motorsport photography, D3 or 1D mkIII??

P

PAS

Suspended / Banned
Messages
453
Edit My Images
Yes
hi guys

using a a700 and siggy 70-200 just now. but thinking of changing...

question is would a 1D mkIII or D3 be the best was to go. had a look at both, and theres not much of a £ difference. mostly for motorsport, and indoor presentations. believe both are weatherproof, so thats ok.

so any opinions welcome!!:D
 
1D mkIII ;)



Actually I doubt that there's much difference really. It depends if you're a Canon or Nikon fan. Both are capable of superb results.

cheers
 
I'm a canon fan,I use the MkIII older brother,and love it,It's newer improved version must be much better!

As for nikon,only ever used a D40 and had a major issue with button placement,That's all I can say for them
 
I don't quite understand why you're asking.

If you have and use a D700 now, surely you are at a level where you'd know the positives and negatives of either model...?:shrug:
 
theMusicMan said:
I don't quite understand why you're asking.

If you have and use a D700 now, surely you are at a level where you'd know the positives and negatives of either model...?:shrug:
Click to expand...

Nope, he's got an A700 - one of those Sony interlopers.
 
Aha... then one deserves my apologies. Sorry, I misread the thread.
 
D3, even though I just got one and haven't used it for sports yet...the 1D MKIII has flawed AF despite what anyone will tell you.

Plus the low light capabilities on the 1D are no where near as good as they are on the D3. The ISO is insane on the D3, Canon are yet to rival it, even with the 5D MKII.

But to tell you the truth, if you are thinking of spending several grand on a professional level DSLR, you should know which one to pick already.
 
1D3 for me.
 
I would like to say 1dmk3 as I have one myself but I guess its not as simple as that, the mk3 is a superb camera but so is the D3 I think you need to try both then look in to both systems as its not just a camera you are buying, you are buying in to a system.
 
The one small downside with the D3 for sports is you may find the buffer too small! Make sure you use the fastest CF cards you can get your hands on. It may be worth paying for the D3 buffer upgrade too.
 
awp said:
The one small downside with the D3 for sports is you may find the buffer too small! Make sure you use the fastest CF cards you can get your hands on. It may be worth paying for the D3 buffer upgrade too.
Click to expand...


Have you had yours done Andy? I'm considering it at the moment. Just wondered what your thoughts were?
Mine are that it should have been in there from new. If it was an after thought then it should be a free upgrade.
But I am a bit grumpy this morning... :bat:


Kev.
 
I agree it should have been there from new - or a free upgrade. :( I haven't had mine done - it's only been a problem a couple of times - shooting horse racing - for things like rugby/football it's not a problem. If you're aware of the limit and only shoot short bursts you should be OK - the buffer can fill up at 9 fps though!

edit: less of a problem if you shoot jpegs!
 
Nikon were getting feedback from testers that the buffer was too small pre-release, but the spec was locked down and too late to change. This is actually mentioned in a Nikon Pro mag from about 15 months ago, which I thought was remarkably candid.

Pretty surprised that they are not shipping with this in place now - even if it needed an s model to make it more palatable to existing users. Seems very pricey given that memory is dirt cheap..
 
I'm not going to say either way but the 1DIII will give you less wide angle options due to it's 1.3x crop, although for motorsport this could be considered a slight advantage, whilst the D3 allows you to fit dx lenses and will crop 'in camera' although the subsequent loss of resolution may not be what you want.

There are other things to think about oither than the body. Prices of lenses and accessories are going to be a major factor.

Not an easy question to answer on someone else's behalf!
 
cheers guys.

main lens has to be a 70-200, possibly 1.4x convertor, and a flashgun.

hmmm, decisions decisions:thinking:
 
awp said:
The one small downside with the D3 for sports is you may find the buffer too small! Make sure you use the fastest CF cards you can get your hands on. It may be worth paying for the D3 buffer upgrade too.
Click to expand...
What does the buffer hold? cant be that bad surely.
 
malla1962 said:
What does the buffer hold? cant be that bad surely.
Click to expand...

