Nikon D3 vs Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III

[macpaladin]

In one corner we have the Nikon D3 and in the other the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (Photo Business News & Forum: Nikon vs. Canon - Introduction). One has much less noise (reportedly) and the other has twice the number of pixels (approximately). The Nikon, with the larger pixel size, has the advantage of less noise at high ISOs (with potentially a greater depth of field) and image quality but will require more upresing (upsizing) for large prints. The Canon will require less upresing for large prints but will have more noise at high ISOs. The question I have- is it better to have to deal with a noise problem using noise reduction software on a Canon image or upresing a Nikon image using upresing software? In other words, which camera will produce the better final image?

I am asking these questions because I am wondering if it would be better for Leica to follow Canon's approach or Nikons with its new R10.

[okram]

It all depends on lenses.
More for Canon, less for Nikon.

[robsteve]

Originally Posted by macpaladin

I am asking these questions because I am wondering if it would be better for Leica to follow Canon's approach or Nikons with its new R10.

I would guess Leica has already chosen its approach to the R10. It will probably be a Kodak approach, maybe with the new Kodak techonolgy for lower noise at higher ISO. I still wouldn't expect the R10 to be a high ISO camera, as I don't think that is their market.

[jrc]

One difficulty for Leica is that almost everybody is predicting a new Nikon D3x this summer (including the guy on the website you refer to.) The D3 supposedly was to be Nikon's answer to the Canon 1D3 (both fast, high ISO sports cameras) while the D3x if it appears will be Nikon's answer to the 1Ds3.

That means that whichever Leica answers, if you think of it that way, there will be an "unanswered" camera by both Nikon and Canon, with both cameras by each manufacturer using the same sets of lenses...and in Nikon's case, a price point low enough that you might be able to buy both of its flagship cameras for the price of a single R9, giving you massive flexibility (and Zeiss ZF primes, if you want them.)

The rumor that the new Leica will have a supersized sensor makes the most sense (to me) in this context: Leica could offer something very interesting that neither of the other manufacturers do -- a non-2:3 ratio camera that more resembles a MF camera in terms of aspect ratio. And if it's a CCD with, say,18mp on a larger sensor, it could perhaps offer excellent high ISO (though perhaps not as good as the best in the other two) and high-res images that would be better that either of the others. It would then be usable for anything, including sports, but would also be the best pro/studio shooter, rivaling top MF cameras.

This is the rankest sort of speculation, of course, but if Leica produces a straight me-too camera that doesn't exceed the others in any way...then the R system will be in more trouble, IMHO.

JC

[rob_x2004]

So apart from the tank they put it in, what was wrong with the DMR sensor? And why couldnt they use it or a variant of it, in the M8?

[robsteve]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

why couldnt they use it or a variant of it, in the M8?

They did use a variant of the DMR sensor in the M8.

[rob_x2004]

so where are the spare bits? ok sensor software the whole bit. Files arent as good are they?

[marknorton]

Good comment from John.

It's a tough call for Leica - the more they stay mainstream, the more they will be compared tick-box by tick-box with the dual offerings from Canon and (expected) Nikon. If they dare to be different, they run the risk the concept will bomb.

Rob, the DMR sensor was slow - 1/4 of the speed of the M8 sensor - so compared to what the competition is offering, not competitive.

As for high-res vs low-noise, I favour "enough" (10-12MP) resolution for the size of print I normally make (A3, occasionally A2) at which point noise is the priority.

[rob_x2004]

Mark, slow or not, I am seeing more bad images out of hte m8 than the DMR. Its odd, even the uploaded jpg here from the dmr seems fixable, whereas a lot of hte stuff out of the m8 isnt.

Since I have neither I dont know how this translates to print. But from what I see I believe I know which file I would prefer to work from and, if it came to a speed trade off I know which I would prefer. There are a lot of things Leica cameras cont do that other brands will, and I am not sure that really matters.

I thought I recalled someone saying it wasnt physically possible to use the dmr sensor in the m8 because of the lens optics, but all that discussion was years ago and much of it in the old forum.

[sdai]

IMO the R and M shooters are really different types of animals ... perhaps Leica should adopt the Canon approach for R and the Nikon approach for M? then everybody will be happy. LOL

But hey, think about it ... if Nikon can do 21MP now, why would they stay with 12MP? do they really care about noise while expecting the 5D Mark II to kill their flagship just in next March?

[stevelap]

Originally Posted by jrc

One difficulty for Leica is that almost everybody is predicting a new Nikon D3x this summer (including the guy on the website you refer to.) The D3 supposedly was to be Nikon's answer to the Canon 1D3 (both fast, high ISO sports cameras) while the D3x if it appears will be Nikon's answer to the 1Ds3.

That means that whichever Leica answers, if you think of it that way, there will be an "unanswered" camera by both Nikon and Canon, with both cameras by each manufacturer using the same sets of lenses...and in Nikon's case, a price point low enough that you might be able to buy both of its flagship cameras for the price of a single R9, giving you massive flexibility (and Zeiss ZF primes, if you want them.)

The rumor that the new Leica will have a supersized sensor makes the most sense (to me) in this context: Leica could offer something very interesting that neither of the other manufacturers do -- a non-2:3 ratio camera that more resembles a MF camera in terms of aspect ratio. And if it's a CCD with, say,18mp on a larger sensor, it could perhaps offer excellent high ISO (though perhaps not as good as the best in the other two) and high-res images that would be better that either of the others. It would then be usable for anything, including sports, but would also be the best pro/studio shooter, rivaling top MF cameras.

This is the rankest sort of speculation, of course, but if Leica produces a straight me-too camera that doesn't exceed the others in any way...then the R system will be in more trouble, IMHO.

