grainy when enlarged) and fires at 9fps. Even the 1DsIII doesn't match the specs

needed (which I would purchase if it could). It seems like it would be easy for Canon to take the improvements

built into the new 5DII and increase the fps for sports shooters.

Well I guess you might have to wait for the eventual EOS-1D Mark IV.

 

Just how large are you enlarging that you need 21 megapixels?

Poster Size

Nikon's D3 has the edge on Canon right now for noise-free, low-light action shooting, as evidenced by more and more black 400/2.8's attached to D3's showing up on the sidelines at MLB and NFB games and the Olympics.

 

Three friends shoot with D3's in venues where I cover sports, concerts, theatre, and dance, and my 1KMkII and 5D can't come close to matching their noiseless images shot at ISO 1600, 3200, and beyond.

 

Canon's 1DMkIV had better match or surpass the D3 in this regard, or sports and wildlife shooters will stampede away from Canon like shareholders and depositors bailing out of their failing banks this week.

 

And, Canon, please include an industrial-strength auto-ISO feature, so shooters can program the camera to choose the lowest ISO that can achieve a preset shutter speed or aperture, eliminating the need to switch settings in the dark during the action or shoot at a noisier-than-necessary ISO. The "safety shift" or whatever it's called on the 50D doesn't cut it.

The D3 is only 12 megapixels, and one of the primary reasons for the high ISO performance is the physically large "pixels" (wrong technical term) in the sensor.

 

By increasing to 21 megapixels, assuming we're still talking about a sensor of the same size, you decrease the size of the individual pixels and increase the noise, all other things being equal.

 

I anxiously await the high ISO samples of the 5dII, but my gut feeling is that the noise is only going to equal that of the D3 by using additional noise reduction unless canon has taken a fairly major step forward in other areas. That is entirely possible, but my guess is similar to Ellis': I think you are asking for something that doesnt really exist yet, at least until the next generation of cameras. I don't think the rumored D3X will have the same noise characteristics of the D3 nor anything else released with a vastly higher megapixel count this year.

 

Just thoughts and speculation, obviously... If Canon would only put decent AF into the 5DII you would be close!

What size poster and what printign resolution?

 

I print ISO 1600 D3 photos up to 20x30 @ 300dpi and while there is 'grain" , at normal viewing distances it is more than acceptable.

Usually no more than 24x36 at 300dpi. The D3 has excellent noise reduction at 1600. Even the 40D is okay at that ISO. I need one more stop on occasion and at 3200, at least with the Canon bodies, the print is too grainy for my taste.

Brent Reid said:

<br>

<i> Nikon's D3 has the edge on Canon right now for noise-free, low-light action shooting, as evidenced by more and more

black 400/2.8's attached to D3's showing up on the sidelines at MLB and NFB games and the Olympics. </i>

<br>

<br>

I still see more white lenses than black ones.

<br>

<a href="http://www.karikuukka.com/peking2008/100m/" >CanonStillRules</a>

<br>

<br>

Keep in mind that a 10MP camera can do 24x36 prints easy. Also noise is less visible on paper than it is on the screen.

Also keep in mind that noise reduction filters like Noise Ninja do a great job of concealing noise.

So why not consider the 1DMklll? Recent test have put its strike rate above the D3.

I have the 1D3 and its unbeleivable at ISO 3200 and very usable at 6400. I print 20x30 all the time and its a tad soft

at 6" from the paper, but 12" and farther, crystal clear. May be a good option, if not, gotta wait for that 1D4. I bet it

fits the bill.

 

Here's some baseball under the lights http://www.amberbrookephotography.com/Pleasant%20Grove%20vs%

20Cullman%20Round%202%20Game%202/

 

Dont know how that link will post. Those ISO 3200 shots further down have No NR(turned off for speed). RAW out of

camera, WB

adjustment, batch to JPEG, then

very light USM in LR. Strength at 30, radius 1.0, detail 20 mask 40.

 

Thats it. May benifit from a little NR.

Bad link I guess. looks like theres a space in there.

 

Try again

 

http://www.amberbrookephotography.com/Pleasant%20Grove%20vs%20Cullman%20Round%202%20Game%202/

Here's a link to a gallery of theatre photos my friend took with his D3 under "coal mine at midnight" lighting conditions. He used Nikon's excellent Auto-ISO feature, and the ISO ranged as high as 6400, with many at 1600 and 3200.

 

Note the detail in the light areas of the costumes and on the faces, with little or no blown-out highlights. He has printed some of them as big as 11 x 17, and the IQ, especially the absence of noise, is astounding.

 

Canon's current DSLRs cannot match this performance, but many of us hope they will do so with the replacement for the 1DMkIII. Otherwise, there will be a lot of used L lenses for sale.

 

The password is "CLT" (all capitals).

 

http://public.fotki.com/TerryPenney/courtenay_little_theatre/night-of-shooting-stars/noss-dress-rehearsal/

Yes, Brent, the photos are very nice but many are taken at much slower ISO speeds than the 1600 and 3200 you mention.

Those that are taken at higher ISO speeds are no more impressive than I am getting with a 1DMklll. As an example,

TRP4032 is shot at 3200, at 125th stopped down to f4. Don't get me wrong, it's good, but no better than I would expect at

that ISO.

Gary (OP), I don't want to highjack your thread, and hope this info addresses your original question and is of use to you.

 

Neil, now that I check more ISO settings in the EXIF, I can see that you are right. Some of the higher ISO shots (2200, etc.) are impressively noise-free, though, when viewed on my friend's Mac Cinema Display or printed.

 

Perhaps you will agree that Nikon's Auto-ISO feature is highly desirable, because it allowed Tim to always shoot at the lowest ISO necessary to achieve a shutter speed of 1/125 sec. I've covered events in the same theatre with my 1DMKII, and had to either shoot at its highest acceptably noise-free setting, 1600 ISO, no matter how the lighting changed, or constantly change settings in the dark and miss shots while doing so, especially during dance performances.

