Nikon D3s vs Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Yup, just like I thought, Canon couldn't wait after the Nikon D3s was announced and rushed to announce the new Canon EOS-1D Mark IV - a direct competitor to the Nikon D3s. Just like the D3s, the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV is for professional news, sports, wildlife and wedding/event photographers.
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV
Here are some of the key highlights and differences between Canon EOS-1D Mark IV and Nikon D3s:
- A brand new 45 point auto focus system (Nikon D3s has 51 focus points).
- Fast 10 frames per second operation (Nikon D3s is 9 FPS).
- Default ISO range of 100-12800 with "boost" modes up to ISO 102400 (Nikon D3s is 200-12800 & also up to ISO 102400).
- Full HD 1080p video recording capability (Nikon D3s is only 720p).
- Canon EOS-1D Mark IV features a 16.1 megapixel CMOS sensor (Nikon D3s has a 12.1 mp CMOS sensor).
- A large buffer that can handle up to 121 large JPEG images (Nikon D3s can handle 130 JPEGs @ 12.1 mp).
- Both Canon EOS-1D Mark IV and Nikon D3s have the same 3" size screens with 920,000 pixels.
- The sensor on Canon EOS-1D Mark IV has a 1.3x crop factor (not full frame), whereas the Nikon D3s sports a full frame sensor (FX).
- Canon EOS-1D Mark IV is priced at $4,999.00, while Nikon D3s is priced at $5,199.95.
Just looking at the above specs, this camera beats the Nikon D3s in some categories (although the most important ones are auto focus, sensor size and noise in high ISOs, where Nikon seems to have the lead). The 1D Mark IV beats the D3s in price, but not by a big margin. Image quality at high ISOs seems to be very good and I would say very comparable to Nikon D3s - here are some samples for you to take a look at. Considering that the sensor has more pixels (16.1 mp vs 12.1), Canon has done a remarkable job in sensor development.
At the same time, the Nikon D3s has a better battery life, weather sealing and build quality compared to Canon 1D Mark IV. The controls on the Nikon bodies are always more intuitive and better designed compared to Canon, which is also a big deal, at least for me. So, it is definitely not fair to say that Canon has a big lead over Nikon. Specs look good, but only a real head-to-head test comparing image quality, auto focus and other features will truly reveal who the winner is. At the end of the day, does it really matter? If you own Canon gear, you will want the 1D Mark IV, whereas Nikon shooters will choose the Nikon D3s. For those who want to switch from one brand to another, I would suggest to carefully re-evaluate your needs and see if it is truly worth it.
It would be interesting to see how good the new 45 point auto focus system is compared to the legendary Nikon 51 focus point system. If they have a comparable or better auto focus system, Nikon will probably lose some of its market share to those who are purely looking at hard specs. Although I can understand the technical challenges of not being able to shoot HD video with the current Expeed processor, Nikon made a mistake by providing a mediocre 720p video recording in the D3s. Afterall, the D3s is supposed to be the "top of the line" camera for news and sports photographers and putting 720p into it doesn't necessarily make Nikon look good in front of true professionals. If you are giving a feature in the best camera, give the best features, I would say.
Update: Rob Galbraith posted a detailed review of Canon EOS-1D Mark IV's autofocus performance and his conclusion is that Nikon D3s has better autofocus performance. Here are my observation notes on Canon EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus vs Nikon D3s.
Related posts:
10/20/2009 - 02:35
Beats the Nikon D3s in almost every feature category? Well, true, but when I look at the specs what matters isn’t the MP, 9 vs 10fps or a buffer of 121 vs 130. To me sensor size matters more and I don’t understand why the new 1D isn’t full frame. But in the end it’s also down to the “look” of the pictures, where I tend to prefer Nikon.
However being into videography it’s sad to see that Nikon obviously can’t handle video the way Canon does. It’s getting seriously tempting to turn Canon.
10/20/2009 - 02:55
Acend, I do agree that megapixels do not matter, however, if the 1D MIV is able to achieve the same noise levels at higher ISOs as the D3s and at the same time has more pixels, Nikon is clearly losing here. Just take a look at the above link and click on one of the images at ISO 3200 – it looks very comparable to D3s’ ISO 3200. At the same time, having a 1.3x sensor might actually be more helpful for wildlife photographers, because they will get the extra reach.
I hope that Nikon releases a D700s sooner than later and I very much hope that the next line of Nikons will have 1080p along with other useful features such as GPS and faster FPS. It would be unfortunate to see Nikon lose some of its market share to Canon in the professional line.
10/20/2009 - 07:14
guao! i can see you are a canon fan. !yeah¡ “i will choose canon because it takes better video”…. are you kidding me???!!!
