| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
For those planning to choose a D3 or Mark III...
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 8:23 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> I've seen lots of discussions here lately about which is better, with points scored for and against both cameras.
As a former Nikonian who made the switch a few years back, I'm not eager to take another bath on swapping systems. But I'm also tired of waiting for the Mark III problems to be resolved once and for all, I'm wary of Canon's response to the whole mess, and I still miss Nikon flash photography. Add to that the raves I read about the high ISOs and the D3-D300 combo as primary and backup (I use a Mark IIN and 20D now) and I'm very tempted to switch again.
For those who have made up their minds, which way are you going? For those who are waiting, how long do you think you'll wait before deciding? |
|
John Tucker, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cordova | TN | USA | Posted: 8:44 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> Jeff,
I've never cared either way as long as I get the desired results, but keep an eye on the classifieds.....since the D3 and D300 came out, the ads listing Canon products has been huge.........not just here but on other forums also. Good luck in making a choice. |
|
Alex Cena, Photographer
|
Scotch Plains | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:55 AM on 03.27.08 |
| ->> I switched to Canon over the summer. If the D3 were NOT a full frame, I would've regretted the switch since I enjoy the crop factor. The pros and cons to both systems are close enough to not matter IMO if you are able to make a living out of either system. |
|
Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
|
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 8:59 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> I know I'm asking for it here but....
Why is it many people have to have the latest greatest gee-wiz camera as soon as Nikon or Canon release it? I love my MarkIIn. Don't need the MarkIII. Worried about the MKIII, you can get a MKIIn used a lot cheaper than the MKIII. It's still a great camera. |
|
Wesley Hitt, Photographer
|
North Little Rock | AR | USA | Posted: 9:07 AM on 03.27.08 |
| ->> This is a competition between Canon and Nikon. We benefit from them competing against each other just like always. Both sides are going to come out with great cameras and try to out do the other. As a life long Canon user, I love their cameras, lenses and most of all their service. They have always been great to me with repairs and loaner gear when all of my equipment was stolen. As far as the cameras, they are all good and whomever has the best one now, will get beat again in the future. Why play the switching game? Seems like a waste of money. |
|
Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
|
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 9:09 AM on 03.27.08 |
| ->> I'll hold onto Canon for life because CPS rules! |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> I just always shake my head when I hear about people who switch back and forth, and back and forth.
Go back several years when all we had was the Nikon D1X or D1H and the Canon D30.
Or even before that when were were still shooting film and we were using the Canon F1 or Nikon F3 or FM2. I know photographers who shot AMAZING award winning images with these cameras and they were slower than a snail compared to what's out there today.
I loved my Nikon D1X but hated the battery. I would still be using that camera today if the battery had a better life. From there I went to the D2X ONLY for the battery life. I admit I got used to the speed and it was nice. I just got the D3 after A LOT of debating. I didn't want a full frame camera, love my D2X but there have been a few jobs lately (some that are on going) where I needed the added ISO. I am sure there will be a similar camera announced that is not full frame and I will be angry. Other than that, what could they do to make me feel the need to buy another camera. 20 megapixels? Overkill, IMO.
I recently got my husband the Canon Mark2N. He wanted the IDS (the full frame 20 megapixel camera, I believe) for his aerial work but I thought it was, as I said, overkill since these images are not for billboards. The Canon system we were offered was from a "switcher" and consisted of the body and 24-70 2.8 and 70-700 2.8 and was a deal I couldn't refuse. It's a wonderful camera |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:42 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> Jeff, there's one other answer instead of selling all your gear and starting out over again, but in the short run it's expensive. Just dump your body before it's worth even less, but put all your good lenses away for the future. When/if you decide to switch back, you'll still have all the glass, and only need to purchase the camera.
If you eventually decide you never want to switch back, lenses hold their value, so you can sell them any time, but the value of bodies for any digital camera seem to plummet so you want to sell them as soon as you decide you no longer need them.
I'm not sure if the above makes financial sense over the short term, but if you ever do switch back (from whichever brand to the other) it will save a lot of time and money. |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 9:42 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> Your really splitting hairs between the D3 and MKIII. The MKIII has been outstanding for us and had we been a Nikon shop I’m sure the D3 would have done outstanding as well. Camera Bodies come and go.
