I think it's an addiction ...

I was asked to check out a Leica M8 for an accquaintance.. and never having used an M series camera before ... was completely gobsmacked by the summicron 50mm... Forget about the sensor .. what a lens .. brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. (How sad am I)

Anyway this got me in the mode of dissatisfaction with my current setup ... happens about once every two months or so. Architecture is my main are of work but I photograph performance regularly in the Abbey Theatre here .... with a Nikon D2x (Do I hear guffaws of mirth) Lenses are OK ... battery and ergonomics great ... and so on .. but the performance at high iso is dire. I have to put prints at up to 60 inches tall at front of house. It would be ok if they were low quality poster prints .. but they use high res prints from one of the best repro houses in Dublin. (I've mentinoned this on other forums but haven't sorted the problem yet)

So my question is... in your opinions .. jumping ship to Canon .. should I plump for a 1d mkIII .. accept the 10mp but benefit from the low noise and maybe use an up-resing program like genuine fractals .. (or just bicubic smoother which works fine) .. or should I just get a 1ds mkII .... or wait until next year (?) for a 1ds mkIII .. or maybe Nikon have something in the pipeline? ... I really like the metereing aspect of the 1d mkIII which keeps the highlights in range BTW.

I really would like to sort this out soonish ... and money no object!... Well maybe counting out a sinar M AF .. which would be nice but that's a bit too expensive...

I would appreciate your opinions!

Ros

www.roskavangh.com

Whether Nikon has something in the pipe able to compete with an hypothetical 1dsIII is only known by some insiders inside the company.

Rumours have it that they would release later this year a d3x or d3 with about 20MP and FF, but then again, people were 100% sure on most forums that Canon would present its 1ds3 at the PMA 3 months ago...

The more you wait the better the chances something better is released...

My personnal guess is that Nikon will release a FF camera soon, and that that FF camera will have better high ISO performance than the current generation. This being dais, until now, they have always clearly favoured perfect low ISO over good high iso in their design, I would be surprised if they had changed that philosophy. So I'd expect the D3x to have better low ISO than the 1ds3 (shadow noise,...) and worse high ISO.

Cheers,
Bernard

I just moved from Nikon to the 1Ds II, for the resolution and dynamic range. I am blown away by the image quality of the big Canon - it is at least twice the resolution of the D200 I had before (1.7x as many pixels, plus somewhat increased per pixel detail), and it has really meaningful extra dynamic range - I'd say at least a full stop. I'm not a huge high ISO user, but it does seem quite a bit cleaner than the Nikons. Overall, I'm very satisfied with the move - the image quality is why you'd own a 1DsII, and it's unmatched.
The ergonomic issues with the 1DsII are not as major as sometimes reported - I like the control layout for aperture , shutter speed and exposure compensation a lot, and the AF point selection, while not as easy as Nikon's pad, is not as bad as it would seem. The menu system IS a pain, but rarely needed. The ISO selection isn't bad (and has the advantage of never being in ISO select mode by accident). The last occasionally mentioned issue is the battery, and, while it IS heavy, it has a very long life per charge (more than 700 images, sometimes as much as 1000). I have two batteries, and can't see ever needing a third (I used three D200 batteries and occasionally wanted a fourth) - you DO need two batteries, though - when the "gas gauge" first reads half full, you've got less than 100 shots left (no nice Nikon percentage readout here).
The minor ergonomic issues are well worth it for the image quality, which is equivalent to scanned medium format film in every way (I'd say that it is roughly a 6x9 cm camera in terms of printing capability!) A hand-holdable 6x9 that gets 300+ shots on a roll (8 gb memory card) is pretty amazing.

-Dan

Dan,

I am surprised by the figures you put on the table.

When I compared a 1ds2 to my d2x a few years ago, I couldn't see any actual advantage for the 1ds2 in terms of resolution. The d2x had fewer pixels, but those were clearly sharper.

The 1ds2 having a less contrasty default curve than the d2x, it did indeed seem to have a lot more DR, but the shadows were significantly more noisy. After applying a less contrasty default curve to the D2x, the results were much closer than the one stop difference you are seemingly seeing now.

I do not own a D200 and have never used one, but people who have done comparisions claim to see little difference in resolution and DR compared to the D2x.

Anyway, glad that you like your new camera and that the results provide some value for your photography.

Regards,
Bernard

Hmm this might turn into a Nikon-Canon debate .. thanks for your opinions.. I recently did a test between 1dsmkII ,, Nikon d2x ,, d5 ,, and Fuji S5 for high iso capabilities. While these were just shots of my local photo supply staff standing in a dark stairwell... (I have too many images of those guys in my test folders at this stage!) .. I found that you could be very happy with the Nikon at 100-200 iso .. but more than that the canons shine ... Now .. resolution and sharpness... Well sharpness is something that is universally controllable .. it's not an issue as far as I'm concerned ... but resolution (and DR) .. it's harder to fully assess on the screen ... when you have a print of a show in front of you and that person's head on the left of the image .. is it a white blob with two dots for eyes .. or is it a well defined dense area of texture and tonal range. I really like the Nikon ... so reliable and easy to use.. but would it be better to strive for something that has higher resolution and better iso perf.. or take one step backwards with resolution ie 1dMkIII but benefit from even better iso perf and DR. (advantages being use of a larger depth of field etc.) I'm leaning towards this but I could be dazzled by the marketing... I'm not sure. .. Anyway .. thanks again for the opinions .. I realize this thinking out loud is ground covered by so many posts here ... I'll keep you up to date with my progress!