Nikon: bigger sensor fewer pixel, you do the math! 35mm full-frame!!!
if you are going to pay 5000$ for a camera what’s the big deal of paying 200 more?
we will see the reviews when this camera comes out
10/20/2009 - 12:41
No, I am not a Canon fan – I am a proud Nikonian who is a little worried about Nikon’s future. I never said that I would choose Canon because it shoots better video. All I said was that Nikon made a mistake by putting 720p video into the top of the line D3s camera. If you are advertising a camera as the best in its class, give the best features. If they knew that they couldn’t do better than 720p, they should have omitted the video capability altogether like they did in D3x.
My above reaction is based on the sample photographs and very comparable results when it comes to noise. I personally think that it is remarkable that Canon was able to put 16 megapixels into an APS-H size sensor and keep noise levels low (at least judging by the ISO 3200 butterfly sample image). I bet if they released a 12 megapixel full frame sensor, it would be at least 1 stop better than D3s.
02/04/2010 - 10:04
I did just buy the D3s and I agree with you whole heartedly, I love my Nikon cameras and lenses. However, I was sadly disappointed with the 720p on a camera that was begging to have 1020p to complete it as the ultimate in new camera! But, I am a Nikonian, and love it over-all. I think if they had put the 1020p technology in, then I would likely have found something else to cite. I used the word cite, as I hate to use the word complain and Nikon in the same sentence. :-)
10/20/2009 - 09:13
back to the aps-h size sensor? would you make your mind, canon?
And you cannot use EF-S lenses on this body, so you have to use EF lenses, to only use the center…
The 7D is a hell of a camera, the 1D mark IV seems to be a mixed bag…
I hope Nikon releases a 700s with the D3s’ sensor. 60fps video would be nice, even at 640×480 (playing 60fps a 30fps produces really nice slow mo clips) 1080 would be nice as well, of course, but imho, the shallow DoF and low light performance are the more enticing qualities of DSLR video.
10/20/2009 - 12:52
Diego, 1.3x crop factor with very low noise levels would actually be an attractive feature for wildlife photographers that need the extra reach.
As for the 7D, I agree, it is a very good camera when it comes to features and I hope Nikon D400 will beat it when it is announced next year.
I’m sure the D700s will have the same sensor as the D3s if it comes out. But the video will not be better than in D3s for sure, so I would expect it to be exactly the same as in D3s at 720p.
10/20/2009 - 12:16
Yes, this comparison is not very sound. I mean you could also put a point and shoot camera in there and then realize it costs 20 times less than either these cameras. Until cameras are not out, we can only speculate.
This obsession with video is really troubling. These cameras are for sports and photojournalism, not landscape, not movies,… for which there are much better options out there (eg 5d markII).
And I highly doubt that if the AF system of the 1d4 is good, everyone will switch to the Canon. Actually, it’s a moronic prediction.
10/20/2009 - 13:05
Rob, I am also looking forward to in-depth reviews and ISO comparisons. My opinion is solely based on the sample images provided by both Nikon and Canon.
I do agree that video is overrated, but if Canon is able to put the same 1080p recording capability in all of their recent cameras, Nikon should either do the same, or not have it at all, especially in their top cameras. I see a lot of benefits of having video on such cameras for photojournalists and paparazzi – being able to extract single frames out of videos captured at 30 FPS can be sometimes invaluable.
As for the AF system in 1D Mark IV, if it is very comparable or better than Nikon’s, it will definitely be troubling for Nikon. I’m not saying that everyone will switch, but some pros looking for the best in its class might.
02/21/2010 - 14:45
I’m a Dutch photojournalist who used Canon for twenty years, mostly with pride and hapiness. But eversince the Mark III many canon photographers have complained, and complained over and over again that the camera was shit. It had to be re-ajusted over and over again for focussing issues. It gave you a terrible feeling when you were shooting, because you were chimping motre than taking pictures. Only to find that half of your images were unsharp! Now Canon has finally presented the Ultimate Mark IV! but I’m afraisd that they acted too late and that there will be a turn over towards Nikon , just like what happened in the early Nineties when Canon took over the market from Nikon. Where professionals were concerned.) In Holland, more than 1/3 of the Canon shooters have switched to Nikon , mostly because of the D3s and the great new lenses that were presented with it. I would say: Canon Japan; Watch your shop!! don’t just sit on your mountain and waut for things to happen!!
02/26/2010 - 02:20
Michael, thank you for your valuable feedback. I think many Canonites are feeling your pain and it is unfortunate that such a great company as Canon has not been listening to its customers and prefers to continue the useless megapixel race, putting less effort on real sensor and autofocus development.
10/20/2009 - 20:56
I hear Zack Arias is looking into switching if the Canon 1D Mark IV is better than the new D3s at focusing. So, Rob it is possible that some people might switch. I do not understand why you guys are getting utterly defensive. Nikon has a huge fan base, but some of them are pretty aggressive, I see.