BTW, why isn’t anyone complaining about the price of Canon’s new 200/2 IS which is $2,000 more than Nikons? If I was starting from scratch and needed a 200/2 this would be far more of a factor then the 1D3 v D5 debate. |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> I use Nikon. If I were in your shoes, there's not a snowflakes chance in hell I'd buy a MkIII - unless Canon guaranteed a rock solid, 100% iron clad guarantee that the AF problems were a thing of the past - but then, they've kind of been saying that for 12 months now.
Stick with the MkIIn - at least you can count on it to deliver. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> Jeff,
Stay with Canon, save your pennies, see how the MkIII stuff plays out. In a year they'll release a MkIIIn with bigger, better, yada yada yada. Until then, your IIn will still make great pictures. If you're just dying to buy something, buy a used IIn to make a matching 2-body kit and dump your 20D.
As an earlier poster mentioned, I'd stay with Canon just for the CPS service. But then again, I've had zero problems with my MkIII's. |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 10:12 AM on 03.27.08 |
| ->> I’m starting to get the impression it’s just Nikon shooters complaining about focus issues on the MKIII these days.. Derrick, cameras are not used cars, you can exchange or return them if they don’t work properly. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | South Lanarkshi | United Kingdom | Posted: 11:38 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> @Luke Trottier
I think the issue is one of discovery; yes, we know that defective cameras can be returned, but the two problems that are spawned by the 'buy now, return later' process are
1. The below-par images that you shoot before you realise there's a problem and you need to return your camera
2. The time wasted by the test/return/re-test process.
Even when you exchange a camera at the point of sale, you lose time that could be spent doing other things.
It's a classic case of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that Canon has managed to spread all by themselves. Some folks thinking about a Mk III are saying to themselves "Well, what if the one *I* get is a lemon??"
I took a long, hard look at switching to Canon when the Mk III was announced since Nikon were lagging behind in the performance stakes (FPS and ISO) that I needed. The accounting side of it was too costly so I ended up sitting it out. I can't help but feel that I dodged a bullet.
Let me close in saying that I truly wish to see the Mk III's problems consigned to the past with a definitive fix. I take no pleasure in knowing that a good many of my fellow photographers have been frustrated by this camera - since all we really want to do is shoot to the best of out abilities and *not* be hampered by technical issues. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 5:15 PM on 03.27.08 |
| ->> I'm a Canon user, but the biggest frustration for me isn't the bodies. It's the mediocre 70-200 2.8L (compared to the outstanding Nikon 70-200 2.8VR), the mediocre wide angle lenses compared to Nikon, and the super-expensive new 200 2.0L IS compared to the Nikon 200 2.0 VR. I know everyone swears by the 70-200 2.8L, but it's just not sharp at f/2.8 from 150-200mm and that's not acceptable for me. If anything drives me to switch to Nikon, it'll be the lenses, not the bodies. And don't even get me started on the crappy Canon flash system compared to Nikon. |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 03.27.08 |
->> Luke, with all due respect - I agree pretty much with Martin's comments. Would I risk covering a high school event with a MkIII? Hell yeah! Who cares if only 3 in a 20 frame sequence are in focus - Mary Jo's parents are going to buy pictures regardless.
Would I risk covering an international event like Beijing, where everything was on the line, with a MkIII? Not a snowball's chance. |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 10:58 PM on 03.27.08 |
->> Derrick the Nikon shooter. Would you risk covering an international event like Beijing, where everything was on the line, with any new body and no backup? Probably not.
With any new body there becomes a level of trust that only comes with actuations. In my line of work where high ISO performance is very relevant the 1D3 has been a great upgrade over the 1d2’s I’ve used in the past. Like I said previously, if I owned Nikon glass I’m sure the D3 would suite my needs but I don’t, and I’m not going to sell my glass just because Nikon has a product that is arguably just as good. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 03.28.08 |
->> For what it's worth, I've been shooting a mkIII since last June and have not experienced the problems being described. What I find interesting is even here at sportsshooter, the majority of posts on the subject are from people that haven't actually used the camera. For those that actually use it I see a very high percentage that are satisfied. Now, I don't work at the highest levels - mostly HS. And it's quite possible there are a great number of pros that have tried it and it fails muster but those pros dont seem to be the ones posting (too busy actually doing their job I guess :) ). But I would say 90% of the comments seem to be from people that have never shot the camera.
so, for whatever it's worth - I have not had the issue - the focus on my camera is working just fine. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | South Lanarkshi | United Kingdom | Posted: 2:02 PM on 03.28.08 |
->> John,
In this day and age, you don't really have to have shot with the camera... all you need to do is go to robgalbraith.com and read over the very extensive article that he's put together on the Mk III issues.
