If there is a "horsepower" race going on in the camera world, it has to be between Nikon and Canon as each one tries to outdo the other (and Sony, for that matter) with the mind-boggling numbers that each is capable of.
Nikon probably though it had the race won with the introduction of the D3 body which is a good body that delivers excellent low-light performance and good performance under just about any adverse condition you can think of - low light, backlight, bright light, night light, handheld and the like - but it may not have been watching its rearview because it cannot have expected Canon to have waited around with its older EOS D1 MarkIII body because Canon has just passed Nikon in many areas.
Let's face it, the X model of the D3 or the Nikon D3X has a huge resolution of 24.
5MP, but in FX mode - 39 by 24 mm - and while it can shoot at up to 5 fps it just doesn't seem to have the handheld versatility of the new Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
Granted the Canon does give up about 3MP in resolution to the Nikon, but unless you are looking under a hugely powerful magnifying glass, you won't see any difference in the finished product.
Also, the Canon has an ISO range that is about four times as great as the Nikon, up to 25600, while the Nikon is still riding about 6400, which is good, but not quite as wide as the Canon.
And, yes, the Nikon will shoot at 5 fps continues versus the 3.
9 fps of the Canon, but again, the rub is that you cannot take full advantage of the huge Nikon resolution.
Let's face it, 24.
5 MP is excellent resolution, but where and how can you achieve it.
Try handholding a spider in a web and waiting for the camera to optimize its huge resolution, you'll probably find the results are about the same as the EOS running around 6400 or so or the D3 running at the same speed.
Okay, so grab a tripod and shoot the same image and the same thing happens.
The huge resolution is great if you are shooting things, like the Grand Canyon, that really don't move very much or if you are shooting a great-looking indoor, properly lit setup, using studio kleges and umbrellas with the right filtering.
That's where the advantage seems to be.
If you had three camera bodies and gadget bags in your car's trunk and had to pick the one you want for everyday use, you'd probably go with the Canon 5D Mark II first, the Nikon D3 second and the Nikon D3X third because it is a tossup between the D3 and D3X in everyday use and the Canon clearly blows them away with autostablization and its range of long lenses.
Imaging a 5,000 mm zoom on a tripod that's autostablized as you shoot a tennis match.
You'll be able to get the sweat pouring off the tennis ball with very little effort.
The D3 can deliver the same results.
If you want the full results from the D3X you'll have to move it indoors to a studio and wait for everything to happen so that the studio lights can snap and you can get the image.
The D3X, by the way can handle 12- and 14-bit imaging and while the Nikon does hold some sort of landspeed record at 138 MB NEF, we cannot say that the D3X is worth three times the amount you'll pay for the Canon.
Nikon probably though it had the race won with the introduction of the D3 body which is a good body that delivers excellent low-light performance and good performance under just about any adverse condition you can think of - low light, backlight, bright light, night light, handheld and the like - but it may not have been watching its rearview because it cannot have expected Canon to have waited around with its older EOS D1 MarkIII body because Canon has just passed Nikon in many areas.
Let's face it, the X model of the D3 or the Nikon D3X has a huge resolution of 24.
5MP, but in FX mode - 39 by 24 mm - and while it can shoot at up to 5 fps it just doesn't seem to have the handheld versatility of the new Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
Granted the Canon does give up about 3MP in resolution to the Nikon, but unless you are looking under a hugely powerful magnifying glass, you won't see any difference in the finished product.
Also, the Canon has an ISO range that is about four times as great as the Nikon, up to 25600, while the Nikon is still riding about 6400, which is good, but not quite as wide as the Canon.
And, yes, the Nikon will shoot at 5 fps continues versus the 3.
9 fps of the Canon, but again, the rub is that you cannot take full advantage of the huge Nikon resolution.
Let's face it, 24.
5 MP is excellent resolution, but where and how can you achieve it.
Try handholding a spider in a web and waiting for the camera to optimize its huge resolution, you'll probably find the results are about the same as the EOS running around 6400 or so or the D3 running at the same speed.
Okay, so grab a tripod and shoot the same image and the same thing happens.
The huge resolution is great if you are shooting things, like the Grand Canyon, that really don't move very much or if you are shooting a great-looking indoor, properly lit setup, using studio kleges and umbrellas with the right filtering.
That's where the advantage seems to be.
If you had three camera bodies and gadget bags in your car's trunk and had to pick the one you want for everyday use, you'd probably go with the Canon 5D Mark II first, the Nikon D3 second and the Nikon D3X third because it is a tossup between the D3 and D3X in everyday use and the Canon clearly blows them away with autostablization and its range of long lenses.
Imaging a 5,000 mm zoom on a tripod that's autostablized as you shoot a tennis match.
You'll be able to get the sweat pouring off the tennis ball with very little effort.
The D3 can deliver the same results.
If you want the full results from the D3X you'll have to move it indoors to a studio and wait for everything to happen so that the studio lights can snap and you can get the image.
The D3X, by the way can handle 12- and 14-bit imaging and while the Nikon does hold some sort of landspeed record at 138 MB NEF, we cannot say that the D3X is worth three times the amount you'll pay for the Canon.
SHARE