10/21/2009 - 06:01
1) nikon wins
2) canon wins 1fps, nikon wins in crop mode with 11 fps.
3) ISO range canon wins, noise levels (what matters) nikon wins.
4) video canon wins.
5) resolution, canon wins.
6) buffer, nikon wins.
7) lcd tie.
8) nikon wins with FF sensor (FF sensors also have better dynamic range and color)
9) canon is cheaper, retailers will sell both for 4999 in 2 months nonetheless. price is a effectively the same.
so let’s add it all up:
canon: 3pts (4,5,9)
nikon: 4pts (1,3,6,8)
your conclusion: “this camera beats the Nikon D3s in almost every feature category”
my conclusion: you must be joking aren’t you?
you: “If they have a comparable or better auto focus system, Nikon will probably lose some of its market share to those who are purely looking at hard specs.”
me: nikon’s d3 is a best seller. fastest full frame camera to date by any company. the canon only beats it on video and a few mp resolution (at the cost of noise). This is not enough to tip the scales. However if you’re a videographer, a 7D or 5DII is much cheaper and smarter choice. canon seems to canibalize their own advantage by making the 7D so good at video.
I don’t think this changes much. canon’s update was pretty good, yet the D3 was already so good nikon added a point update while they finish up the D4. The D4 is expected a year from now, that’s what canon will have to look out for. Given nikon now knows exactly what the 1D4 does, it should be pretty easy for them to outdo it. this is in line with their strategy of wait and see what canon does, then release their product. In fact when you see nikon releasing those (S) models, it just means “we’re baiting the competition out”.
nice camera, but the lack of full frame to keep the cost down is one canon will likely regret. it is in my opinion, a greater mistake than nikon ignoring 1080p. After all as you say, thease are supposed to be “top of the line” bodies. crop sensors are not for flagships these days.
10/21/2009 - 15:35
Blass, your numbers above are not adding up. Your first point is “Nikon wins”, which is irrelevant in this comparison.
Anyway, my point was not to bring up another Nikon vs Canon debate. All I was saying, that judging by the sample pictures provided by Canon, the 1D Mark IV has some impressive results at ISO 3200. As a wildlife photographer, I would appreciate a sensor with a 1.3x crop factor that has an impressive ISO 3200. There is no doubt that the D3s will beat 1D Mark IV when it comes to dynamic range and DoF, due to a larger pixel pitch.
I guess at this point, the best thing to do is to wait and see real reviews of these two cameras, along with ISO comparisons.
01/14/2010 - 10:22
MegaZ: He was listing your points 1-7 in the original article one by one, saying that “Nikon wins” on point 1: A brand new 45 point auto focus system (Nikon D3s has 51 focus points). Nikon also wins on points 3,6,8.
I agree with him that this is not a clear Canon win if you just consider the points 1-7 you originally listed.
I also agree that video is overrated and that FF and noise are more important.
Autofocus tracking for sports and action photography has been better on the D3 than on any Canon body. I doubt the 1D Mark IV changes that.
I tried Canon’s cameras, including the 5D Mark II, and I was disappointed, which led me to sell all my Canon gear and buy a D3. I am now going to upgrade to a D3s.
Non-photographers always seem surprised that the D3/D3s/D700 can take good pictures without a flash. I have never seen a Canon perform this well in low light.
Where I think Nikon needs to catch up with Canon is not with their bodies, but with their lenses. They don’t have as large a selection.
01/14/2010 - 11:13
Leek, thank you for clarifying. I agree that I shouldn’t have stated that “Canon beats Nikon in almost every feature category” – I slightly changed the language in the original article.
As far as the comparison, I would throw all of the categories out, except for auto focus system and high ISO noise. Again, since there is no real head-to-head comparison between the two cameras when it comes to auto focus, it is hard to judge whether the new Canon auto focus system is truly worse than the one in Nikon. As far as the amount of noise in high ISOs, Nikon clearly looks better from the latest samples that I reviewed, so Nikon definitely beats Canon there.
However, what I stated originally, was that if Canon can get even close to Nikon D3s in high ISO noise with a 16 Mp sensor and 1.3x crop ratio, then Canon truly did a remarkable job in sensor development. I cannot even imagine what they could do if they were to decrease the number of pixels to 12 Mp and have a FF sensor. Maybe we’ll see that in the next Canon pro-line, although I seriously doubt it :)
10/21/2009 - 22:47
Wow. So many delusional idiots. The only reason why FF is better is because of 1) wider angle and 2) better high ISO performance due to larger pixel sensor size.
D3s and 1D4 are clearly targeted at sports/wildlife/action photographers. Wider angle is USELESS in those situation.
