In Professional Photographer's April issue there is a comparative test between Nikon's flagship camera, the D3, and Canon's ditto, the 1Ds mark III. I report this because the conclusion is a bit surprising: Despite the Canon's 21MP and the Nikon's 12MP, the picture resolution actually gave the edge to the Nikon! (At least with the lenses used, which one must imagine were carefully chosen.) And all other features are very comparable.
So this means that choosing Nikon at the moment, you get pretty much the same power and features, but smaller files to handle, and you save about 40% on the price! (And that's no pocket change given that the Canon is the most expensive digital SLR on the general market at around $8,000.) Oooh, and not to mention that the Nikon D3 has significantly better low-light capabilities.
Last year I thought Nikon was hopelessly behind in the high-end market, but oh, they came back hard.
As an aside, not long ago, I was still looking forward to higher pixel counts than 12MP in a compact and affordable format. But the increase in the quality of pixels recently has convinced me (even before reading this test) that anything higher than 12MP really is for very specialized purposes.
Update: Mark Megerle and I are having a little debate in Comments. And he linked to this cool picture of his own.
BTW, I mention this lens in the comments.
7 comments:
A few years ago when I was considering a new camera I went to my local pro store to discuss options because the people there are very knowledgeable. They showed me comparison sample photos of the same subject using 6 and 8 megapixel cameras, with the 6mp images coming out clearly superior with less noise.
As I've upgraded from 6 to 10mp the storage demands are becoming apparent and more costly, so I don't know how much I'll participate in the megapixel wars.
I've lost count of the number of people I've cautioned about just going for the biggest number of pixels. Sales staff like megapixels because it's a simple number. More = better, in their language. What matters (as this test seems to demonstrate) is that it's what you do with the pixels that's really important, not just how many of them there are.
And beyond that of course you still need the skill to find an interesting subject and photograph it an interesting way. A perfectly sharp, perfectly exposed, perfectly lit image of a dull, boring subject slap bang in the middle of the frame at 21MP is still just a dull, boring picture! Having a good camera and good lenses helps, but at the end of the day they're tools to do a job. It's still the human behind the lens that actually takes the photograph.
This is like comparing apples to oranges. The D3 is Nikon's answer to the 1D Mark III, not the 1Ds Mark III. So, if you are going to do comparisons, at least try to get the right products to compare. Professional Photographer used a D3 because Nikon has, as of yet, failed to introduce a 20+ megapixel flagship model to their line of cameras. Now compare megapixels and costs of a D3 to a 1D Mark III. This would be the more logical type of review to make, and now it even looks more comparable.
This summer or fall Nikon will probably announce the next camera to replace the D3x, which, if all the more reliable rumours are true, will weigh in at around 24 or 25 megapixels. This will be the camera to compare to the 1Ds Mark III. There will also be another contender, Sony, which will launch their own full frame camera with a 24mp sensor.
With the D3 Nikon tried to cover two of Canon's cameras, the 1D Mark III and the 5D full frame line, which is more than likely to be upgraded this year. To this extent, Nikon, IMHO, has been very successful, almost. A landscape photographer will enjoy the full frame capabilities of the D3 but, the sporting photographer and one who shoots a lot of BIF would rather have a cropped APS-x sensor which would give more reach. A landscape photog has no need for the fps that the D3 has, and most sporting event and nature photogs have no need for a full frame camera. This is why Canon made the 5D. It fulfills the needs of landscape and portrait studio photogs, while the MKIII makes the journalists and sporting event photogs happy.
As far as low light capabilities, have you heard of pushing stops, which is all that Nikon did. If Canon wants, it can release a firmware update to extend the magic number of 12800 iso, which is horrible on the Nikon, and would/will be on the Canon if they were to do a firmware upgrade for the 1 series cameras.
As far as the megapixel race, which I agree is persistently there and won't go away, compare the1D Mark III to the D3....hmmmm.....10.1 for Canon and 12.x for Nikon. The Nikon D3x update will most certainly have more that Canon's flagship, which has 21.1 megapixels; likely to be 24 or so megapixels. Who is pushing the megapixel limits now?
I don't understand your comment," anything higher than 12MP really is for very specialized purposes". What areas do you consider to be specialized purposes? Professional photography, perhaps?
Another area you failed to touch on with regards to megapixels are MF camera backs like Phase one's 39 megapixel camera. I mean, if you are going to be flippant and say that a camera that has 21 megapixels (which is nothing more than a jab at Canon) isn't needed except for specialized purposes, then 39 megapixels surely must be ridiculous to you. Sure, you're going to come back with pixel density for an excuse but, what you are saying right now is actually stabbing Nikon in the back six or ten months from now when they release their own flagship model.
Yes, I'm a Canon user but, I actually hope Nikon, Canon, and Sony keep the pressure on each other; it will keep prices down, which, as far as the 1Ds Mark III is concerned, is way overpriced. If Nikon and Sony can produce a 20+ megapixel camera that retails for around six thousands US dollars I will be a happy camper. That will force Canon to make their pricing scheme within reason.
Just a few humble opinions from a wannabe hot shot photographer.
Mark Megerle
Mark, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I agree that I'm coming from an amateur standpoint.
On the other hand, not many pros need prints bigger than full-spread magazine on a regular basis.
