I remember when canon had the lead in Iso but it still didn't convince me to like it... I even used to be a canonite too back when the "marvel" Eos 1 came out to beat the D1H to a pulp.

check this video, thats nice :o) d3s vs 1DmkIV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkg7pAxi4gE

Haha, maybe, but buy then I might be using D600???

Not true PB PM when the D5 comes out the D3S should be priced around a D90

lol, I'm sure the D3s has wonderful auto focus, but unless I win the lottery, I don't think I'll ever use one.

Uh, this thread is suppose to be about how awesome the auto focus is on the D3S and not about how "crappy" the movie mode is.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves just yet, this is still Nikon's first generation video products.

Well if this is what's going to happen Nikon is setting itself up very nicely to be completely screwed with its sub par video capabilities.

It is kind of sad, but that's the way it seems to be going. There will have to be a lot of improvements to in video AF systems if that does come to pass.

You know eventually that's what's going to happen. Just shoot video the whole time and then go back and grab a still image.

He was testing the Canon the wrong way, he should have used it in Video mode that is really what Canon designed it to do. Picture mode is just an add on to complement the video mode

Pete

Rob Galbraith has posted his thoughts on the 1Dmk4 auto focus. It is now "official" that the D3S is the better camera :^)

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484

Kyoshi, it's canon we are talking about. They were the ISO king for many years before Nikon slapped them silly and took the crown with the D3 and D3S. I wouldn't underestimate what they can do with their future models.

I am beginning to consider the D3x for "non" studio use anyway seeing as Genuine Fractals only goes so far for my giant prints. Id like to see the Canon DS Mark IV (howthehell you put it) try to beat the D3x with a sony sensor. Leica did it with kodak

NikoDoby said:
The 1DsM4 is pretty much a done deal as far as I can tell. It will have more mp than the D3X that's for sure. Just how much more is the unanswered question but the 32mp rumor is very strong.

I hope Canon comes out with their best ever camera so that I can see what Nikon does to top it.
I would love to pick up an "old" D3x for less than $6,000 used.

I know, I know, larger formats have better contrast, color rendition, sharpness, etc. You know who I learned about that from? KR :^D

There is more to an image and camera than high ISO performance.

Are they really that bad? I thought they were medium format! What a joke.

Even at ISO800 noise can be a problem.

NikoDoby said:
Yeah but the highest ISO medium format can reach is usually only 800.

Technically, don't they have the ability to use much, much higher ISO's because the photosites are bigger? But they're not of course, as that's not their purpose and their market does not require it.

Yeah but the highest ISO medium format can reach is usually only 800. Though 400 or less is used the most.

Anyway here are some more samples of ISO between the D3S, 1DMk4, and the 5DMk2

http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/

adamz said:
alpha - as far as You can make the colors look warmer on any nikon dslr, You can't make AF work better on Canon dslr, neither You can make their glass better; so I prefer to stick to Nikon, play a little bit in PP, and have a great photo and great experience with taking it.

Oops I missed that... :^)

Yeah, I agree with you on that. However, switching to Canon wasn't such a big deal for my dad. He only uses the center AF-point usually not for moving subjects, and he used mostly off-brand lenses on his Nikon. Plus Canon has superior DSLR-video.

alphanikonrex said:
Yes, aren't people more interested in low-ISO's? I think the D3X is Nikon's only camera that goes down to ISO50.

Usually people are interested the most in getting the best image their camera can produce, and it depends on the sensor what the ISO would be to achieve this, it does not necessarily means that lower ISO is better.

That's what I meant :^)

For high megapixel medium format kind of work, yes.