Then IF 1D4 is as good as D3s in terms of noise/pixel, Nikon has just dropped their balls BIG time. No one has been able to tell about this point yet because the cameras are NOT ON THE MARKET.
The PIXEL DENSITY difference between the two cameras are so big it’s not funny.
@ those delusional idiot Nikon fan boys, please just shut up if you have no clue what you are going on about.
11/22/2009 - 06:14
What about street reportage or music concerts in small clubs?
12/20/2009 - 21:04
The pixel density has nothing to do with image clarity. Just the size you can blow the image up to. You can have 24 MP but it doesnt matter if theyre processed badly, see the comparison between the 50d and d90 this was a huge example of this. Besides the Canon mark IV images are out, low iso isn’t nearly as good, no big surprise things are staying the way they are in Nikon vs. Canon. I will also point out that clean high ISO is purely derived from the quality of the components and electronics within the Camera, so we can also assume that the Nikon is better built on these grounds.
10/22/2009 - 12:53
Who says those categories are the marks by which all cameras must be rated for all users? There are many more metrics to rating a camera. You have only selected a few.
Also, the Canon does not beat the Nikon in “almost every category.” The Canon narrowly wins in 4 of the categories you list, while the Canon narrowly wins in 4 categories also.
There are many other things about each camera that cannot be considered a “category” yet make the differences night and day, like lens mount for example.
Nikon is not going to lose a lot of market share, nor would Canon if the specs were reversed. Each camera has its own merits. Before you start making unfounded statements about market share you should take a look at the numbers of units sold of each model of camera by each company over time. Have you? If so, post them and cite your sources.
10/25/2009 - 01:09
One’s full frame, the other is not. One has better high ISO capabilities thanks to it’s larger pixels because it’s full frame.
Case closed.
Apples and oranges my friend. Apples and oranges.
Plus, the 14-24mm simply works better on an f-mount!
Canon….in….rearview…..mirror……
10/28/2009 - 06:05
Hello there
I could not resist not answering here .There are good points mentioned above however want to draw attentions to the following :
a.Nobody mentioned the 51 pint 3D matrix metering of Nikon .An indisputable feature in Nikon which now Canon got near by 1D MKIV.
b.Nobody got even close to the DR and importance of the pixel light gain when talking about MP&CMOS.Tell me you are not fooled by current compact cameras of +15 MP .
c.Read Thom and I can’t help accepting his idea reagarding the line between a still image device Vs video.
d.Again nobody mentioned handeling and control and also the body seal of Nikon .
Hehehe all above I could not help laughing when read the thread main lines :)
11/02/2009 - 00:23
A minor update of 2years old Nikon camera is still a competitor to a new generation Canon camera. We will see what will be Nikon D4. By the way, people who would like to switch from Nikon to Canon or from Canon to Nikon every time they release a new model. Please do it, you support developing of new cameras.
11/02/2009 - 13:25
Sergey, I would not consider the D3s a “minor” update – I think the sensor of the D3s is outstanding in terms of noise and low-light capabilities, at least looking at the sample photos. Which leaves me to think about what D4’s sensor and processor will be like :)
And as far as people who switch, you are absolutely right – the more of those, the better! :)
12/15/2009 - 07:08
One area that I think deserves a mention when comparing Nikon to Canon is the better and easier to use creative lighting system, which is very portable and useful. I am not sure if these cameras are both aimed at newspaper/sports photography to the same extent; I would have thought the D3s was much more of a general-use camera and so I think this aspect is well worth considering.
Also, Nikon pays attention to very important details like flash metering, which as far as I know is still quite a bit of a problem with Canon. It is these ‘details’ that often add up to quite a lot, and make a big difference. It is a shame Nikon can’t seem to manage the same level for video, although I cannot see the logic in leaving it out altogether as someone suggested above; after all, it may appear to lower the prestige of a piece of professional gear but a true pro will not be worrying about that.
12/21/2009 - 01:04
Christopher,
I agree with your points on the Nikon side that add up. To me, it was surprising to find out that Canon did not have a feature to control other flashes through the built-in camera flash until they released 7D. This feature has been there on all semi-professional Nikons for years…
As far as video, I’m sure Nikon will address all the current problems with the new D4/D400 line in 2011.
12/20/2009 - 08:32
It’s frustrating that people believe that the more MP a camera has that the sharper the images will be. Per-pixel sharpness is higher on the Nikon D3s and the images are cleaner and overall they’re much nicer looking due to some factor i can’t describe. Im also sick to death of building my expectations for Canon’s promises and then finding that their cameras fail to deliver the goods in various areas such as AUTOFOCUS (MARK III) and usability (5D MKII). Im selling my mark 3 and 5dmk2 for the D3s. Im fed up with Canon’s marketing fluff, when you deal with Camera’s every day the small flaw’s become evident. To anyone buying the mark IV i wish you good luck, and it looks like Canon’s best camera to date. But the Nikon D3s wins on all fronts except Video Resolution.. but i just want a good camera for wildlife photography. My two cents.
