The D3 Kicks 1Ds Mk III's Butt!

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007.

  1. Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Ignoring the obvious title troll...

    I recommend the read.....

    "Before people draw any unwarranted conclusions it needs to be said
    that the 1Ds MKIII is no slouch when it comes to high ISO performance.
    The shot above and its 100% crop show what the camera is capable of at
    ISO 3200. In a 16X20" print none of the artifacts seen in the 100%
    crop above is visible, and noise is extremely low. As I found on my
    Madagascar shoot, you can work at virtually any ISO under any
    conditions and get usable, saleable images. And don't lose sight of
    the fact that you can do so at 5 FPS in 14 bit mode, and with 21
    Megapixel files - the previous domain of medium format." - luminous-
    PixelPix, Dec 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yvon Travailler, Dec 8, 2007
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Douglas Guest

    The 1Ds Mk III is almost as expensive as a Mamiya 645D II which uses a
    36x48mm, 22 megapixel CCD sensor, digital back which is interchangeable with
    120 roll film backs. The best of both worlds! CCD sensors don't blur the
    image as much as CMOS sensors do and produce unparalleled image quality.

    Any 35mm origin DSLR with a sensor as small as a FF 35mm one, would need to
    produce exceptional results to warrant it's cost. In fact it would need to
    produce unparalleled results which Canon cameras cannot due to resolving
    power of their lenses.

    There is even more economy in the Mamiya than first appears. The back is
    under $10,000. Used 645AF Mamiyas are selling for $2 -3k, many with lenses
    and they don't have the service life limitations of a Canon DSLR. I
    seriously can't see where those high priced Canon's fit the Professional
    needs for anyone outside the (action) sports area.

    Douglas, Dec 8, 2007
  5. I did and it doesn't look good for the 1Ds. Let's see, a bargain basement
    D3 at $5,000 with a full arsenal of the worlds best glass, Nikkors, beats an
    $8,000 dSLR with no lens offerings. Of course, one could use an adapter and
    use Nikkors on it to take full advantage of the sensor. But at this point
    in the game it's not worth paying an extra $3K just to manually focus when
    the D3 takes full advantage of AF and has a better sensor. Like I said, the
    1Ds is going to be a sweet camera, but there are going to be a lot of
    unrealistic expectations shattered.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Scott W Guest

    Hmm, I did not see the kicking butt part, I must have missed that.
    And the D3 and 1Ds Mark III are a bit different in that they have
    different resolutions. One would hope that the D3 with its larger
    pixels would have less noise then the 1Ds Mark III.

    Both cameras look pretty capable and at last Canon has some
    competition in the full field market, this is good for everybody.

    Scott W, Dec 8, 2007
  7. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Actually the 1DS3 is more than a match for the ZD. When this site
    gets a new quota you can view full size comparison shots from the ZD,
    1Ds3 and P21

    Factor in the speed and versatility of the DSLR format and it will be
    a no brainer for many.... of course everyone's style, likes & needs
    vary, but on a purely IQ basis the 1DS3 is up there with MF.
    PixelPix, Dec 8, 2007
  8. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    you must be reading a different site than the rest of us. lol
    No lens offerings? Let me put my sunnies on, your Troll colours
    glowing very VERY bright.
    Damn... where did I put those sunnies! :-(
    Better sensor? Bwahaha... never mind the fact that it's only 12mp or
    something. Even with that lower res, it looks like it only has a 1/2
    to one stop advantage in noise.... and from many many samples shown to
    date, this advantage comes at the cost of some detail. So it is
    questionable if this is even an advantage at all.

    Luminous Landscapes is happy that Canon's 1600ISO images show no
    visible detail in print at very large sizes. Like... how many of us
    actually shoot at extreme ISOs anyway? Sure there will be those
    (press mainly) that will find it useful, but if anyone is serious
    about image quality they are not going to be shooting high ISO anyway,
    as it is crap in comparison to 100ISO images regardless of the camera

    As for the extra cost... the resolution makes it worth every penny for
    those who require MF equaling results.
    Same can be said for the D3.
    PixelPix, Dec 8, 2007
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Noons Guest

    my rb67 and pentax 6x7 are shaking already....
    Noons, Dec 8, 2007
  10. Obviously you are trying to put something into an article that isn't there.
    There's nothing in that article that makes the 1Ds stand out as a great
    camera for the price.
    Name one L lens under 400mm Canon makes that is even usable?
    Use the adapter son, use the adapter and you might not go back to L glass.
    You bring up a good point. Why is the Nikon sensor at half the MPs still
    producing better images and performance? If we were comparing apples to
    apples the 1Ds wouldn't even stand a chance.
    Nonsense! A lot of people rarely shot high-ISO because it wasn't a viable
    option. Since the option is now available to the masses it will be used
    more. Like I said earlier I am very happy with the ISO 3200 performance of
    both of these cameras. Sure, I would like to shoot with the lowest ISO
    possible, but that is not always an option.
    These people generally buy an MF camera instead of paying $8K for a novelty.
    Possibly, but the D3 isn't going to be letting a lot of people down. Unlike
    Canon's Mk III, Nikon's D3 users aren't screaming about focusing problem
    within the first week of introduction. I agree it was a very small sample
    of Mk IIIs afflicted, but Canon has a tradition for letting the customer
    beta test.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007
  11. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Now you are just embarrassing yourself troll!

