Canon and the Nikon D3s

Helvegr · December 13, 2010

Do you think that Canon feels the Nikon D3s as a real threat? Or does it simply deviate from their design principles?

Looking at the 1D models, it seems like Canon figured that a fast burst rate would only be used by perhaps sports shooters, and they only use long glass, and if you use long glass, you want a crop frame.

Whilst I love my 5D mark II, I've been watching a lot of videos on Kelbytraining.com and I've been quite impressed by D3s, because I see it used in everything from landscape photography to action sports. A full frame camera shooting at 9 fps, with insane ISO abilities. Not a real high MP count, but still..Just seems like there isn't anything out there that competes with that.

Do you think we'll see something like that from Canon in 2011?

Mitchell · December 13, 2010

Eventually, Canon will come up with something to compete with the D3s, but right now it is the king of the hill.

The high ISO performance is startling. Coupled with a pro body that does high fps makes it a great all around performer.

angevin1 · December 13, 2010

Helvegr wrote: »

Do you think that Canon feels the Nikon D3s as a real threat? Or does it simply deviate from their design principles?

Looking at the 1D models, it seems like Canon figured that a fast burst rate would only be used by perhaps sports shooters, and they only use long glass, and if you use long glass, you want a crop frame.

Whilst I love my 5D mark II, I've been watching a lot of videos on Kelbytraining.com and I've been quite impressed by D3s, because I see it used in everything from landscape photography to action sports. A full frame camera shooting at 9 fps, with insane ISO abilities. Not a real high MP count, but still..Just seems like there isn't anything out there that competes with that.

Do you think we'll see something like that from Canon in 2011?

I think that's an interesting question!

I am predom a Nikon Shooter, but also own a 5DMK2....

I cannot think of a thing I am missing. I suppose if I needed a very fast fps, then yeah, or incredible ISO, then that too...but really, isn't it about need for most of us?

ziggy53 · December 13, 2010

While Nikon and Canon are competitors, they are not a direct, 1 - 1 product, type of competitor. Each has a very complete line with some products showing specific strengths that don't exist in the competitor products.

I nearly went with a Nikon dSLR many years ago and there is some likelihood that I would still be Nikon based today. As it happened a Canon camera appeared that seemed to suit my needs and I have been Canon based since. I would not regard either companies' offerings as problematic for what I shoot and how I shoot.

I submit that we are much better off as photographers to have the competition and the choice, but I really cannot declare a winner. I can, and often do, recommend products from either camera giant as well as many of the other camera companies too.

Zerodog · December 13, 2010

Since I bought my D3s I seem to shoot mostly around 8000-12,800 ISO. Obviously lots of low light. It is stellar at this ridiculous ISO. 6400? It looks as good as 200 on my 300s. It is truly amazing.

People still love their Canons. At the same events I shoot I still mostly see white lenses. This is probably why I have been getting work lately

It will be really interesting to see what Canon comes up with to match the new ISO war. And what Nikon's new mid tier cameras will offer. The 300s and D700 replacements should be killer.

Helvegr · December 13, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

While Nikon and Canon are competitors, they are not a direct, 1 - 1 product, type of competitor. Each has a very complete line with some products showing specific strengths that don't exist in the competitor products.

I nearly went with a Nikon dSLR many years ago and there is some likelihood that I would still be Nikon based today. As it happened a Canon camera appeared that seemed to suit my needs and I have been Canon based since. I would not regard either companies' offerings as problematic for what I shoot and how I shoot.

I submit that we are much better off as photographers to have the competition and the choice, but I really cannot declare a winner. I can, and often do, recommend products from either camera giant as well as many of the other camera companies too.

This is exactly what I'm eluding to. Whether or not Canon even considers the D3s as something in their design "direction". Nikon has indeed almost started an ISO war, throwing much of the Megapixel battle out. Are they trying for one professional body to rule them all? Is Canon going to stick with its fast crop/ or slow full frame idea?

I was looking to pair a 7D with my 5D so that I could have something I could shoot some action shots with. Because that 5D sure can't crank out may shots. Then I look at that darn D3s, and I'm thinking...man they are getting almost all of that out of 1 body!

ThatCanonGuy · December 13, 2010

Nope, they won't merge two cameras into one. Less of a profit, among other things.

And trust me, the MP war is NOT over. Wait till you see the 5D3 (probably March?) and then, the biggie, the 1DsIV. I'm predicting 32.7mp, wait and see if I'm right ;~).

I could comment a bunch more, but why don't you look at the 1Ds4 thread in the Cameras forum? There's so much valuable info in that thread, it's worth reading the 4+ pages of it ;~).