12/21/2009 - 01:10
Peter, thank you for sharing. You are the second person that I heard from during the last week that is selling all of their Canon gear and switching to Nikon D3s, all because of focusing issues.
I’m sure it is disappointing to not be able to focus properly on such expensive systems. Gladly, I have never had a problem focusing with my D300 and D700 (they have the same autofocus system as the D3/D3s) that I use for wildlife and landscape photography.
12/20/2009 - 20:57
Here are the only images published that i can find from the mark IV’s high iso performance. It’s quite disappointing, there appears to be around the same amount of noise on the 5D MKII (slightly better than), which is nothing terrible. No one should get their hopes up to think that it competes with the Nikon D3s in terms of low/dim light anything. To me that fact alone makes the D3s a winner.
http://unwire.hk/2009/12/18/canon_1d_mark_iv_4_iso_video_test/
Low light shots from the D3s are everywhere, they’re being paraded around proudly, and they’re awesome.
12/21/2009 - 01:14
J, thanks so much for sharing the link! That’s what I have been waiting for. You are right, the images do look much worse than D3s!
It would be great if someone took both D3s and a Mark IV and compared them head to head at higher ISOs, so that we could see how much of a difference there is in image quality at high ISOs. Particularly, I’m interested in seeing the range between ISO 3200 and ISO 12800.
12/21/2009 - 01:41
No worries. I agree i would really like to see a competitive ISO comparison. High clean ISO will change the way we can take photographs in wildlife dramatically, as coupled with spot metering and the correct conditions you can get some amazing effects that look like they were shot in studios.
12/21/2009 - 10:10
I totally agree! My bird photography suffers in low light conditions and I can’t imagine what two stops of light improvement could do. I currently set my max ISO to 1600 and rarely to 3200. Looks like on D3s I could set it to 6400 and rarely to 12800, which is unbelievable!
12/20/2009 - 22:56
Canon’s choice of APS-H is entirely frustrating – APS-C is useful only to the consumer and enthusiast market because of crop designed lenses that are both smaller and lighter. Even if Canon was to make APS-H cropped lenses NOONE would care because Canon would still charge similar prices to Nikons full frame choices. The negative effects of the APS-C and APS-H can be easily visible across all focal lengths due to Depth of Field (DOF) and . Allow me to explain.
Landscape – You want to go as far back as possible.
Between 10-50mm the differences between cropped and un-cropped sensors is negligible.
Portraits/Close up action- (Low light, High Key – All applications). At 50-120mm your going to want to shoot between about f/4-f/1.8 on a full frame to achieve a nice DOF. Unfortunately, to achieve the same DOF on an APS-H, you need to use an aperture of f/3.8-f/1.4, which means slightly less sharp results. Also the effects of Bokeh are less smooth due to the reduced image circle. These differences are only slightly noticeable but if you asked an amateur to decide which is nicer the full frame product will gain the upper hand.
Action/Sports/Wildlife – 120mm+, This is the key market of these cameras, it is also the area in which APS-H suffers the most and by a huge noticeable difference. Anyone shooting people in sports with their 70-200mm lenses will be well accustomed to using an aperture of f/2.8 – at this distance and aperture, a full frame sensor has a massively shorter depth of field making for far more professional results. The further zoom past 120mm the more the effects become clear.
When stopping down lenses you will achieve a wider DOF but sharper results, so on a full frame you can stop down more and still receive a tighter DOF… it’s also worth mentioning that with the D3s you can CHOOSE to have 1.2x or 1.5x, but i can’t see where id ever bother using these features.
Try it for yourself, it’s disappointing, shocking, frustrating and was enough for me to sell all my Canon equipment when the D3 was released. Canon try to fluff up their cameras all the time, if you want video then maybe Canon is a viable alternative, for everything else; there’s Nikon. (and other smaller companies like Pentax for beginners too!)