    I have the adapter and used the adapter, but I still shoot L glass, as
    well as Nikon, as well as Olympus, as well as various M42 mount
    lenses. The difference between you and me, is that I am willing to
    admit that there are specific items of good glass from a variety of
    manufacturers, rather than just trolling the one narrow minded line.

    ROFLMAO !!!!!

    Ok... now you have confirmed for everyone that you have absolutely no
    understanding of the matter at hand and are simply a TROLL!

    Excluding image resolution, 1/2 the MPs is a HUGE advantage in
    designing a sensor and keeping the noise low, yet between the D3 and
    1Ds3 there is sweet-FA in it. (As for resolution, well the D3 is not
    even in the race)
    Novelty? ....Sounds like MP envy to me.
    Lets wait and see if the 1Ds3 lets people down and if the D3 has no
    problems.... as only time will tell. (anything else is just another
    PixelPix, Dec 8, 2007
  12. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Exactly. And when did low noise at extremely high ISO settings all of
    a sudden become the end-all and be-all for camera IQ evaluation?
    Noise can be eliminated easily with a little post-processing.
    But there ain't nothin you can do to make the 12MP D3 into a 21MP

    As MR pointed out in his report the 1Ds3 @1600 ISO will make 16x20
    photos with no visible noise. So when you view the full-size crops
    from each camera you need to ask yourself, "Am I seeing more noise in
    the 1Ds3 because it is much noisier or simply because the image is

    Just like that ISO 25,600 shot he took with the Nikon. Noisy as Hell
    at full res, but when you reduce it to web dimensions .... Voila! No

    Personally, I'm more concerned with other things like shooting speed,
    focus tracking, etc. However, Nikon is putting some features into
    their latest models that are actually useful. I like the built-in
    ability to control external flashes that the D300 has (I don't know if
    the D3 has this or not). And I believe that at least one model has an
    interval timer to do time exposure shots or double-exposures. I can
    do that with my Canon, but I have to use a laptop with external
    Annika1980, Dec 8, 2007
  13. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Yeah right, Canon doesn't offer any lenses.
    Brilliant observation, dude.
    Today must be "opposite day" for Rita. Everything Rita says is the
    opposite of the truth. D-Mac calls these days "Monday, Tuesday,

    Damn, too bad you gave up on your precious 58mm Noct too soon before
    you had a sensor to take advantage of it.
    Sucks to be you, idiot troll!
    Annika1980, Dec 8, 2007
  14. Can't name one?
    I did admit there are good lenses from Canon, they are all above 400mm.
    That being said, these "good" lenses still can't hold a candle to Nikon's
    You wouldn't be laughing if you squandered $8K.
    And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. For the sake of
    argument we will say the IQ is equal. This doesn't say much for the 1Ds's
    poor performance.
    Not likely. One call and I'll be on a wait list for one. Even if I was a
    diehard Canon shooter I wouldn't buy one. The 1D Mk III blows it away for
    IQ and the 1.3x sensor is a nice compromise to FF. Tell me this, why is the
    Mk III with its 10 MP sensor still better than the 1Ds?
    The first week says it all. Canon screwed the pooch and their customers
    while Nikon is taking its time to hash any bugs out before the D3 is in
    customers' hands.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007
  15. Yes, we have seen your attempts at noise reduction. The plastic looking
    water colored blurs say it all.
    Funny thing is the D3 is producing better images with half the MPs at ISO
    Who cares about ISO 25,600 when 3200 and 6400 are more realistic and a
    better comparison for real world everyday shooting?
    Nikon's CLS is a sweet system, especially for macro. I much prefer Pocket
    Wizards for everything else since RF isn't susceptible to line-of-site
    interference like IR is. You need an SU800 to use CLS with the D3.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007
  16. LOL! I'm almost over it. I'll be using other sweet lenses to distract me
    from the pain of my loss.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 8, 2007
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Where did you get that idea?
    Let me guess .... you pulled it out of your big fat ass!

    For the sake of argument we will say you are an idiot.
    Wait, there is no argument about that!

    What's funny is how you are ragging on the 1Ds3 which is a better
    camera than the 1D3 that you supposedly own. So are you now admitting
    you blew $5 G's on a crap camera?
    Sucks to be you, idiot troll!
    Annika1980, Dec 8, 2007
  18. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    TH O Guest

    Try wildlife, photojournalism, travel, macro, and street photography.
    Medium format also has no where near the lens selection of SLR systems.
    TH O, Dec 8, 2007
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    I am over feeding the troll..... cause if we keep feeding it and the
    arse will get fatter! lol
    PixelPix, Dec 8, 2007
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Geez too early in the the morning for typing... :-(

    "I am over feeding the troll..... 'cause if we keep feeding it, the
    arse will only get fatter! lol"

    thats better..... now where is my coffee?! ;-)
    PixelPix, Dec 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.