October 22nd, 2009 by 
Photo-John
These two powerhouse pro digital SLRs were announced within a week of each other. They both cost about $5000, both have HD video, fast capture rates and a ridiculously high ISO 102,400 sensitivity. It’s impossible not to wonder which one is the better camera. So I thought it would worth the effort to, as closely as possible, do a back-to-back comparison of the Nikon D3S and. the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV.
It may be a little premature for this comparison since Canon hasn’t published and sample images yet. But that’s ok. As more real-world testing and high-res sample photos become available we can add information in the comments section below. I did a similar article when the Nikon D90 and the Canon EOS 50D were announced (Nikon D90 vs. Canon EOS 50D vs…). At the time they seemed pretty comparable. But it quickly became clear that the Nikon D90’s super low noise made it the better camera. But for now we’ll work with what we have and compare the new 1D Mark IV and Nikon D3S by specs alone.
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Announcement
Nikon D3S Announcement
Compare Nikon D3S and Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Camera Specs
| Nikon D3S | Canon EOS-1D Mark IV | |
| Sensor type | Full frame CMOS | APS-H CMOS (1.3x crop factor) |
| Resolution | 12.1 megapixels (4256 x 2832) | 16.1 megapixels (4896 x 3264) |
| Pixel size | 8.45 microns | 5.7 microns |
| Sensitivity | ISO 200 to 12,800 - expandable to ISO 102,400 | ISO 100 to 12,800 - expandable to ISO 50 and 102,400 |
| Burst rate | 9 FPS (max resolution, RAW) | 10 FPS (max resolution, RAW) |
| Auto focus system | 51 points with 15 cross-type sensors | 45 points with 39 cross-type sensors |
| Flash sync | 1/250th second | 1/300th second |
| Exposure bracketing | 9 frames in 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 or 1 stop steps | 7 frames in 1/3 or 1/2, stop steps |
| Battery capacity | Approximately 4200 photos | Approximately 1500 photos |
Compare Nikon D3S and Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Video Specs
| Nikon D3S | Canon EOS-1D Mark IV | |
| Video resolution | 720p (1280 x 720) | 1080p (1920 x 1080) |
| Video frame rate | 24 FPS | 30, 24, 25 FPS at 1080p / 60 FPS at 720p |
| Video focus control | Single-shot contrast-detect auto focus with live touch-up AF | Single-shot contrast-detect auto focus (pre-focus) or manual focus |
| Video exposure control | Auto and aperture priority | Auto and full manual |
| Stereo sound | With optional external stereo mic | With optional external stereo mic |
| Video file format | .AVI | .MOV |
Nikon D3S vs. Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Image Quality
Let’s dig into these specs a little and see what more we can learn from them - feel free to add your own observations in the comments section at the bottom of the page! The Nikon has a 12-megapixel sensor and the Canon has a 16-megapixel sensor. Looks like the Canon is better, right? Not so fast, partner. The Nikon’s larger, full frame sensor and lower resolution means it has bigger pixels - much bigger (8.45 microns compared to the Canon’s 5.7 micron pixels). Bigger pixels mean less noise and one of the main specs both camera makers are pushing is high ISO sensitivity. Nikon has published sample images at ISO 6400 and they look wonderful. Canon has yet to publish any 1D Mark IV sample images but with about 30% less surface area on each 1D pixel, they’ll be hard pressed to match the low noise of the D3S.
next page - Nikon D3S & Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Video, Auto Focus and Conclusion >>
page 1 page 2
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Hi, Regarding the Pixel size difference and from that, the image quality, I wonder what would happen if I enlarge the same picture, taken at the same conditions with both cameras at the same time.
Would resolution prime, or would be the sensor’s pixel size?
Thanks.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I’m not sure what you mean by “prime.” Canon has done a lot to address noise with the new 1D Mark IV. But I’m sure Nikon has, too. Until we see sample images from the Canon all we can do is speculate based on the camera specs. And pixel size is the most telling because larger pixels collect cleaner information. On the other hand, the Canon has 30% more resolution than the Nikon. So it’s possible that the increased resolution will effectively minimize any increased noise in prints of the same size. When we get the cameras for testing and review we’ll make studio tests and publish them at full size. Then you can make test prints and see for yourself. Here’s a link to our digital camera studio tests, where you’ll find the high-res samples when they’re available: http://www.photographyreview.com/samplephotoscrx.aspx
I hope that answers your question. If it doesn’t let me know and I’ll try again. Thanks for commenting
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I’m not sure if things have changed for the 1D mark IV, but the 1D mark III does 3 AEB at +/-3.0 steps with a custom function that expands it to 2, 3, 5, or 7 frames. I know that custom function allows at least up to a full 1.0 step between each (but I’m not sure if it expands to more than 1.0 for steps using that custom function). I know this is really super picky, but saw you had the 1D mark IV at up to 7 and only 1/3rd or 1/2 steps. Does canon have this info posted yet? I’m surprised to see that they would have cut back on the 1D mark III’s range.
