99 of 115 people found the following review helpful
The Best SLR I have owned,
This review is from: Nikon D3 FX DSLR Camera (Body Only) (OLD MODEL) (Electronics)
I recently sold my Canon 1DS Mark2 and the accompaning 14 mm wide angle lenses because after trying out a Nikon D3 I found the Nikons pictures so much better. True, the Canon software is easier but to me the ergonomics of the D3 are better than the Canon 1DS Mark2 while the detail, clarity and accuracy are still better. Even 24" poster comparisons between both camera's have the Nikon winning in every detail. I am now a proud Nikon owner I think although Canon has more pixels 16.3 versus 12.1 the pictures at large a simply not as good. I perform operative photography and am in the process of finishing a book on Female Reconstructive surgery this is were the comparisons became for my field so much more apparent. The colors for the Nikon are just so much more dynamic and precise while the Canon is not as vibrant and demonstrative of detail. I found for comparisons sake that the Canon videocamcorder XL H1 colors versus the Sony comparable model to again lack color precision, depth of field and to simply to the less experienced eye to lack quality needed for surgeons. So I am now going to start to build a Nikkor lens assortment. By the way I took 20000 with my Canon so I know its downside well under all conditions. The Canon was sturdy and never a problem but its performance is only 80 percent of the Nikon and Nikkor lens
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 31, 2007 10:19:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2007 10:21:08 PM PST
Posted on Feb 23, 2008 7:27:15 PM PST
Alexander Rodriguez says:
Posted on Apr 9, 2008 6:47:12 AM PDT
Dan Kim says:
You are comparing a Canon camera that was released in late 2004 to Nikon that is less than 6 months old (about 3 years difference in age). I would hope technology would have advanced a bit.
Your experience with a lack of detail and clarity could be a result of a number of things. I am not saying the Mark 2 is better, but it's not a bad, outdated camera by any means.
Posted on Jun 4, 2008 11:25:28 PM PDT
Khanh Vo says:
It's funny to me that you are comparing an old Canon camera to a brand new Nikon. It is saying my 3 years old computer is slower than the one I just bought last week.
Posted on Jun 16, 2008 2:34:13 AM PDT
I'm wondering how it was used? Did you have a RAW workflow? or did you shoot jpeg? What lenses and lighting support did you use? In comparison, I find the Canon 1Ds Mark II more capable than the current Nikon set up. I'm no doctor, but I am the lead Forensic/Bio-medical photographer for an Army med center and since I have been there, I converted all our systems to Canon, reworked the entire SOP's and policies and created a RAW workflow for Medical photography. I have amazed many a doctors with the quality my camera set up puts out but simply because I'm a photo specialist in my field. Don't get me wrong, I have a high degree of respect for doctors and Nikons as well, I am not biased by personal accord and I am in no way intending to put you down. I would have liked to see the settings and personally set up your Canon system because I know from studio and field tests what both cameras are capable of. Good luck with your book, I'm working on one regarding Forensic and Medical photography technical issues and hope to distribute this among professionals in the field that do photography that don't quite understand it in the way a pureblooded photographer does. So far it's looking good, all the lectures I do for CID, NCIS, other agencies and doctors are very helpful to the field agents and surgeons that need to do it on their own. Take care.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2008 10:32:59 AM PDT
Serge Marinkovic MD says:
I shot everything with high quality jpegs's. The same photo's with comparable light and exposure show less refined detail with the Canon IDs Mark2 than with the Nikon D3. Photo's I take are saturated with detail my children and family dogs. I take alot of photo's of wildlife lizards and birds with both camera and I have yet found the Canon to be the Nikons equal of detail and color. I have used Canon 14 mm 2.8 and Nikkor 14mm wide angle lenses for most of my photography with Photoshop CS 2. I should post simultaneous pictures taken of the same subjects at the same time to best illustrate the differences. Believe me the comparison is never favorable to Canon. That is why I am so glad I have come back to the Nikon family. I didn't need to program the Nikon for this detail I have no altered anything since it came out of the box.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 30, 2008 4:20:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 30, 2008 4:21:14 PM PDT
I don't agree with you.. Yes, features wise the Nikon may be better, but colors and clarity - there are just too many variables that are involved, including the workflow and camera settings, especially considering the fact that you are not shooting RAW.
There is also a very good chance that the color/clarity issue has to do with the lens you are using and/or calibration issues with the lens.
Both the Canon 1dsMkII and the other full frame Canon's are excellent in terms of clarity, IQ, etc.
Posted on Aug 4, 2008 9:00:37 AM PDT
Maxton Cook says:
Compairing a D3 to a 1DS MKII is not a fair comparison. 1DS MKII is a 3 year old camera & 12 bit color compaired to 14 bit. Fair would be Canon's new 1DS MKIII vs Nikon D3.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2008 10:39:54 AM PDT
K. Tran says:
Hi Doctor Serge,
Since you are shooting directly to JPEG, no wonder you like Nikon image better. Nikon camera tends to automatically do sharpen the original images (similar as photoshop UnsharpMask) while Canon camera does not do that to the original image. I guess Canon decide to let the photographer to do the shaprnening during post-processing
If you switch to shooting RAW, and with proper RAW post-processing in 16-bit mode to achieve best image quality in term of White Balance, saturation level, noise reduction, and sharpness, you would find the image quality from both cameras will be much, much better than your current JPEG shooting. And image quality from both cameras will be very close, not as so different as you had described.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2008 8:58:06 PM PST
Jordan M. Miller says:
No, Nikon does not automatically sharpen anything. You have full control in the camera's interface to choose what form of sharpening if any.
I agree, the comparison between the 2 isn't fair. But, Canon still has yet to build a camera that meets the quality and power of the D3.