12/21/2009 - 01:44
You know, I’m seeing an interesting trend – there is a large group of people buying the Canon 7D and 5D MK II just because of the video capabilities of those cameras. I wonder what will happen when Nikon releases a 1080p capable camera…
12/23/2009 - 12:31
I shoot rock concerts and when I saw the D3s, I did not hesitate and sold 8,000 in Canon equipment. NERVOUSLY! There were several reasons besides iso performance. Duel cf slots, manual controls, full frame, (I like to utilize ultra wide angle lenses) which on the mark 3 of 4 the widest I can get is 21mm on their 16-35 lens. On the Nikon it is a true 14 mm. besides all that. ISO. I got my D3s last week and all I can say is at 6400 iso, the camera is mind boggeling, even without noise reduction software. With noiseware added, 6400 iso looks like 400 iso if that. I literally cannot see any grain, and even if I did Nikons noise looks alot more like film grain than Canon does. I am truly not bias toward either brand, bias is ignorance, but after seeing the images coming out of the new Canon 1d mark 4, I know I made the right decision to switch. The only thing Im a little on edge about is I have a friend who works at a camera store and he said Nikon may already be planing replacements to be revealed at PMA in march of 2010, even for the D3s. If that is true I will be ticked after spending 5200. But then again usually what he has said in the past has not happened. Does anybody know if this is true?
12/23/2009 - 15:11
Dan, thank you for sharing! Congratulations with your purchase, that’s one hell of a camera you got :) Truly, the low-light king.
As far as a replacement for D3s in 2010 – you can rest assured that it is NOT going to happen. The D3s has just been released and it will be in the market for at least one full year. The D4/D400 line is expected in 2011, not 2010. I bet that you will be happy with your D3s for a lot longer than 2011 :)
If you do not believe me, I would recommend reading Thom Hogan’s predictions, along with nikonrumors.com where you will find plenty of information on what’s coming up in 2010. My personal prediction – we will see a D700s or D800 with the same sensor as in D3s in Q1/Q2 of 2010, along with about 6-8 lenses.
12/30/2009 - 20:11
“D3s and 1D4 are clearly targeted at sports/wildlife/action photographers. Wider angle is USELESS in those situation”
Mocha
USELESS????? By that comment I assume you shoot a lot of sports/action. I currently work as a sports photographer. In sports the fixed 300 2.8 is considered the must have lens. From my experience there have been times that I could have benefited from my 300 2.8 NOT having a focal multiplier because the shot was too close. If I had a D3s, rather than a 1D, I could have just changed back to FF mode. As I understand it, you can change the crop factor (1.2 or 1.5) I have to say that the ability to change the focal length of a 300 or 400 2.8 lens would be amazing. Sometimes I’m up on a ladder or just surrounded by people. Mobility isn’t always an option, but I still have to get the shots. I realize that the crop modes drop some MPs but, as I hope more people are realizing, more MPs don’t make a better camera. 8 or sometimes 5 MPs is plenty, ESPECIALLY if the noise is under control (and apparently it is on a D3s). The biggest problem in sports is getting the shot. One of the biggest problems with a fixed telephoto is the people getting too close. It seems that Nikon has addressed these two problems and this makes the Nikon system even more versatile than Canon. And this is appealling to the very audience they are targeting.
As far as the video is concerned, I couldn’t care less. I would honestly prefer if they would have included a feature in place of video that would allow me to take better photos.
01/06/2010 - 15:07
Darrell, I totally agree with you! It is better to get the shot, then crop it, if needed, rather than end up with a useless shot.
Take a look at these high ISO image samples from the Canon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/despeaux/sets/72157622915564702/
Not bad, I would say, even at ISO 25,600.
I would love to see how these compare head-to-head with the Nikon D3s. I bet the Nikon D3s will be better due to FF sensor, but wonder how much of a difference it will be.
02/01/2010 - 10:03
Hi Nasin, if you would like to see the comparison head to head between the two, here is the video from digitalrev.com http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-d3s-vs-dot-canon-eos-1d-mark-iv—which-ones-better-5097-article.html
02/01/2010 - 12:04
Elsavann, thank you for the video! I enjoyed viewing it and I liked the website!
01/06/2010 - 14:53
The D3 has been the leader in the last two years and now Canon is trying to claim the race with a camera that isnt even full framed? What happened to the full framed version of the mark III? Waste of money? The major complaint of the Mark III was the focusing system. Will it be better this time? I always found that the Canons were such plain Jane cameras and Nikon always beat them in appearance and functionality. Im waiting to see what Nikon’s next major move is, im sure something to talk about.
01/06/2010 - 15:10
Jack,
Yes, in terms of appearance and functionality, Nikon cameras always beat Canon. Don’t they say “Canon was created by an engineer, while Nikon by a photographer”? :)
I’m still waiting to see a real ISO comparison between the Canon EOS-1D and Nikon D3s.
02/02/2010 - 14:20
here is one…
http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/nikon-d3s-vs-canon-eos-1d-mark-iv/
02/02/2010 - 15:43
Prakash, the link you provided has NO samples from Nikon D3s, so it is useless for a comparison.
