D3 vs (5d MKII & 7d)

Seriously, the Nikon D3 is a great camera and it looks the dogs dangly bits, but to think a 12mp full frame camera is a replacement for a 21mp full frame camera and an 18mp crop camera is just a bit too much drum bangin' :D

The strength of the D3 is it's noise performance, where it's unchallenged, but that's largely down to the relatively modest pixel count, and noise isn't the only consideration in choosing a camera. The D3 will be great for portait landscape and studio work , but as far as reach goes for wildlife it would struggle against the likes of the Canon 40D.

That's why Nikon make the D3 and the D300 though. :shrug:
 
I think CT you are too obcessed with pixel count. Maybe its important in what you do, but for most, its unimportant. I've seen plenty of D700/D3 large prints and the quality is sublime in a way that you'd never get to appreciate on the interweb or in some crappy magazine review. I'm not talking about noise, I'm just talking about proper old school IQ.
 
desantnik said:
I think CT you are too obcessed with pixel count. Maybe its important in what you do, but for most, its unimportant. I've seen plenty of D700/D3 large prints and the quality is sublime in a way that you'd never get to appreciate on the interweb or in some crappy magazine review. I'm not talking about noise, I'm just talking about proper old school IQ.
Click to expand...

Desatnik me old mate, you're just making my point! Pixel count isn't that important to YOU and lots of other users, but it's important to me, although I'm not sure that makes me obsessed - I just can't avoid the hard evidence that with every increase in pixel count the effective reach of my lenses has increased appreciably along with being able to resolve more detail at greater distances. Anyone who shoots small critters with long lenses can't fail to see the advantage of more pixels on a crop sensor.

Comparisons between a full frame and crop camera are ridiculous - they're aimed at different users entirely, and if people would just appreciate and accept that simple fact, we wouldn't have these silly endless debates. Canon see the market for the camera and thankfully they've produced it, and for much the same reasons as Nikon produce the D300. ;)
 
LOL I could probably hazard a guess. I'll wait for the box opening pics though - only a matter of time. :D
 
Having dumped a D3 for a 5D Mark II I would say this.

If you are shooting for press and expressly low DPI say 72, then I would shoot Nikon D3 all day long. Sharp glass, but thinner images. If not 72 DPI (i.e newspapers) I would then look at the Canon options as Canon cameras render lovely photos with a full, romantic photo helped by its brilliant CMOS design and of course Canon glass. But, until now, as a photographer I think that Canons focussing has been hit and miss. This has however changed with the 7D body which I personally feel is as Nikon as a Canon camera can get.

Hope this helps....
 
Diego, interesting comments. I mostly shoot for screen (again 72dpi) but the odd print will happen :)

Malla, thanks for the link, really interesting someone coming from a D3 and actually being impressed with the Canon AF. The 1d MK4 should had AF sorted if it's the pro version of the 7d af.
 
photostar_1 said:
Does anyone know if the Canon software does a good job?
Click to expand...

I rather reluctantly starting using Canon DPP when all support for Raw Shooter premium dried up. In the interim I did try Lightroom but just couldn't get on with it.

I've ended up being more than satisfied with DPP. It's a relatively simple package without all the bells and whistles of some of the more expensive ones, but it produces great Canon RAW images with little or no interference from me.
 
CT said:
I saw that review Paul. It doesn't matter what camera you choose though - you're always going to see varying opinions. There's a guy who posts on the bird forum who also posts here producing good work, and he says he's relegating his 1D3 to backup as any slight advantage in AF (which he reckons is debatable) is out-weighed for him by the added reach of the 7D. I can't think of his name - 'ROB' summat or other I think? Perhaps he'll see tbis and post.

Part of the problem is BIF shots are never going to be easy anyway, and it's all too easy to condemn the tool when you fail. I know I have the greatest difficulty keeping a single AF point on the head of a fast moving bird, and I certainly don't get enough practice at it.
Click to expand...

I think it might be me :)
Yes my mk3 is my second choice now, AF is very close between the 2 cameras but the 7d for birds is such a great package .
Spot af is great for ground birds that give you time to use it, expansion works great even if its a busy BG as long as you can get on the bird.
I like the centre zone too for a clean BG such as sky , i have not really tried all points yet as iv never favored them even with my mk3.
Im a big fan of slow tracking speed so have this set all the time as i do on my mk3 although i do intend to try other speeds on the 7d once we get some good weather .
Rob.
 
CT said:
I rather reluctantly starting using Canon DPP when all support for Raw Shooter premium dried up. In the interim I did try Lightroom but just couldn't get on with it.

I've ended up being more than satisfied with DPP. It's a relatively simple package without all the bells and whistles of some of the more expensive ones, but it produces great Canon RAW images with little or no interference from me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, CT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top