In general terms no, it's not bad, in sports or fast action event terms, it's pretty bad.

I wrote a little here after being employed as a stringer, shooting figure skating for Getty.

Despite the extra expense, I still recommend a D3 over a 1DmkIII for performance and reliability.
 
PAS said:
main lens has to be a 70-200, possibly 1.4x convertor, and a flashgun.
Click to expand...

As someone who shoots a lot of motorsport I feel I'm fairly qualified to say that unless you are planning on shooting stuff like rally or MX, the 70-200 will be too short for pretty much everything else on the FX sensor of the D3.

Well, unless you want to spend your entire life with the crop tool in photoshop.

The D3 itself is a stunning piece of gear and you won't be dissapointed, except for the fact that you'll need longer glass... and it the world of the Big N, that means long primes or the awesomely big n heavy 200-400.

How do I know this to be true? A friend of mine who truly loves his D3 sold me his 70-200VR almost completely unused because its too short to be of much use in motorsport, wildlife or aviation (the three subjects he shoots).

What Nikon really should do for us motorsport togs is to make a D3 style pro body with a crop sensor... 1.3 crop would be lovely... hmmmmm!

I still think I should manufacture the CanKon D300 MkIII, the perfect motorsport camera :D

PS take a look at this thread for my detailed musings on Canon vs Nikon for motorsport:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=80289&highlight=dtm
 
thanks the camera is mainly for motocross, with the 70-200.
i know most seem to pick the 1d in the motocross game, but if the D3 was the better way to go, so be it!

just looking for opinions, and going to have a play with both if i can, see what i like best.

thanks
 
PAS said:
thanks the camera is mainly for motocross, with the 70-200.
i know most seem to pick the 1d in the motocross game, but if the D3 was the better way to go, so be it!

just looking for opinions, and going to have a play with both if i can, see what i like best.

thanks
Click to expand...

Wise! Really do try to get your hands on both Paul. Then make your mind up. You are buying into a system not just a specific body, but if you just don't like the feel of any one of them then that just goes out of the window. Personaly I much prefer the ergonomics of the Canon. But that's just me and perhaps it's just because I've become used to it. Others will much prefer the Nikon I'm sure, and I really wouldn't argue the point with a confirmed Nikon user.
 
desantnik said:
How do I know this to be true? A friend of mine who truly loves his D3 sold me his 70-200VR almost completely unused because its too short to be of much use in motorsport, wildlife or aviation (the three subjects he shoots).

What Nikon really should do for us motorsport togs is to make a D3 style pro body with a crop sensor... 1.3 crop would be lovely... hmmmmm!
Click to expand...

I use the D3 and the 70-200 for most sports that I can get close to, when I need some more reach the D3 can be told to use DX crop which is 1.6x then if needed a little added range can be found with the use of a TC, I use a 1.7 and find that I am at approx 500mm with the crop and TC in play, slight down side to the TC is the reduction in the f number, still shooting with this combo adds a great amount of flexibility for me.

D3 gets the vote also from me!
 
8utters said:
D3, even though I just got one and haven't used it for sports yet...the 1D MKIII has flawed AF despite what anyone will tell you.

Plus the low light capabilities on the 1D are no where near as good as they are on the D3. The ISO is insane on the D3, Canon are yet to rival it, even with the 5D MKII.

But to tell you the truth, if you are thinking of spending several grand on a professional level DSLR, you should know which one to pick already.
Click to expand...

In response to a slightly bias opinion:

1. The majority of 1D Mk III users have not had any problems with the AF.
2. Low light capabilities of 1D Mk III are impressive.
3. The Canon 5D MKII has matched the ISO levels of the D3 and bettered it in some of the tests.
 
I'm not going to offer an opinion either way but surely it's not all about the bodies, but the lenses as well. Lets face it you may replace the body every two or three years but not the lenses, so which system has the best lenses suited to what you want to shoot?
 
desantnik said:
...... the 70-200 will be too short for pretty much everything else on the FX sensor of the D3.

