No new full frame DSLR announced today - going to Nikon?

[zigzag]

Canon users who mourn the lack of a new 5D and who need a new camera will look to buy the most up to date Canon offerring - I have seen a trickle of wedding photographers who bought 1DMkIII and I suspect that those who were hanging on for that 5DMkII will now be considering the 1DMkIII except would you trade in a FF 12.8Mpx camera with proven low noise performance for a 10Mpx one with Digic III noise reduction? Most will 'manage' with the 5D as they have done successfully for the last few years.

 

As an amateur I am looking forward to the day when 5Ds drop to the price of 20Ds - i.e. they become those old, useless cameras that nobody wants anymore.

[tonybeach]

For Bob:

 

"I can get 2 D3's for the price of a 1dsmk3..."

 

> Not exactly apples to apples.

 

For Lester:

 

"Nikon are still several years behind in sensor technology as far as I can see in most areas."

 

> Not really. The D3 is better than the 5D and the D300 appears better than the 40D. Price may be a consideration in all of this, and it is hard to make direct comparisons just as it is hard to make blanket pronouncements. Ironically, the one camera that Canon has that Nikon doesn't yet have is the 35FF high MP, but I doubt it will take Nikon "years" to come up with one.

 

"...high end Nikon lenses seem to be more expensive."

 

> They also seem to have slightly better MTF and come with 5 year warranties.

 

"Also I never found Nikon published MTF charts, so assessing relative lens quality was more difficult."

 

> There are MTF charts for all of their lenses tested wide open at their website. You can also see reasonably comprehensive comparisons of many Nikon and Canon lenses at Photozone.

 

For Dermot:

 

"These are great times for photographers but yet the crying gets louder and louder on Forums..."

 

> Amen.

 

For Elliot:

 

"I prefer the features of the D3 but prefer the IQ of the 5D."

 

> I am always a little baffled when you repeat this or a variant of it (practically everyday). When you sent me a couple of files to show me the problems you were having with the D3 compared to the 5D, my son and I compared them and found that the D3 file had less noise and more detail than the 5D file. I sent the processed file back to you demonstrating that, but you have persisted in describing the D3 as having lesser IQ than the 5D in spite of that. Since those were your pictures, I have always refrained from posting them, but I could dig up other comparisons from other sources that would show the same.

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing//ISO%201600_D300-5D-D3_Comparison.jpg

[keith reeder]

"the D300 appears better than the 40D"

<br><br>

Dunno where you've been looking, Anthony, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever of that.

<br><br>

Granted, the D300's sensor is clearly better than the one in the lump that preceded it, but <i>better</i> than the one in the 40D? Nope.

<br><br>

It's close, but no way is it better.

[tonybeach]

Hi Keith,

 

You can check this site out: http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result.epl

 

Specifically:

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191656

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191599

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191663

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191588

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191655

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191601

 

Dynamic range seems to be better on the 40D:

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191662

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=191587

 

However, looking at this chart leaves me scratching my head:

 

http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=198535

 

How does a camera end up with greater (albeit slight) DR at ISO 800 and 1600 than at lower ISOs? Another analysis of DR can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra700/page20.asp while the comparison does not include the D300, since the sensor is nearly the same it would not be an unreasonable extrapolation to guess that the 40D will have about 1/3 of a stop more DR than the D300, both cameras should have no problems exceeding the Dmax of even K3 inks on the latest Epson printers.

 

Whether better or not (and I stand by my original reply that it "appears better"), they are indeed close, and the D300 sensor is not as Lester suggests "several years behind".

[anson_ko]

Do what you need to do. Each brand has it's pros and cons. Nikon D3 is FF and it's 5k, you can buy two 5D with change. There are some fast lenses which Nikon doesnt' have and vise versa. There is NO perfect system with all the accessories and at the price you want. Keep more than one system. Enough said.

[vincent_armato]

Yea, yea....I know. I've read the responses already and we shouldn't whine about it any longer, but jeez. Why do we keep seeing upgrades through the Rebel, 20D, 1D lines but the 5D line have been essentially left out to pasture? Maybe Canon is simply retiring the low-end pro camera unit to protect their pricepoints in the 1D pro line? Perhaps we will NEVER see the 5D replacement. Maybe internally at Canon they view the 5D as a mistake to release due to interference with their pro model sales. It's all one big conspiracy! Maybe I've been drinking too much coffee. :-)

 

Oh well, I'm content with my 30D and I will simply continue to wait. While many have mentioned that the 5D is a very nice camera (I'm sure it is), I just can't buy technology that is that old (2-3 yrs) and the used ones seem to be either retaining too much value or are limited since those owners won't part with them as long as the 5D replacement hasn't been released.