I know that there are a lot of Mk III shooters out there who are very happy with their cameras, and they're likely in the majority... but that shouldn't detract from the very real issues that a substantial number of other users are obviously having.
Lastly: I honestly don't see that - at a photographer level, at least - how this should be milked as a Nikon vs. Canon issue. Just look at the early teething issues with past Nikon cameras. The more complex the manufacturing process, the more likely errors will creep in. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 4:21 PM on 03.28.08 |
->> "but that shouldn't detract from the very real issues that a substantial number of other users are obviously having.
"
now that is an interesting statement. Do you by chance have any actual data to back up the 'substantial number' part? At first glance it SEEMS like its a lot of people because of all the posts until you realize most of those posts are from people who dont have the camera.
So, in fairness, what data is there that supports the 'substantial number' claim?
I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational. This issue concerns me as a canon customer but I've honestly not been able to get a handle on exactly how wide spread the problem really is. Most claims seem to be either, like you, just pointing to RG's write-ups or a few very vocal people. When you actually find people using the camera, it SEEMS the vast majority are happy with it. Now, I'm not saying there is no problem - what I'm saying is all the 'noise' of posts from people who dont have the camera makes it difficult to actually view hands-on feedback to see how pervasive the problem is. I.E. are only 10 out of 10,000 people who actually used the camera experiencing the problem? Or is it 3,000 out of 10,000? Tough to tell since almost every post is by someone who doesn't shoot with it.
So, do you by any chance have any data that would demonstrate the problem affects a "substantial number" of users? |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 5:59 PM on 03.28.08 |
->> I've worked at quite a number of elite and international events. I can categorically state that around 50% of MkIII users have had notjing but problems that compromise their work. I was hearing directly from pros about the AF problems before it was mentioned online.
If the original poster of the thread wants to go ahead and get a MkIII, good luck. I hope it works out. |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 10:36 PM on 03.28.08 |
| ->> Perception, if Canon slapped an N on it everyone would be raving about the new D3 killer. |
|
Dirk Dewachter, Photographer
 |
Playa Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 12:44 AM on 03.29.08 |
->> Nikon and Canon cameras are tools, one has to learn its strenghts and weaknesses and as a Canon shooter I admit there were and are issues with the focus system on the Mark III including mine, however, I have adjusted to the weakness.
Back in the old days BEFORE auto everything you had to FOCUS manually, there is still a button on the camera and if you set up your camera with the back button focus option you can still manually focus when you have to and auto focus when you WANT to.
Canon has been good to me during the course of my photography career and I admit I have been looking at the Nikon line recently and admire Nikon for its accomplishments but if you look at the last few years Canon has been in the lead and I am convinced that Canon won't make that mistake again.
Just the mere thought of the financial impact a switch would encumber should be enough to wipe out any thought of a switch unless you are independently wealthy or the company you are working for is providing it for you. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 4:17 AM on 03.29.08 |
->> Dirk:
The ability to manual focus is irrelevant. If you paid for an autofocus camera, you should get a camera which autofocuses properly. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:41 PM on 03.29.08 |
| ->> If anyone is still on the fence about this, I suggest that they rent one and see for themselves. There is a ton of opinion out there - and as time goes on people tend to dig in with their opinions. The best solution is to judge for yourself. Spending a few hundred bucks before spending $8k+ on new cameras is not a bad investment. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | South Lanarkshi | United Kingdom | Posted: 7:28 PM on 03.29.08 |
->> For John Germ
"So, do you by any chance have any data that would demonstrate the problem affects a 'substantial number' of users?"
Given that Rob Galbraith has always been impartial when it comes to camera brands, I trust his reporting of the issue. If he says he's received feedback from a "substantial" number of Mk III users with problems, then I have no reason to doubt it.
Shooting for WireImage, I often run into a few of the staff shooters for Getty - we're practically co-workers. Here in the UK, Getty got a raft of Mk III's just after launch direct from Canon. Most of the Getty staffers reverted to using their Mk II N's.