Well, unless you want to spend your entire life with the crop tool in photoshop.

The D3 itself is a stunning piece of gear and you won't be dissapointed, except for the fact that you'll need longer glass... and it the world of the Big N, that means long primes or the awesomely big n heavy 200-400.
Click to expand...

The 200-400mm f/4 is no where nears as heavy as a 400mm 2.8 prime, it's also a little slimmer. Not far off in terms of damage to the wallet though :lol:

There are other options such as the 300mm f/4, this lens works very well with a TC too, admitedly hard to get hold of but a much better option then relying on 70-200 for distance shooting. To be fair, even with a cropped sensor I prefer shooting with a 300mm to 70-200mm.

I know it's expensive but I can't recommend the AFS 300mm f/2.8 enough, I've seen second hand prices go from around £1800-£2300.
I borrow one from a buddy of mine every now and again but as soon as the budget is there, I'll be investing in one.

Byker28i said:
I'm not going to offer an opinion either way but surely it's not all about the bodies, but the lenses as well. Lets face it you may replace the body every two or three years but not the lenses, so which system has the best lenses suited to what you want to shoot?
Click to expand...

Correct but bodies do have much more significance when shooting fast action, frame rate and AF performance are very important :thumbs:
True that a great body and crap glass wouldn't get you usable results but when combining good glass with capable bodies you have a much more reliable and successful hit rate.
 
Byker28i said:
I'm not going to offer an opinion either way but surely it's not all about the bodies, but the lenses as well. Lets face it you may replace the body every two or three years but not the lenses, so which system has the best lenses suited to what you want to shoot?
Click to expand...
Sums it up pretty well to me:D
 
Organic said:
In response to a slightly bias opinion:

1. The majority of 1D Mk III users have not had any problems with the AF.
2. Low light capabilities of 1D Mk III are impressive.
3. The Canon 5D MKII has matched the ISO levels of the D3 and bettered it in some of the tests.
Click to expand...

It's not biased at all, i've been a devoted Canon user for years. I've only just switched to Nikon within the last few days. I've used Canon's entire range of DSLR and used a most of Nikons (D300 upward) so i'd say that's pretty unbiased.

1. Because alot of MKIII users probably don't use their cameras in such a way that it brings out the AF flaw. It's only when an object is moving toward or away from the camera that it is apparent. You always get people saying 'Oh yeah, I have no problems with the AF', and usualy you find out they are shooting something like weddings or some types of sport which blatenty don't need superfast AF and don't show up the AF flaw.

It's a blatent problem with the AF, just becuase some people havn't come across it doesn't mean it's not there.

2. They are alright, but no match to the D3 whatosever.

3. Nope, dissagree with that, from personal experience the 5D MKII is not as good as the D3 in low light, and I am yet to see any tests where it 'bettered' it. It's the best DSLR Canon have ever made for low light though, it's just not quite as good as the D3's sensor.
 
8utters said:
It's a blatent problem with the AF, just becuase some people havn't come across it doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...

All very good points 8utters. :thumbs:

Canon have also been offering a free of charge recall along with a check up and a repair of the known AF deficiency, this should speak volumes really.
Also, we have a fairly new member here who works for Getty who can confirm that during the Beijing Olympics, all 400 staff were using 1DmkII's due to global unreliability.

Anyone who has 2K+ to spend on a body, I would not recommend 1DmkIII to them despite the issues now being resolved.

I'd say wait for a 1DmkIV.

I was a Canon shooter up until August 08, then the time came to invest in a brand new, full warranty etc pro system that I could rely on for at least 2-3 years. I decided to go Nikon for some of the reasons you outlined in your post and that Canon split features between bodies too much for me to make any logical decision to stay with them.

I'm by no means saying that Nikon is better than Canon, it's simply better for me and my requirements.

I do miss my 1DmkI, despite the low resolution, Canon had it right there for me and shouldn't have messed around with the recipe IMO. :D
 
I've religiously used Nikon for my motorsports activities (WSB & BSB).