[tonybeach]

Hi Vincent,

 

My thinking about this is that the 5D was an aggressive marketing move by Canon, perhaps facilitated by fabrication resources being idled when they changed from the 1Ds to the 1Ds MK II. In both the Canon and Nikon camps expectations are now that a 35FF DSLR should be sub-$2000 (USD), and that does not leave much of a margin after the high price of producing a larger sensor is factored in. Neither Canon nor Nikon are going to be eager to meet those expectations as the consumers will then demand an even less expensive and more feature rich 35FF DSLR.

 

It is merely my speculation, but I would not be surprised if Canon used the same fabrication resources that had been used on the 1Ds Mk II to produce the sensor for the 5D successor. If this is what they did with the 5D and the 1Ds, then it would be logical to presume a 10 month lag from the announcement of the 1Ds Mk III until an announcement of a 5D successor (that is how long it took from the time the 1Ds Mk II was announced until the 5D was announced). To also put the time between the 5D and its eventual successor into perspective, it is still less time than it took Canon to upgrade the 1Ds Mk II.

 

So given all of that admittedly uninformed speculation, I will go out on a limb here and make a prediction. I'm guessing that the 5D successor will be announced in May. If true, it could be worse; the betting in the Nikon camp is that a consumer FX (Nikon's 35FF terminology) is not likely until the end of the year or even early next year. Since Canon tends to announce DSLRs around August/September or January/February, they might hold out to see what Nikon is planning -- but Nikon is going to be tight lipped about any forthcoming announcements and is poised to respond rather than initiate the next round of consumer 35FF DSLRs.

[majid]

I have a 5D and also bought a D3. The high-ISO performance on the D3 is clearly superior by about 2 stops. Apart from the financial hit from switching systems, the only reason not to is the bulk and weight of the D3. Canon fumbled big time by resting on its laurels and emphasizing megapixels over ISO and DR, not to mention the 1DmkIII AF fiasco and the poor way it was handled.

 

I am keeping my 5D to keep using my lens collection, and have only purchased a couple of 50mm f/1.4 lenses for the D3 (Nikon AF and Zeiss MF). 50mm is the focal length that lives on my 5D 95% of the time. I also have a few AI-s Nikkors left over from my father's D3, they will do quite well as the D3's viewfinder is remarkably good for manual focusing, with the proper "snap" when the image is in focus (not to mention the AF assist LEDs in the viewfinder). As for flash - the whole point of a D3 is you don't need no stinking flash.

[shuo_zhao]

>>"Canon fumbled big time by resting on its laurels and emphasizing megapixels over ISO and DR, not to mention the 1DmkIII AF fiasco and the poor way it was handled."

 

I agree...

[anson_ko]

The question you should ask yourself is, do you shoot ISO25600 on every pic every day? If you shoot at ISO above 6400 a lot, get Nikon D3 now. I am sure Canon will have something to compete soon. Jumping around is expensive. This topic has been discussed many times :-)

[photos of hans koot]

pics give the answer?

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm

[tonybeach]

"pics give the answer?"

 

> Hans, The 5D is a fine camera, and I wouldn't let KR's latest infatuation persuade me about whether to consider it or not.

 

The link you provide is a typical KR crap test. Yes, if you shoot JPEG with exaggerated settings, have sloppy technique and make the same mistakes KR makes then these comparisons might be relevant. KR's tests are nearly always hatchet jobs, full of hidden "gotchas" and requiring a truth squad to clarify why they should simply be ignored.

 

The lighting appears different and KR even says the light was changing as he did the testing (presumably all the shots with one camera were taken, and then with the other). The focus appears off on the D3 shots. Despite all of his lackadaisical efforts, KR manages to frame the shots differently.

 

It looks more like this "test" is a measurement of digital artifacts than of noise. I don't care if his conclusions are pro D3 or pro 5D; like every other test I have seen of his, his tests are just simply too flawed and too biased to be taken seriously.

[photos of hans koot]

Thanks for pointing it out Anthony :-) I enjoyed your view on KR a lot. I do not know KR very well, looking through his site he indeed seems to have lets say, some strong opinions. However, I liked his idea of using photos, something i missed in the diwa labs, properly measured I suppose. Maybe better photos are available on the web, or to come. Pixel peeping is necessary for the process to get the best equipment, but who will ask in 10-20 years with witch cam you made that terrific shot? Or are we always led by fear of missing that terrific shot because we bought...? (I am not different in this), anyway, I found some beautiful (I think bit old film like) d3 shots here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3.shtml ,enjoy yourself.

[photos of hans koot]

anthony, just spotted your comparison photos of your first upload, very nice.