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

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.

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

Yes but high ISO quality is not that important for a high megapixel studio camera. The trend now is for medium format quality in a DSLR package. Just look at all the attention the Leica S2 is getting. I wouldn't call that a high ISO machine but then again for low ISO studio work or outdoor shoots its very desirable.

Don't think about the MP's ... I guess 15-20 is optimal! Let's have a look at the ISO-Quality of a 30MP's Sensor! The Producers recognize that there isn't a need of high MP's, it is much more the ISO-Quality, because both types of Camera are for reportages!

Greetz!

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.

Be patient an wait what canon has against Nikons D3s! I went to Nikon, but I also like Canon. They both do have very good bodies. Atm Nikon is the best to buy! But if the 1DsMKIV comes out ... we'll see!

Greetz

I really like the way Nikon names their cameras. It's obviously much simpler and much clearer than Canon. In fact, it's funny that this topic arose because I was just thinking what a pain Canon's names were. I think it's far more preferable to consumers to be able to actually pronounce the names of their cameras, both because it gives them a sense of knowledge and it helps them stay on track with the latest camera models available.

As for the photos . . . I am positively shocked at the overwhelming difference between the D3S and the 1D Mark IV. The D3S makes the 1D Mark IV look like a Rebel! A friend of mine, who is a total Nikon photographer just came to me and went on and on about how impressed he was about the 1D Mark IV. Maybe if I show him this comparison, he'll change his mind.

Canon doesn't have ANYTHING on Nikon with the D3S as their flagship camera. The D3S is even better-looking!

NikoDoby said:
CassiusRoads, Nikon's nomenclature has been the same for decades. It is waaay more stable than canon's has ever been. In fact i'd say it was Nikon who started the whole letter-number naming sequence before anyone else. In the past Nikon has followed the pattern of F100, F301, N6006, etc. so they've got plenty to work with. For example D700, D700S, D700X, D701, D701S, D701M, D7000, D7007 etc.

I do agree that Nikon's system has been more stable than other manufacturers, but I also think it could be improved. I do like being able to see where a camera fits just in its name (growing up and starting photography in the digital age I was rather confused that the F80 was newer than the F90). I would like to see something such as a D701, where the level of the camera is clear in the '7,' and there is much room for its successors (ex. 702, 703), instead of the current pattern of changing the first number to denote successors and generally signifying the level of camera with the number of zeroes that follow (the Dxxx, and Dxx lines being somewhat muddied in this sense though). The problem with this is that the change from D700 to D701 really doesn't seem to be as much of a leap as to a 'D900,' so marketing could play a big role in naming decisions. Maybe an FM, FM2 etc. style progression would be more marketable, but "DM" sounds a bit odd to me for some reason... so I don't really have a good answer, but I think that there is room for improvement in Nikon's naming scheme.

Don't forget the D750!

CassiusRoads, Nikon's nomenclature has been the same for decades. It is waaay more stable than canon's has ever been. In fact i'd say it was Nikon who started the whole letter-number naming sequence before anyone else. In the past Nikon has followed the pattern of F100, F301, N6006, etc. so they've got plenty to work with. For example D700, D700S, D700X, D701, D701S, D701M, D7000, D7007 etc.

I just hate the thought of typing 1DS Mark IV all day long.