Matthew Saville · December 13, 2010

Yes, I think it is a very careful dance of "competing, but not directly". If you look through the history of Nikon versus Canon, you can see that each camera made by each company (over $1000) has no real direct competition until you get all the way up to the D3X versus the 1Ds mk3, both which cost $8,000 at their debut.

This is best for both companies, AND for the end consumer. More options, more healthy competition, (innovation) less unhealthy direct competition. (price wars, which lead to cut corners)

I think Nikon was very wise to point out Canon's single biggest flaw, the lack of a full-frame action / sports camera. Yes, many sports are shot telephoto, however there are plenty of sports and action photography situations where ultra-wide angles are best. Which is exactly why Nikon came out with the stunning 14-24 at the same time they first debuted the D3. It fills a gap in Canon's lineup, while leaving a "gap" in Nikon's lineup that the Canon 1D series fills quite nicely.

The end result is OPTIONS. I think Canon would be smart to keep it's 1.3x crop factor, and as we discussed before I don't think they'll merge the two 1-series lines. Historically Nikon has excelled at wide angle sharpness, while Canon has excelled at telephoto speed and accuracy. (If anyone is interested, I would recommend reading up on the internet about how Canon debuted it's new USM autofocus, and what it took for Nikon to catch up with it's AFS technology a while later.)

Take care,
=Matt=

angevin1 · December 14, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

While Nikon and Canon are competitors, they are not a direct, 1 - 1 product, type of competitor. Each has a very complete line with some products showing specific strengths that don't exist in the competitor products.

I would not regard either companies' offerings as problematic for what I shoot and how I shoot.

I submit that we are much better off as photographers to have the competition and the choice, but I really cannot declare a winner. I can, and often do, recommend products from either camera giant as well as many of the other camera companies too.

I'm with ya! What I see a lack of, (as) if it needs to be pointed out is a lack of folks choosing a camera based on need. It is a tool! yeah, ego accordingly plays a role, but my ego, or awareness of saved me 3k this year when I went with a 5DMK2 because I wanted Video, versus staying with the Nikon line-up and going to the D3S.

I have to hand it to the camera companies, I wouldn't want to have to figure out how to do what they do and sell it as cheaply as they do! I whine like many others about price, but really, I love where we're headed and how we're getting there is the fun part; AKA; The Journey!

Zerodog · December 14, 2010

One of the reasons for me to go for the D3s was megapixles, or lack of them. You can't forget Mega pixels are file size. For event shooting 12mp is great. It keeps the file size down and easier to deal with all around. Shooting 16, 18, 30? Memory cards will fill fast. And so will hard drives. I don't think CF cards are exactly cheap either. 9 frames a second will blow though a 16GB card before you know it.

Zerodog · December 14, 2010

richy wrote: »

To be fair that depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it.
I started to read your post and I thought you were going to say something about noise the comment about the price of memory cards was unexpected. I thought they were fairly cheap, but then again I buy sandisks not lexars and I cant remember the last time I filled a buffer.
Maybe I need faster brides lol! I probably take 16-30gb of 5d2 and 7d 14bit raws on a normal shoot but if you shoot sports or something else (I assume you arent the spray and pray type ) similar I bet you probably do run through cards and need the expensive faster ones.

I usually will shoot 3-6000 images at an MMA event. At our last grappling event, between me and my wife we shot 8500 photos for the whole day? Lots of memory. I am not really spray and pray. But you do need to take many many photos to get one killer shot. Especially when something can happen so fast. Sometimes 9frames a second isn't fast enough. I swear the last 16gb card I bought was $165. That is not too cheap. You can plow through one pretty fast even shooting JPEG. Throw RAW in there and you don't get that many per card. And then it comes down to your computer. Put 3000 images in a gallery in LR and start to batch edit. You need a screaming machine. The bigger the images, the worse it is. I decided 12 was plenty.

And yes the noise is a huge factor. There is nothing on the planet that tops the D3s on that frontier. Not even close. There are lots of great cameras. But for what I have been doing lately, this one suits me the best.

catspaw · December 14, 2010

shooting that volume, I will say that the D3 does pretty well with two 16 cards

however, when I borrowed a 7D and used one of those cards, WOW it filled up a lot faster. that increase in file size really comes through. With the 3Ds, you have a big enough buffer that speed isn't as much of an issue, but the SIZE of those files adds up when you start hitting 3000+ images in a day. Done the same numbers (and more) with full day horse shows and such.

Matthew Saville · December 14, 2010

Zerodog wrote: »

I usually will shoot 3-6000 images at an MMA event. At our last grappling event, between me and my wife we shot 8500 photos for the whole day? Lots of memory. I am not really spray and pray. But you do need to take many many photos to get one killer shot. Especially when something can happen so fast. Sometimes 9frames a second isn't fast enough. I swear the last 16gb card I bought was $165. That is not too cheap. You can plow through one pretty fast even shooting JPEG. Throw RAW in there and you don't get that many per card. And then it comes down to your computer. Put 3000 images in a gallery in LR and start to batch edit. You need a screaming machine. The bigger the images, the worse it is. I decided 12 was plenty.