A few that I know personally are still waiting for their bodies to get 'fixed' - even after all this time. These are guys out shooting high profile events every day of the week. I trust what *they* say about their own kit. |
|
Jock Fistick, Photographer
|
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 11:13 PM on 03.29.08 |
->> OK - I was refraining from commenting - but I can't help myself :-)
I am a very happy D3 owner. Although, I was very tempted to switch to Canon a number of times. Since I had worked with Nikon equipment all my professional career - the idea of switching to a new system was not appealing - and more importantly - I could never quite justify the expense. Maybe if I was covering a lot of sports I would have switched long ago - but for what I do - my D1X, D2X and D200 served me pretty well. Admittedly, I was envious of the Canon full frame camera offerings and superior high iso performance. In the end, I am happy that I stuck it out with Nikon.
But from my point of view - these new Nikon bodies have only leveled the playing field. Any differences between the the current Nikon and Canon offerings are minor at best. You guys actually have more choice - th 5D (with a new model coming soon) Mark III D and DS. And as for the AF problems of the MIII - it seems that Canon has finally found a fix (unless I missed something?) Granted, not a huge confidence booster for the victims of a bad Mark III. But if I were heavily invested in Canon gear I wouldn't switch.
If you got stung - get your Mark III fixed. And if you are buying new - make sure it is a new build and go about your business. Switching will cost a bunch of money and for what gain? Unless doing so will improve your bottom line - or greatly improve your photography - I see no reason to do it. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:43 AM on 03.30.08 |
->> Jay Adeff, I agree with you 100% on all points, but especially the 70-200 2.8. It needs a serious redesign.
In the meantime I'm loving the 70-200 f/4L IS. If you haven't tried one, I suggest you do. At least in this regard, the Mark III lived up to an expectation I had: To be able to use f/4 lenses at higher ISOs in situations where I normally would have needed 2.8. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 8:33 AM on 03.30.08 |
->> Martin,
Thanks for the info. A follow-up question:
The people you know personally that are still waiting on a fix. Did they send it in for the sub-mirror fix and it still doesn't work? |
|
Doug Thompson, Photographer
 |
Floyd | VA | | Posted: 7:39 PM on 03.30.08 |
->> I shot with Nikons for 39 years, from my original "F" purchased in 1965 to the D2H I sold in 2004 when I switched to Canon (but kept some of my Nikon glass along with a D200). The noise issue with the D2H forced the change because I had moved to the mountains in semi-retirement and started shooting a lot of high school sports in poorly-lit stadiums and gyms for area newspapers.
The Canon 1D Mk II and 1Ds Mk II have been reliable workhorses for the past three years. Bought a Mk III last September (just before they started updating the mirror assembly) and did not run into the focusing problems others have reported. Sent it in for the sub-mirror fix in December and it came back with an "error 99." CPS replaced the shutter and shutter release and it has worked without a hitch since.
Jeff Snyder at Adorama suggested trying out a D3, so we ordered one through NPS (took about a week to get it) just in time for the state high school basketball tournaments and used it alongside a Mk III and a 40D. During the tournament final, the D3 locked up with an "err" message and went back into the bag. NPS replaced the shutter the following week.
Looking at the 3,000 plus images shot during the tournament, I really don't see that much difference in noise between the D3 and Mk III. Both had about the same number of in-focus and out-of focus frames with 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. Both produce very usable images with acceptable noise levels at 6400 and 3200 The noise pattern is different between the two but I can't see where one is better than the other. I tried a few frames at H2 on the D3 and the noise level was too high for serious use. The D3's white balance produces better results in a college basketball arena that is lit for TV. The Mk III autofocus worked without a hitch on both a 70-200 and a 300mm f/2.8. The 40D also produced good images with no focusing problems. Low noise at 3200 iso using a 35-70.
Both are good boxes that, for me at least, produce good images of fast action. Full-frame is not a factor in my sports shooting and I have a 1Ds Mk II for full-frame work and it is used for magazine shoots and large format prints for gallery display. The autofocus problems that others have reported are obviously real and suggest a quality-control problem since some have them and some don't. Canon's response seems slow for a company that markets itself as the preferred digital photography system for working pros.
Unfortunately, I have learned to expect problems with digital camera bodies. My original Nikon F never went to the shop and is still usable. My original D1 was replaced twice because of the "err" messages and the D2H needed adjustment for back focus problems. A Canon 20D purchased in 2004 needed two trips to the shop before it worked right. The "err" message cropped up on the D3 after fewer than 2,000 frames and required a shutter replacement. The Mark III came back from the mirror sub-assembly "upgrade" with an error 99 and also required a shutter replacement. The plus side is that I got a new one-year warranty on a three-month old camera with a new shutter after more than 30,000 images.