I’m more than curious. I pre-ordered the mark IV the night of the launch.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The bracketing specs were taken right off Canon’s 1D Mark IV page. I double and triple checked to see if it allowed a full stop for bracketing but I only saw 1/3 and 1/2 steps. It is possible I was wrong. If you want to take a look for me and see if I made a mistake, I would welcome the second look
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dmk4/samples/index.html Canon sample images from the Mark IV
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Awesome - thanks, Kevin! I’m looking forward to taking a closer look at the samples when I’m not using my phone to browse the Web
October 24th, 2009 at 3:52 am
I’m not sure that 100,000 ISO is ridiculous. When I do photos in the street at night (example: Nuit Blanche) at 3200ISO with a f1.8 lens I’m working with a a slow shutter speed. The camera is not able to record the scene as I see it with my eyes. Higher ISO will be useful in extreme conditions.
Having said that - I can wait. These cameras are too big for me (I’ve already handled a D3s).
October 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Regarding the battery life, I’m wondering why the 1d4 will be so much less than the 1d3? Right now I’m getting close to 4000 shots on my 1d3.
Regarding the autofocus, I wouldn’t call the 1d3 the autofocus winner over the d3, my 1d3 still can’t focus without something high contrast for it to pick up on in low light situations. As far as celebrity photojournalism goes, I’d say that about 75% of the canon shooters have ditched canon for their faults. That’s a huge number!
While Nikon’s autofocus might not be as fast as canon’s, they’re consistency and lower “failure to focus rate” puts them in the lead (atleast in my line of work).
On the last note, Image quality. The primary lenses that I shoot with are the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, compaired to their nikon counterparts they are lacking(there is a rumor of a canon 70-200 mark2). Basically what I’m getting at is, comparing shots with a nikon d3 to my canon 5d mk2, I’m more impressed with the Nikon than the 5d2. Colors and contrast are amazing, and the 5d2 has seemingly more noise at lower ISO than the nikon(possibly to the ridiculous pixel count/size).
I’ve been a canon shooter since I began shooting, but they’re letting me down! I’m not very impressed with the 1d4, especially since a few beta testers shot with a full frame version of the 1d4.
Cheers
October 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I definitely agree with Mark. Nikon is hands down better in every way except for maybe the video, which shouldn’t be an issue if you’re a photographer. The video is just an added bonus…nothing most photographers would care much about.
By pure physics, the nikon’s high ISO performance will be significantly better due to less mp in nikon and a full frame sensor. The battery life is better, the build quality of the D3 is proven to better than the 1D. The controls are more intuitive in my opinion on the Nikons. The zoom lenses on canon are no match for nikon’s pro zooms. I’ve tested the 5d mk ii and the 1d mk iii with the D700 and D3. In all cases nikon produced cleaner and better results.
The AF system? Don’t get me started, Canon is TERRIBLE compared to Nikon.
Seems like Canon is more concerned with making their cameras appear good on paper and taking the lead in megapixels and high tech features, whereas nikon provides what photographers really need…High iso performance, battery life, build quality, and the ability to get in focus pictures!
I am thoroughly convinced that if someone shoots canon they haven’t tried nikon’s pro bodies, because once they get the feel of them they will no doubt agree nikon is better…specially for wedding photographers.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Malik and Mark - thanks for posting. Nikon auto focus is one of my blind spots. I’ve used plenty of Nikon DSLR bodies but I’ve yet to do any serious sports shooting with them. By serious I mean, high-speed, continuous AF event action shooting. I find that’s where it really counts. And I intend to address this problem when I can get my hands on a D3S.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Nikon D3s pixel area is 2.2 times larger (i.e. 120 % larger, or more than double) than the Canon Mk IV. Not “about 30 % less surface area” as stated in the article text. 30 % accounts only for one dimension, area is two dimensional. That should make a difference both in noise and dynamic range.
However, to be fair one should compare pictures of the same final reproduction size. Canon MkIV need to enlarge the picture 1.3 times more (linear) than the Nikon D3s to reach the same reproduction size, meaning that also lens imperfections are magnified 1.3 more with the Canon camera (independent from the number of pixels).