And yes the noise is a huge factor. There is nothing on the planet that tops the D3s on that frontier. Not even close. There are lots of great cameras. But for what I have been doing lately, this one suits me the best.

The Day Nikon departs from 12 megapixels will be the day I start stocking up on used D700's, or a used D3s or D3... Sure, I'd love a 24 megapixel D700X for those couple shots where resolution matters, but for the rest of the day, as far as photojournalism goes and even the ~20-24" album spreads I might need to make, 12 megapixels is all I need.

BTW, I shot with the Canon 5D mk2 this past weekend for a wedding in Florida, and I shot in sRAW most of the time in an effort to save space. Well, lo and behold, the filesize is BARELY smaller. MANY files overlapped with 21 megapixels- meaning, any sRAW image with plenty of image detail will be a bigger file than any RAW image with less detail.

Previously I had expected that if Nikon "forced" me to upgrade to 24 megapixels in a D800, I would just hope that they'd finally come out with an sRAW size. Maybe they will and maybe they'll do it "RIGHT", but I doubt it and now my mind is made up- it's 12 megapixel cameras for me, for the foreseeable future of my photojournalism work! Only after I achieve great success and have tons of money to throw at computer system upgrades will I consider fully switching to anything higher resolution. I'm not saying this to start a debate with fans of 20+ megapixels, I'm just putting forth my personal opinion in hopes that camera makers out there are listening- I LIKE that there are two separate lines, one for speed and one for resolution! Please keep offering two separate lines...

=Matt=

cab.in.boston · December 14, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The Day Nikon departs from 12 megapixels will be the day I start stocking up on used D700's, or a used D3s or D3...

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but with the D3100 at 14MP and the D7000 at 16, I'm sure the next pro bodies will not stay at 12. I'm guessing probably 18 for the D4, maybe 30 for the D4x. So get out there and stock up!

ziggy53 · December 14, 2010

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but with the D3100 at 14MP and the D7000 at 16, I'm sure the next pro bodies will not stay at 12. ...

I agree. I think Nikon is under considerable pressure to join the megapixel race. The D3X is just the first volley.

I do suspect that both lossy compressed RAW files "and" reduced resolution RAW files will be available in the Nikon camp. Offering more file options is a relatively cheap way to offer extra marketing points that make people think they are getting extra value.

It would be nice if Nikon could stay at 12, very smooth, megapixels for some time. Maybe just keep the D700 in production longer and update it with video options and even better high-ISO performance and a deeper shot buffer. How cool would that be?

cab.in.boston · December 14, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

Maybe just keep the D700 in production longer and update it with video options and even better high-ISO performance and a deeper shot buffer. How cool would that be?

Or perhaps let the D3s sensor live on in a D750 or D700s or whatever...

Nikon's problem, of course, is how darn good the D3s is. They'll have a difficult time selling a D4 that doesn't do as well at high ISO as the D3s. If they have to compromise ISO performance in order to increase MP, that's a tough tradeoff. I think the general public gets caught up in MP, but more educated photographers know that's only part of the equation, so an 18MP D4 with ISO a stop worse than the D3s won't work. But can they realistically improve ISO and increase MP? Even increasing MP and keeping ISO performance the same is likely to be a challenge.

Zerodog · December 14, 2010

My fricken head is spinning now!!

Yes I am hoping a d700 upgrade with something closer to the D3s ISO and still 12 MP would be killer. I would be on it like a fly on poop.

Matthew Saville · December 14, 2010

Zerodog wrote: »

My fricken head is spinning now!!

Yes I am hoping a d700 upgrade with something closer to the D3s ISO and still 12 MP would be killer. I would be on it like a fly on poop.

That has always been my dream camera- A D700 with dual card slots (CF+SD like in the D300s) and a D3s sensor. That's all. Maybe add any AF improvements that the D4 might include, or more specifically I'm hoping they'll spread out the cross-type AF points like Canon has always done in their 45 point AF system.

However, at this point I've definitely conceded myself to a D800, or the proverbial D700X ...instead of a D700s. It is unfortunate, but Nikon "needs" to at least stay close to Canon in megapixel count, so if the 5D mk3 were to hit 30 MP and the D700s were "stuck" at 12, people would definitely start jumping ship.