I'll keep the D3 and continue to use it but I'm not ready to put the Mk III and all my Canon glass on the market. My Mk III is a good box for shooting sports and the Canon 400 f/2.8 is my favorite glass for football, soccer, baseball, track and NASCAR. |
|
Wayne McAtee, Photographer, Assistant
|
Hesperia | CA | usa | Posted: 9:41 PM on 03.30.08 |
| ->> John, I have had the Sub-mirror fix and all other "fix's" and my unit is still crap. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 11:15 PM on 03.30.08 |
->> A friend of mine who works at the local Canon retailer said he went through 3 MKIII units, two of which were "blue dot" and finally on the third one (second blue dot) he got a unit that worked correctly. Hassle factor = still very high.
Meanwhile my wedding photog friends who bought the D300 and the D3 are peeing in their pants from joy at those two cameras.
This battle is endless. In time, Canon will get their **** together and make great bodies agian. They stumbled here, but I don't think it's time to get out the life rafts and jump ship. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 11:23 PM on 03.30.08 |
->> Rob Ostermaier asked "Why is it many people have to have the latest greatest gee-wiz camera as soon as Nikon or Canon release it? I love my MarkIIn. Don't need the MarkIII. Worried about the MKIII, you can get a MKIIn used a lot cheaper than the MKIII. It's still a great camera."
Great, great point, but I think many are looking at the vast improvement in ISO capabilities, and general improvement in file quality (the AF question notwithstanding). I wish I had the MKIII for those reasons. Night football is a struggle for me sometimes... AF at low light levels is abysmal in the 1D MKII (not the "N").
No question the MKIIn is still a great camera, and will do a great job, but competitive as the biz is, we all want "the" shot and want the equipment we think is going to give it to us. |
|
Thomas B. Shea, Photographer
|
Pearland/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:41 PM on 03.30.08 |
->> I have not shot with a MKIII but I have shot with a MK IIN. This past weekend at the South Sweet 16 Houston I shot with a Nikon D3 ( Nikon loaned equipment out) and was very impressed. The lighting in Reliant with my Canon was 1600 ISO 2.8 at 1/640. The settings with Nikon was ISO 5000 F 4.5 1/2000. What a difference.
Thomas |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 03.31.08 |
| ->> HFJ (holy f...ing jesus) please stop. this makes us look like morons. the whole nikon/canon we can't focus whining is PATHETIC!! okay, yup there have been some problems with the mark III. the god of photo gods rob galbraith has slapped the camera down...BUT...there are a LOT of shooters who are happy with this camera...many do not post to this site! there are a bunch of whiners out there crying but there are a HUGE amount who think this camera is GREAT. I was a nikon shooter for 35 years...forced to change to canon..(JOB STUFF) I have looked back at at last years files and have been AMAZED at the difference. photos I thought were wonderful cannot even compare to the photos in the same situation from this year. so to add something here..I am SO glad that nikon got off their ASS and came up with a (supposedly) GREAT camera. this whole "nanapoopoo I'm better than you" crap only makes us look STUPID in the eyes of the world......technolgy changes...canon...nikon...canon...nikon...canon... |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | South Lanarkshi | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:42 AM on 03.31.08 |
->> For John Germ;
I have no idea if these folks have sent their cameras in for the sub-mirror assembly fix; the kit that staffers use is owned by Getty so I guess the handling of the issue is at management levels.
All I can say with certainty is that, after very poor results when shooting premiership soccer matches, a number of shooters reverted to using their Mk II n bodies whilst waiting for Canon to sort out the defects.
As Phil Hawkins said, there is absolutely no doubt that Canon will get their act together on this issue soon; I see it as imperative that they do, since every day that passes without a definitive resolution to this issue is a day where more F.U.D. will surround their product lines.
I saw evidence of this back in December; at a fashion runway show I chatted to a commercial photographer who was chomping at the bit to get the new 1Ds Mk III. He wanted to quit renting medium format kit to get the large files some of his clients needed, but was concerned that the 1Ds would share the same teething problems that the Mk III had.
I said "Why don't you just rent one to see if it's okay - wouldn't that make sense?"
His reponse: "What if the one I rent is fine, but the one I buy is a lemon...?"
I *do* agree with Chuck Liddy, though. This issue isn't and shouldn't be about "brand loyalty"; it's purely a technical matter. Something similar could have happend to the D300 or D3 at launch, since the more complex the gear = the greater the chance of faults occuring during manufacturing... irrespective of who designs or sells the kit. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|