The D3 I have now is superb, without doubt.

Regarding the buffer capabilities - Unless you're a "Gattling Gun Monkey" or you do strike it lucky and get that 19-frame crash sequence you won't need to worry about the buffer. If you're doing your job properly then you only need a one frame buffer (except in the mentioned circumstances).

Yes, you have to consider your glass, but for most mere mortals either Nikon or Canon offer all the glass you'll ever need for motorsports.

You say you'll be doing indoor presentations. The D3 will give you an edge there with it's high ISO-low noise output.

Once you get your hands around that D3 body, it'll be an easy decision. A master of ergonomics if you ask me.

Enjoy your decision making.

Guy
 
Having used both, you can't go wrong with either really.
I chose the D3 root, as I was annoyed with the 1D crop (1.3) not making the most of my wide angle lens.
Nikon's ability to use DX lenses on FX cameras is a nice little bonus (if you need to shoot crop). The D3 handles ISO noise levels much better too so you can push shutter speeds that bit higher if needed.

I have also found the D3 autofocus system, much more reliable than the 1D3, so its thumbs up for the D3 so far for me :)
 
CopeImages said:
Regarding the buffer capabilities - Unless you're a "Gattling Gun Monkey" or you do strike it lucky and get that 19-frame crash sequence you won't need to worry about the buffer.
Click to expand...

:lol: Gattling gun monkey :lol:

Jokes aside though, it's not just about shooting a sequence with the maximum capacity of frames.
I have never shot motorsport so I really couldn't say whether it would apply but if you shoot wildlife or any other sports then it's worth considering you may need the opportunity to to shoot smaller sequences much more often during the time of event(s).

I'm a 'short controlled bursts' shooter, and despite this 16 shots can be used up very rapidly and the time it takes for the buffer to become free once again can cripple your output in time sensitive circs.

Having the limit expanded to 36 is more than helpful if you find yourself in these situations and it's detrimental to miss out on the action.

Whether the buffer should indeed be at this capacity, box fresh, is another story :lol:
 
8utters said:
It's not biased at all, i've been a devoted Canon user for years.

It's a blatent problem with the AF, just becuase some people havn't come across it doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the AF on my mk3?
How can you state its a blatent problem?
 
malla1962 said:
How can you state its a blatent problem?
Click to expand...

Surely you can't be serious?

Here's a microscopic collection of the available links.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=117179&highlight=canon+recall

http://forums.canonphotogroup.com/showthread.php?t=971

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=215&modelid=15710&keycode=2112&id=56399

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07103002eos1dm3recall.asp

http://therighteye.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/canon-1d-mark-iii-recall/

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068

http://therighteye.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/canon-1d-mark-iii-recall-update/

For further reading google '1DmkIII recall or Canon 1DmkIII AF issues.'

It's great that your camera works ok but thousands of folk have experienced failures on a global scale. To deny or disregard that the problem was indeed recognised and widespread is a little strange.

Indeed the 1DmkIII is a more than capable professional body but an enormous percentage of them had serious issues, hence the recall and free of charge fixes.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Surely you can't be serious?

Here's a microscopic collection of the available links.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=117179&highlight=canon+recall

http://forums.canonphotogroup.com/showthread.php?t=971

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...oryid=215&modelid=15710&keycode=2112&id=56399

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07103002eos1dm3recall.asp

http://therighteye.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/canon-1d-mark-iii-recall/

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068

http://therighteye.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/canon-1d-mark-iii-recall-update/

For further reading google '1DmkIII recall or Canon 1DmkIII AF issues.'

It's great that your camera works ok but thousands of folk have experienced failures on a global scale. To deny or disregard that the problem was indeed recognised and widespread is a little strange.

Indeed the 1DmkIII is a more than capable professional body but an enormous percentage of them had serious issues, hence the recall and free of charge fixes.
Click to expand...
And an enormous percentage were ok, and if you go and buy a new mk3 there is very little chance of having a focus problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top