 

Possibly the 1DMkIII made advances over the MkII in low light, because I can't match the low noise levels the D3 can produce. I'm confident Canon will produce an answer to the D3, but when?

Brent: Hopefully this will help Gary because the D3, of course falls way short of his desired 21MP.

 

Although, it might not be of great benefit to me, I can see how an auto variable ISO setting would be of great use to

those doing theatre work, concerts, etc. In fairness to your friend's photos as well, his pictures have obviously been

cropped and/or resampled down from what must be something like a 35MB file produced by the D3.

 

I think Nikon have been too far behind for too long, so fair play to them if the D3 now ticks all the boxes for Nikon users.

However, I think that the 1DMklll has been tainted by initial problems that many seem to have had with the camera.

Nikon giving Canon a good kicking, of course, will ensure that they don't rest on their laurels.

 

Having now had a Mklll for about six months I am constantly stunned by the speed and accuracy of focusing and the

quality of the results - even at 1600 and 3200. I still have a Mkll (and a Mkl) but the Mkll knocks spots off it - particularly

at high ISOs.

 

Like everyone else, I'm looking forward to the MklV (and V) but don't dismiss the Mklll.

Thanks for your comparison of the MkII and MkIII. I have not shot with a MkIII yet, and know that evaluations of its performance when it first came out were dominated by concerns about AF, which obscured its positive attributes.

 

You're right that intense competition between Canon and Nikon benefits everyone. When I think of the performance of my first DSLR, the Canon D30, it's hard to believe the amount of progress that has been made in just seven or eight years.

I agree with Neil. My 1D3 high ISO shots are just as good. I have used both the 1D3 and the D3.

 

I found that 3200/6400 shots both RAW then converted in LR are only 1/4-1/2 stop difference at the most(favor Nikon

noisewise). I find the Nikon's focus to be a good bit slower than the 1D3. When I actually first used the D3 after

using my 1D3 for 6 months I thought something was wrong with it. The owner said what do you mean. He took it

from me, shot with it. Gave it back and said, "Its perfectly fine, sluggish by no means". I said, "Here, try my Mark 3".

After 3 shots he looked at me and said,"You have got to be kidding. How the hell can a camera focus that fast." And

yes, its very accurate. I never experienced any AF issues(bought after fix). He said he wanted to switch. But after

looking at the files, I convinced my good friend that he would be insane to switch from Nikon over Canon over that

one thing. The files are virtually identical. And he absolutley loves the "Auto ISO". I told him his camera works fine

and it does exactly what he wants it to. He then agreed. His camera did all he asked. And because the Nikon users

have been lusting after high ISO capability and faster focus, the D3 has made all of them very happy. They now see

what

all the fuss was about over in the Canon corner.

 

Bottom line after the shoot out was, If you have Nikon gear, the D3 is the pentical of 35mm. No question on that. If

you are used to the menus, this camera will scratch your every itch. And vise versa the 1D3. I do envy the Auto ISO.

Though my camera does have some form of it, its not the same. But I love the simple well thought out Canon menus

and have way too much tied up in L's. So its just not worth it to switch.

The one guy who brought the AF issue to light also said he would not switch due to the better files he gets from

Canon. I did see more sharpness than the D3, but again, the customer cant see it, and neither can we unless we

looked at 100% crops.

 

The D3 samples posted here are astounding, but so are the 1D3 shots. I think more importantly, the guy who shot

those theatre pics did one hell of a job as the "photographer". I dont know what kind of post was done, but they are

great none the less. Exposures were spot on and focus was exactly where it should be. Lesson, unless you can do

what he did with your current gear, then switching wont make a bit of difference. I think the 5D II will be what the

OP's looking for. Great high ISO and lots of resolution. Other than the 4fps, it would fit nice. I actually didnt buy the

1D3 for 10fps. I was happy with the 6fps of my 40D. I wanted high ISO performance and focus speed/accurracy.

I cant wait to see the 1D4 and 1Ds4

FYI, here is Tim's description of the PP he did on the theatre photos:

 

"Post processing was all done in Lightroom 2 with fairly minimal adjustments, mainly a slight colour temperature correction and some exposure adjustment to bring out the shadow and highlight detail. Other than that I did a bit of sharpening 55% and increased clarity to about 35%. I also reduced the Blacks level to 1 or 0 because of the high contrast."

"I do envy the Auto ISO"

 

Hi David, yes, although it is not something I particularly desire, I can't think why no-one has ever introduced it before. It

can't be rocket science. I would suspect that Canon will follow suit with this feature.

At the risk of belaboring the point, Lightroom's summary of the ISOs the Auto-ISO feature on Tim's D3 selected while he shot the play indicates the following:<p>

<li>40/271 of the photos were captured at ISO 6400,

<li>and 87/271 were shot at ISO 3200 and above.

<p>

I will email the ISO table to anyone who wants to see it.

<p>

I look forward to buying a Canon DSLR that will match or surpass the D3's exceptional low-light performance.

At the risk of belaboring the point, Lightroom's summary of the ISOs the Auto-ISO feature on Tim's D3 selected while he shot the play indicates the following:<p>

<li>40/271 of the photos were captured at ISO 6400,

<li>and 87/271 were shot at ISO 3200 and above.

<p>

All of the shots are either astonishingly, or acceptably, free of noise, and all were shot at the lowest ISO level that would attain his chosen shutter speed of 1/125 sec.

<p>

I look forward to buying a Canon DSLR with at sensor that will match or surpass the D3's exceptional low-light performance, and a professional quality Auto-ISO feature.<div></div>