02/03/2010 - 11:14
try this…
http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/
02/04/2010 - 18:11
Some more…
Autofocus is definately improved for sure, with little issues read the comments in this review where 5-6 canon 1d iv shooters are complaining about focus capabilities for wedding and low light
http://jgphotography.ca/blog/canon-1d-mark-iv-review
though I believe after this model the trend of Canon shooters moving to Nikon will stop as long as they are ready to pay 5K, at lower price range D700 still has more o less all the best features on D3S (yeah autofocus and iso)
This is the kind of review which gives clear pictures and gets people out of deniel mode
And remember 3D tracking capability of nikon has no answers
01/15/2010 - 11:53
Hi Nasim Mansurov, you must be a nikon die hard fan. How can you say that Nikon has better weather sealing and build quality when both of them not out to the consumer jet?. Did anyone ever drop both of them from the 10 floor to see which on is survive? I have both brand, I can not tell which on is better, they both can do the job for what we need.
01/15/2010 - 15:27
If I were a die-hard fan, I wouldn’t be saying that Canon produced a remarkable sensor, would I?
As far as the cameras being out to the consumer, FYI, the Nikon D3s has been shipping since November 2009. And as far as weather sealing and build quality, if you shoot with both, you should know the difference :)
01/20/2010 - 18:48
I started shooting sports action photography with the D1 in Feb. 2000 and then moved to the D2h and have been waiting for something like the D3s to finally make the move up the ladder. I’ll be getting the D3s in April because of the magnitude improvement in low light capability and that my D2h shutter is about to go. To be honest, I have always found that if I captured the peak moments of action in the stream of motion in front of me, I could sell an 8×10 Kodak print with tons of noise (low light conditions). For me, it has always been about the action. Capturing the action will always trump MP. I could easily sell a good 2MB image over a lousy 12MB image. In my business, MB has been overrated in sports photography since roughly 2003. Rogdog.
03/03/2010 - 16:28
Roger, I absolutely agree with you! Megapixels do not matter that much for sports/action photography and Canon does not seem to get it.
Thank you for stopping by and leaving your feedback!
01/24/2010 - 01:18
what a surprise, photographers wanna do video with camera….who cares i want the best picture which d700 gives me sharpest in the lot (except d3s), have d300s as well but never used the video…and who beat nikon lenses quality, canon is far behind there….
I am just waiting for d700s (yes extra stop), why not 24mp cause still I am not pro and dont need pictures bigger than 20*30
though so you know d3s have 1.2x mode also with 8.4 mp size
02/02/2010 - 08:38
Hi Prakash,
I found this review about Canon 1d mark iv, the review won’t make you switch brand, but at least it can make you think how good the 1d mark iv can do.
02/02/2010 - 14:19
Canon 1D Mark iv is very nice and very close to D3s, though not full frame (1.3x crop factor) , i definately see improvement in autofocus with 7D & 1D though as of now Nikon wins the race in autofocus department, thus no point in thinking about that…
02/02/2010 - 15:41
Prakash, I might have to disagree with you about who is the winner right now. Talking about full frame Nikon win, but Canon has an edge on video. Auto focus i call an even Nikon has 51 points but they are only 15 cross type and Canon has 45 point system and 39 cross type. We probably will have wait and see until next weekend for the Super Bowl gram to decide who is the winner. Remember i’m not a fan of either brand, I have both. I am just a person who interested in DSLR technology
02/04/2010 - 10:54
I am a photographer not videographer, for a ameture user it might be useful to have video too, but for a pro its the picture quality which matters all the way….so video is not my criteria i have d300s and I have not considered video feaure yet…but if that matters to you then make sense…
regarding sutofocus i doubt there even new autofocus of canon will even come close…I think its the 12MP which helps quick focus as well and Nikon was way ahead in autofocus before(remember 3d tracking), now canon not only bridge the gap and take the lead, doesn’t seam feasible…even if its close to d3s I believe CANON 1d iv wins the battle….cause then 24mp matters more than 1 stop to me, and for sports 1.3x sesnor is anyday better….
here’s the comparison….
http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/
02/04/2010 - 13:25
Hi Prakash, I know you love your Nikon Camera so do I, but when you said to have video in the camera is just for an amateur, that is not right. If it is not that important Nikon never put video into their top pro DSLR from the place, you have to remember that Nikon was the first company that put video into their DSLR and then Canon follow. Maybe for you is not that important, but for other people it does. In term of auto focus there is no winner as now. The comparison that you gave me, if look from here is Canon 1d4 http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickdean/sets/72157623101411187/ and here Nikon d3s http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickdean/4284543722/in/set-72157623233489084/ they are very close, but you cannot take one review to draw a conclusion. Prakash do not get me wrong i did not mean that Canon is better than Nikon or other way around, because both of them have some strength and weakness. Remember photographer produce their final print from paper not computer, if you still think about the image only, you do not have pay top dollars for the high end pro, even the old 5d still give you a superb quality of picture. But today when top pro pay for their toys, they want some others option, video is one of them.