JC

It's been reported in the photo press and on photo blog sites (rumour and speculation, I know), that (a) Canon have a prototype 'larger than full frame' dslr in development and (b) Nikon's D3 is just that, ie a D3 and not a 'D3H', so that their replacement for the D2x might be a different model when it eventually arrives ('larger than full frame' D4 anyone?, lol).

Now, if these industry rumours have any truth in them whatsoever then I'm sure Leica are aware of them. In that case perhaps their reasoning behind making any future R10 'larger than full frame' becomes clearer. After all, if the high end dslr game is moving on they wouldn't want their new flagship model to be left behind at the starting gate.

Of course Leica might not really care about what the others are doing, being content to go their own way, or perhaps Canon and Nikon have got wind of what Leica are up to!
Either way there are, perhaps, interesting times ahead for all concerned.

Steve

[sdai]

These camera companies know each other and what's on other folks drawing boards quite well, because they all share many parts suppliers.

Canon has much more stuff built in house so they're slightly better at keeping secrets but you can always get some tips at least 6 months prior to its announcement because they have to plan for the product launch and then many folks could get involved.

Nikon is quite up front with their intention actually ... the D3 project manager has said in many Japanese interviews I've read that the reason why they don't call it a D3H is because they have no plan to build a D3x. Their next FF model is bound to be something between the current D3 and D300.

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by sdai

These camera companies know each other and what's on other folks drawing boards quite well, because they all share many parts suppliers.

Canon has much more stuff built in house so they're slightly better at keeping secrets but you can always get some tips at least 6 months prior to its announcement because they have to plan for the product launch and then many folks could get involved.

Nikon is quite up front with their intention actually ... the D3 project manager has said in many Japanese interviews I've read that the reason why they don't call it a D3H is because they have no plan to build a D3x. Their next FF model is bound to be something between the current D3 and D300.

And this is exactly controversial to what I heard back on rumors here in Europe (coming out of Nikon Europe).

These rumors say, that there will be a high resolution version of the D3 coming - so I would consider the D3 a replacement of the D2H and thus the D3 high resolution should come with some 24MP - this would at least be the logic they followed so far with their D2H/D2X line.

[robsteve]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

I thought I recalled someone saying it wasnt physically possible to use the dmr sensor in the m8 because of the lens optics, but all that discussion was years ago and much of it in the old forum.

Rob:

I think the M8 sensor is just the next generation of the Kodak sensor used in the DMR, with a difference in the cover glass and maybe the offset micro lenses. You can find both sensors on the Kodak site.

As for why the DMR images seem better than the M8 images, I think it just may be firmware related. Imacon designed the DMR firmware; some other company designed the M8 firmware. It is probably like wine. Just because the vintner starts with the same grapes doesn't mean the wines from different vinters will taste the same.

Robert

[sdai]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

And this is exactly controversial to what I heard back on rumors here in Europe (coming out of Nikon Europe).

These rumors say, that there will be a high resolution version of the D3 coming - so I would consider the D3 a replacement of the D2H and thus the D3 high resolution should come with some 24MP - this would at least be the logic they followed so far with their D2H/D2X line.

They were just doing their job, Peter ... these sales people will only get paid when cameras are sold ... they only pay attention to now, they want your money now and leave your hoping, waiting ... when you are loaded with 10k worth of Nikon lenses, now let's talk about switching system.

Who gives a damn to future? LOL

[thrid]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

And this is exactly controversial to what I heard back on rumors here in Europe (coming out of Nikon Europe).

These rumors say, that there will be a high resolution version of the D3 coming - so I would consider the D3 a replacement of the D2H and thus the D3 high resolution should come with some 24MP - this would at least be the logic they followed so far with their D2H/D2X line.

What I'm hearing points to two cameras.

- A high resolution variant of the D3 weighing in at 18 - 24MP to compete with the 1Ds mk3 (22MP).
Right now the D3 is aimed at the APS-H 1D mk3 (10MP).

- Nikon's equivalent of the Canon 5D. Basically a D3 in a smaller body, without 10fps etc.

I'll take the 5D killer, please.... (but they better not moneky around and leave out the weather sealing)

[R10dreamer]

Leica has to design a camera that proves the quality of their lenses. Period. That is their ONLY market value. Everything has to work to show that their lenses are the best. So any chip design, camera design will be manufactured around that parameter. Noise is acceptable. Slow speed is acceptable. Fuzzy images are NOT acceptable. Otherwise, why in the hell spend the extra money for Leica glass????

They have to design and market to image quality (sharpness, bokeh, color saturation, image fidelity). Anything else and Leica dies as a camera company.

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by thrid

What I'm hearing points to two cameras.

- A high resolution variant of the D3 weighing in at 18 - 24MP to compete with the 1Ds mk3 (22MP).
Right now the D3 is aimed at the APS-H 1D mk3 (10MP).

- Nikon's equivalent of the Canon 5D. Basically a D3 in a smaller body, without 10fps etc.

I'll take the 5D killer, please.... (but they better not moneky around and leave out the weather sealing)

Same for me! If this low end D3 is available it will be a no brainer for me to buy :-))) and use all my Nikon glass (which is FF ready).

[tjv]

I can imagine a high res D3x but can't fathom an in between model of the D3 and D300. I'd love to see it, just can't imagine it.

Leica's camera must surely be aimed at the highest end, that's where their market is. And lets be honest, no one wants to introduce a sensor that isn't as clean as can be. You don't design anything around "acceptable shortcomings" eg high ISO noise. You aim at perfection and produce the best product you can within your means. Why else be in business?