For six-foot prints it's a different matter, I guess. (I haven't looked much at such.)
Like the magazine Professional Photographer points out, making these two cameras fit into very different classes would only make sense if there was a marked difference in their resolution, which there isn't, according to all tests I've seen.
Oh, and BTW, I don't know if you have seen the tests, but 6400 and 3200 really is way better on the D3 than on the 1DsIII. (I don't think the latter even has a 6400 setting.)
You may want to read this post:http://www.nikonwatch.com/?p=454
Personally, I hope this is true. I don't care who is winning the megapixel race, or resolution for that matter. If the camera I am using gives me the results I want, then I am satisfied.
While I will give you the fact that at very high iso's the Nikon D3 wins out at resolution, one must also concede that this comes at a price. If you look at the established D3 reviews it becomes clear that the D3 gives up detail in order to produce less noisy images. Both, the D3 and 1D Mark III produce excellent images (I am an owner of the MKIII) and both will do the job for 99.9% of the market.
Let me also say that, IMO, Canon really fumbled the ball on the AF issue with regards to the 1D Mark III. While my copy exhibited no signs of any AF problem, there were, and still are, many people who have serious issues with the MKIII.
Having owned the 1D Mark II and the 1Ds Mark II I can say that the MKIII is a worthy upgrade for any owner of a 1 series camera. It is lighter, produces more realistic raw images out of the box, and the images are sharper that previous models.
I also own a D70 which has been converted to infrared and I love it. I believe that Nikon has, at this point, taken over the crowning position and, for me, this is a good thing. Canon's pricing scheme is much too high, and I hope that instead of making the D3 successor match Canon's 1Ds Mark III price wise, that Nikon will come in at least a thousand bucks cheaper. It would be good for the consumer for this to happen.
While I use Canon equipment, I think they need to be knocked on their arse. They have been, up until now, arrogant when it comes to the normal consumer. By normal I mean the everyday consumer, not the big news agencies and other professional media outlets.
I must admit that my first reply to your post was a bit crude and sarcastic....trollish perhaps. But, that was how I interpreted your initial post. I did not mean nor want a flame war to start, so let me apologize for my remarks regarding my first reply to this topic.
For the type of photography I do, either brand of camera would do an excellent job. I'm presently, and for at least the next two years on contract to produce mosaic images of certain architectures here in the states that consist of images that sometimes are in gigabytes when finished. An example of the type of work I am doing now can be seen here:
http://www.pbase.com/markvm/image/93426008
This image is actually, in Photoshop, an image that is more that 120 inches in length, and almost 60 inches in height. This particular image was done on my own dime, which is why i am able to have it for viewing. I intentionally pushed the sharpening and contrast and saturation, to get a plastic looking image. For this shot, and for my entire job at the moment, either the 1D Mark III or the D3 would do a fantastic job.
I do think that there is way too much pixel peeping and not enough photography by an unlimited number of people in the forums. If I were to do a mosaic with either a D3 or MKIII, shot at 100iso, aperture f/8, and bracket that shot also, I highly doubt if any of these pixel peepers would be able to say definitively which camera was used to get the final result. That being said, If i were to take an image with the iso bumped up to 6400iso, most knowledgeable pixel peepers would be able to tell which image is from which camera. The Nikon would have much less noise and the Canon would have more detail.
Then, we have to also bring the quality of lenses into this whole issue of megapixels. I am able to get excellent results with my 24-70mm f/2.8 lens while using my 16 megapixel 1Ds Mark II, but, if I use it on the 1Ds Mark III the results are not as nice, especially if shown at 100% in CS3, or whatever processor a person uses. To me, this is the single most important flaw in the megapixel race.....the current line of lenses, at least for Canon, are not able to handle the resolution of the 1Ds Mark III cameras, especially my zooms, which are all "L" lenses. I do have an 85 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.2L which were recently introduced which give very good results with the 20+ megapixel Canon but, the rest of my group of lenses would not be able to give results nearly as nice. It's kind of funny also that I can mount an $85.00 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens on a 1Ds Mark III @ f/8 and get just as good of a result as I do with my more expensive 50mm f/1.2 lens at f/8. Where I see the horrible results with the cheaper lenses on the 1Ds Mark III are when used wide open, a very washed out looking image as a result. I hope for every Nikon owner, the next Dx level camera will be able to compensate for any lens discrepancies, assuming that Nikon's high end lenses are equal to or better than Canon's best. If not, there will be some unhappy Nikon people using a 20+ megapixel camera. Let's not forget the computer processing power needed to work efficiently with a 20+ megapixel image, also.
Enough babbling, I just want to apologize for some of the remarks I made yesterday in my reply to your post. These are rapidly changing times in the digital camera world, and if all companies are forced into being competitive with each other, we, the public, can only benefit.
Mark Megerle
Good points, Mark.
Your air force picture is cool. How wide was the lens?
It seems both brands are pushing for new lenses to handle the new resolutions. For instance, apparently the new Nikkor 14-24mm sets new standards for resolution. (It's not that I am pushing Nikon, I use both brands regularly.)
As a street photographer I am mainly wanting a more compact camera with the full frame and high ISO. Either to replace my 5D or a new one from Nikon.
Post a Comment