Comments on: Nikon D3s vs Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

By: Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:28:35 +0000

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!

By: Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:27:05 +0000

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.

By: Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:24:35 +0000

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 :)

By: Pierre

Pierre — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:42:19 +0000

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.

By: Brian Tanning

Brian Tanning — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:50:44 +0000

“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…

By: Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:20:18 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:45:17 +0000

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!!

By: Prakash Heda

Prakash Heda — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:12:06 +0000

You are right:)

By: Elsavann

Elsavann — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:25:11 +0000

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.

By: Prakash Heda

Prakash Heda — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:12:06 +0000

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