02/04/2010 - 18:12
Autofocus is definately improved for sure, with little issues read the comments in this review where 5-6 canon 1d iv shooters are complaining about focus capabilities for wedding and low light
http://jgphotography.ca/blog/canon-1d-mark-iv-review
though I believe after this model the trend of Canon shooters moving to Nikon will stop as long as they are ready to pay 5K, at lower price range D700 still has more o less all the best features on D3S (yeah autofocus and iso)
This is the kind of review which gives clear pictures and gets people out of deniel mode
And remember 3D tracking capability of nikon has no answers
02/04/2010 - 19:25
Prakash, if you try find a weakness of one brand you will find one, here is the one from d3s
The low light capabilities of this camera are a great improvement over the D3. Though the maximum ISO is a rather jaw-dropping 102,400, at this level it’s incredibly noisy and there is a loss of detail.
http://www.cnet.com.au/nikon-d3s-339299054.htm
the review which you gave me, there was no direct comparison between the two brand on that time and day, SO IS USELESS. You should read or watch the review that i gave you before. Prakash, as I told you i am a canon and nikon user, I love both brand. If every review said canon 1d4 has a problem with auto focus like 1d3, then I will have go along with you, but this is not the case. Like I just said if you try find a weakness of each brand that you may or may not like you will find one or two. I think we will have find out this up coming Sunday for the SUPER BOWL GRAM to see which one is better. If you see more black lens than white lens, which mean Nikon is take over pro sport market share. I am happy that you like your Nikon camera, the brand that use and trust for so many years, but i think we should stop at this point, because if continue thing will never ended.
02/28/2010 - 19:50
“Considering that the sensor has more pixels (16.1 mp vs 12.1), Canon has done a remarkable job in sensor development.” What is remarkable about this? What seems to be more important that the sheer pixel number is the pixel size (Nikon’s 8.45 microns compared to the Canon’s 5.7 micron pixels)–the Nikon has been getting superior reviews at the highest ISO tests…
03/03/2010 - 16:27
Brian, the noise levels on the Mark IV are not as good as on Nikon D3s, but they are still pretty good, which is why I said that Canon did a good job in developing this sensor. Had the number of megapixels and sensor size been the same, I think Canon would have had similar (if not superior) performance compared to Nikon.
Where Canon dropped the ball, was sensor size and megapixels. Everybody is getting tired of the useless megapixel race for sports cameras.
02/04/2010 - 14:10
True and agree if video is important then criteria is diff….though here’s my priorities in sequence to look in a camera….
No 1: best autofocus – D3s wins here
No 2: Top iso – D3s wins here
No 3: Megapixels – 1D mark iv wins here
For me rest are luxuries, these 3 criteria’s where I like to spend my money judiciously…but for others thats not the case…so make your choice…
02/04/2010 - 15:28
Prakash, I do not know why you still think Nikon d3s win in auto focus department. From reviews I read and watch no one said that. from your list: I gave number 2 to Nikon in low light top ISO performance. Here are some links: http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom AND http://uniquephoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/unique-photo-shootout-featuring-david.html
02/04/2010 - 17:54
Autofocus is definately improved for sure, with little small lowlight focus issue…here’s one detailed test…
http://jgphotography.ca/blog/canon-1d-mark-iv-review
though I believe after this model the trend of Canon shooters moving to Nikon will stop as long as they are ready to pay 5K, at lower price range D700 still has more o less all the best features on D3S (yeah autofocus and iso)
Had I been canon shooter I will be very happy to buy 1D if i had money….but will wait for d700s though and hoping it to come under 3K
03/02/2010 - 06:42
You are wrong lol. I was just playing with my cousins Mark IV and own a D3s, noise wasn’t as good it was so obvious we had a giggle about it straight up. Maxed out it looks like a mobile phone photo. My D3s is also much clearer at ISO6400 and has far less noise in low-light conditions. But on the other hand the 16mp is useful – theres more detail in the photos. I rate both cameras equally. Although my cousin said he preferred the D3s. WHY I AM I TROLLING. Dpreview states everything clearly in the reviews – equal.
02/04/2010 - 18:05
Forgot to mention, read the comments where 5-6 canon 1d iv shooters are complaining about focus capabilities for wedding and low light…
This is the kind of review which gives clear pictures…
And remember 3D tracking of nikon has no answer
02/05/2010 - 14:12
You are right:)
03/03/2010 - 16:24
Pierre, I agree in terms of noise levels on the Nikon D3s, but I cannot say that the higher resolution of the Mark IV compensates for the noise… Also, don’t forget about dynamic range and 1.3x sensor vs full frame.
If people need a higher resolution, they will go with the 5D Mark II :)