Thanks

Ros

If it helps...

I would turn this around and ask what do your customers actually want? Can you clearly define what they need as a minimum in terms of resolution, file size, etc...and what capabilities you require to achieve the images that they need?

Get this down to a minimum and camera neutral. Then find the cheapest equipment that will satisfy the job.

Focus on the money. Keep profit in mind. Money doesn't grow on trees (or at least not where I live :-)

Following your emotions is the quickest way to burn money.

V sensible DiaAzul!

You know that my clients are more than happy with what I supply.... It's just me thinking that I can do better. A big part of client satisfaction comes from jobs being delivered on time... not giving them hundreds of shots to choose from... not ringing them up asking did they like the photos... and no messing with the bills. ... as well as great images of course. They just want great shots and no hassle .. try and engage them in a conversation about dynamic range and they run for the door!

R

if you liked the low-light performance of the Leica, try renting a 5D

i still believe that Canon's ability to develop and manufacture propietary sensors will keep them a year or two ahead of the competition

Hi Stever .. thanks for the post .. The 5D is great for low light yes and perhaps the best value for money dslr camera on the market.. but I had actually been blown away by the lens on the Leica .. not the sensor .... it's quite noisy at very high iso ...

Ros

A quick update .. just tested a 1dMkIII against my d2x very roughly in my local supplier's office, and while the d2x has more noise at iso 800, the 1dMkIII didn't really seem to give much more quality than the 5d or 1dsmkII in this respect. I know that there have been rigorous tests published on various sites and that these were just snaps at various settings in neon light (how many images are generated in perfect conditions) ... but I have to say I really like my Nikon files .. they have better default contrast and detail ..albeit they have a sort of screen print feeling to them! Mind you .. the only lens they had handy for the canon was a consumer zoom and this might have had something to do with it. I'll have to take it to the theatre to really give it a proper test. It's difficult .. I want to give the best images ... and want nothing to stand in the way of that goal... so the search continues!

Ros

re: "..consumer zoom and this might have had something to do with it."

Stick with Nikon. Anyone who tests the most sophisticated dslr in the world with a consumer zoom in neon lighting and writes about it as if you learned something is not likely to appreciate it.

If you want better higher ISO than switch to Canon. As far as resolution goes, it's probably a toss up between the 5D, 1DsII, 1DIII and D2X. There will be a difference in "look" from Canon to Nikon--that should also be a consideration. You could invest in some VR lenses to keep ISO down.

I moved from a Nikon D100 (yes I know! but this was almost 4 years ago) to a ds1MKIII and the difference was to HUGE....it felt like stepping from a T-ford into a Maybach.

When I stepped "up" to MF (leaf 65) the difference was visible (but only to the trained eye) my clients honestly don't see the difference untill I tell them where to look for.
I photographed a worldwide campaign for Nikon (their D2Xs) and really liked the camera a lot ( I was a big Nikon fan when still shooting film). Very true to life colors...the ds1 images look a little more "golden" ...in the film days it is like the difference between fuji and kodak (if you have shot film you know what I am talking about)

I personally like the "golden" look a little more because of my style of shooting. But the Nikon look is also great.

I think that in the end a D5 or a 1D will be as good as the Ds1.....in the end it is your vision that makes the image what it is...and a bit of photoshop of course.

Lots of focus here on the camera body (no pun intened), but the OP's opening revelation was at the beauty of the Leica 50/2.

This may or may not be an option, but has the question of using fast Leica/Contax/Voightlander, etc primes on your D2X entered the equation? MF with the right screen ahouldn't be an issue.

Might be a way to get some partial IQ and emotional satisfaction without switching platforms - at least for now.

Having started playing with CZ glass on my 1 series, I'm gobsmacked by the (yes it's true) 3D effect, color sat/replication and detail capture. Canon and Nikkor glass are top-notch, but once you get some German glass in your hands, it can get very addictive, very quickly.

In short, treat the D2X ( a sweet machine at low ISO) akin to a small format digiback and give some consideration to the glass. If you still feel the sensor needs a switch-out, just sell the lens adapters, buy some EOS mount versions (5D mirror compatibility aside) and carry on.

Once again thank you for all your help. I've put an order in for a 1dmkIII with some canon lenses.. I'll be keeping the d2x but offloading some of my more recent nikkors... but keeping the primes. I'll post some pics once I've done one or two shows. Conner999 I had a look at the zeiss lenses on the web for Nikon and have to say they look interesting.. would love to try one. I'm imaginging that they might be similar to the CF lenses for hasselblad.. and nicolaasdb ta for comment.. would be great if MF worked well at high iso..
willburdl... thanks .. although I've never found VR great fo stage work.. I use a monopod and most movement comes from my subject rather than from me .. so I generally switch it off.
Paulbk.... hmm point taken about the lens .. although that was the only one available to me at the time ... and why not test a camera under v nasty conditions to see how it reacts?... you can still assess grain and noise, which was my primary enquiry.
I'll post again in a couple of weeks time.

Ros

www.roskavanagh.com