It would ROCK to see the D700 line split just like how the D3 line split, but I don't think that will happen. Unless we've seen the last of the D300s lineup with the debut of the D7000. I could imagine Nikon letting the D7000 be it's high-end consumer and "aspiring pro" camera, with a 12-16 megapixel D800 and a 24+ megapixel D800X, then a 16-18 megapixel D4 and a 30-40 megapixel D4X. Those cameras do make a LOT of sense based on the market demand, but setting the MSRP would be a nightmare, and very confusing to end users. So I imagine we'll continue to see a $1700 semi-pro DX body, a $2900 semi-pro FX body, then a $5K high-speed flagship and a $8K high-res flagship. That makes the most sense... And on the Canon side, we have the $???? 7D, the $2700 5D mk3, the $4500 1D mk4 and the $8K 1Ds mk4...

cab.in.boston · December 14, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Unless we've seen the last of the D300s lineup with the debut of the D7000.

I don't think we have. D7000 is a nice update of the D90, and we've lived happily with D90 and D300/s, so why wouldn't there be a place for D7000 and D400? The D7000 is still lagging behind the D300 in several ways. I just can't see them obsoleting the D300 line in favor of a lower-spec'd D7000. Just makes more sense to keep D7000 and D400.

What doesn't make sense to me is the D5000...

borrowlenses.com · December 14, 2010

Your assertion is correct; Canon has decided that full-frame is only for landscape and portrait, thus no need for high FPS so they do not offer it. Whether they will some day to more directly compete with Nikon remains to be seen.

angevin1 · December 15, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

I do suspect that both lossy compressed RAW files "and" reduced resolution RAW files will be available in the Nikon camp. Offering more file options is a relatively cheap way to offer extra marketing points that make people think they are getting extra value.

It would be nice if Nikon could stay at 12, very smooth, megapixels for some time. Maybe just keep the D700 in production longer and update it with video options and even better high-ISO performance and a deeper shot buffer. How cool would that be?

Ahh, it'd be a nice slick upgrade of a very good selling camera.

Question though. Are any of the Camera Makers working with the file-folks? Looking at Jbig2, etc? We've been getting larger file sizes and we're all following through with harddrive updates, but what about the advances in image compression?

ziggy53 · December 15, 2010

angevin1 wrote: »

... Question though. Are any of the Camera Makers working with the file-folks? Looking at Jbig2, etc? We've been getting larger file sizes and we're all following through with harddrive updates, but what about the advances in image compression?

There are quite a few file alternatives available, but I don't see them being adopted anytime soon for acquisition and in-camera use. If anything I think that a lossy, but visually lossless, compressed RAW file option is likely from all manufacturers in the next few years.

If in-camera HDR takes off like I think it will, new file formats will be developed specific to that application as well. I suppose that a dialect of 16 bit JPG might work for that purpose but I suspect it could be different and something new.

Matthew Saville · December 15, 2010

angevin1 wrote: »

Ahh, it'd be a nice slick upgrade of a very good selling camera.

Question though. Are any of the Camera Makers working with the file-folks? Looking at Jbig2, etc? We've been getting larger file sizes and we're all following through with harddrive updates, but what about the advances in image compression?

Nikon's RAW compression is great. Turn on compressed NEF, (lossy) and a clean, low ISO RAW image can actually be LESS megabytes than a detailed, high ISO JPG file! (As long as you have that menu setting for JPG's set to "quality" instead of "space"...

So for now, I'm actually quite happy with Nikon's file sizes, even for RAW. Less than 1 MB per MP, 99% of the time.

Maybe a few people out there feel compelled to shoot un-compressed 14-bit RAW for every single image they click, but that's their problem, not mine. :-P

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy · December 19, 2010

I think the age of 12mp is over. There are too many people out there complaining. I'll guess 16mp of both the D4 and the D700. I'll guess 32.7mp for the 1Ds4 and 28mp for the 5D3.

david_h · December 19, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The Day Nikon departs from 12 megapixels will be the day I start stocking up on used D700's, or a used D3s or D3...
=Matt=

Indeed, until a few years ago I was happily shooting weddings with the 4MP D2H & D2Hs - well, at least I was happy until it got dark

Switching to the D3 and D3s mean't I needed to to get a faster PC, a lot more memory cards and storage. I think that the current 12MP is a nice size for weddings and events - I've never wished for more resolution and the high ISO performance is super.

What's nice is that I have no need (or even lust) to invest in any new gear right now. Even if Nikon comes out with a new super D4 next year, I think I have no need to change for quite a while to come.

kdog · December 19, 2010

Complaining about needing more computer resources for more pixels strikes me as complaining about needing more banks to store your money.

ThatCanonGuy · December 19, 2010

kdog wrote: »

Complaining about needing more computer resources for more pixels strikes me as complaining about needing more banks to store your money.

Seriously, I've often wondered if it's really practical to use a 4mp D2H, or similar. Isn't the maximum print something like 8x10, maybe 11x14?

Canon and the Nikon D3s

Comments