October 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Thanks for the correction, Ryler. And you’re right about the Canon’s extra resolution potentially compensating for its smaller pixels. Besides the resolution, Canon has also improved their noise reduction with the new camera. Still, I think it’s unlikely that the new 1D will match the image quality of the D3S - at 100% or in print. Right now I can only speculate based on the published information. Ultimately I need to get both of these cameras in the studio for controlled tests. I’m really lookiing forward to doing that - and to doing some serious sports shooting with the D3S.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
No problem photo-john, will be looking forward to your tests to further show why this is not even a competition. I hope you get the chance to test and compare
1) high iso images
2) AF performance (including during fast action sports)
3) Build quality and Feel of camera
I also think during these tests similar lenses should be used, for example 70-200 2.8 from both nikon and canon on the D3s and 1D mk iv respectively.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Malik-
I’m not sure if we’ll get to compare them back-to-back as you’re suggesting, although that would be very useful. The high ISO tests are a given. You can see all of our controlled studio tests here: http://www.photographyreview.com/samplephotoscrx.aspx
As soon as I can get the D3S and 1D Mk IV I’ll make those tests and post them.
Sports is my main subject and I really want to do some serious shooting with the D3S and the Nikon AF-S 70-200 VR II lens. Like I said in a previous comment, I know that Nikon AF performance is one of my photographic blind spots and I intend to address that with the D3S. I have plenty of experience shooting with the Canon bodies and 70-200 f/2.8L so there’s no mystery there. It’s just a matter of seeing how much Canon has improved on the previous system and if there are any performance issues.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“dmm”
Yes I wrote up my comments about the D3s vs 1d mk iv and pasted my comments about them two other places as well. I gain nothing out of it, as I already am shooting nikon. I’m a wedding photographer. My only goal is to inform others of why Nikon is the BETTER system if you’re a wedding photographer because of their high iso performance. I often shoot in churches where a flash isn’t allowed, in those cases the only thing that matters is the ability to acquire focus in low light and the ability to get clean shots at high ISOs. I have extensively tried the canon’s 1D mk iii and the 5d mk ii in those situations, except they got no where as close to the image quality as my d700 and D3 can provide. When using the canon bodies in those situations, I felt so glad that I had nikon’s but also felt bad for my friend whom I borrowed the canon equipment from. He can’t get the same image quality in the same situations as me only because he has canon bodies. So I felt that is’ necessary to emphasize how much of a difference there is in the high iso performance of these two bodies.
So to summarize…I gain nothing, but I’m trying to inform other photographers who shoot in low light that when picking a system…if low light Af performance and high iso noise performance is your main concern for stills, Nikon is the way to go. And I do believe they will be glad I suggested that to them. I have nothing against canon, everything i said is objective. I have no allegiance to nikon. I’m just objectively stating what’s best in a given situation.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Malik!
I was on 4 weddings this year, and none of the photographers shoots with nikon!
You did not try any canons, and stop running from one forum to another writing same bs!
If you feel that you made wrong decision buying nikon, than sell it on ebay!
I’m user of canon, and all my friends left nikon for canon some time allredy, and you just guess what? They all happy they did!
Instead of whining, use you tools and enjoy them, and try other setting than magic green square!
November 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Malik-
Thanks for replying to DMM. Unfortunately, I had to remove his post because of the profanity. Based on the specs and what I’ve been seeing from Canon, I agree that the D3s will likely have better image quality than the new 1D Mark IV. Not sure about the build quality or AF comments, though. The build quality of both cameras is excellent and my experience with the 1D Mk III AF was great, in spite of the known issues. I think the auto focus updates that Canon has made with the new camera look really, really good. But of course, we won’t know how good until we can actually try it. Right now pretty much everything is speculation. The intent of this article was to put some context around that speculation.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Good pre-comparison, but you did make one mistake. When you state “The one area where the Nikon D3S has an edge is auto focus. Unlike every other video-enabled digital SLR, the D3S auto focus system does work during video capture. It doesn’t have full continuous auto focus like a proper dedicated video camera. But you can touch up the auto focus while you’re filming. With every other digital SLR you have to either stop filming and refocus or adjust the focus manually,” this is not entirely true. I own a 7D and have used the AF-On Button DURING video recording to adjust the focus. Therefore, the D3S is not the only camera to offer this.
Furthermore, you state that you are not sure if this is good or not but a step in the right direction. I would like to add a little insight: I have a 5D Mark II also, and the focus is strictly manual on that camera. It can be a tad frustrating to try and work a manual focus on an SLR while viewing a LiveVIew screen. I’ve had a tendency to twist the focus the wrong direction sometimes and then re-compensate & it doesn’t look good at all. Tapping it in with AF is far less noticeable. So it definitely offers an advantage if you’re trying to capture something quick, on the fly, and without an option to re-shoot.
Regarding the size of the pixels on the Nikon versus the Canon: I think the point made about the larger pixels having a lower noise is great, but the real question will come down to the noise level when comparing an image of identical size. If a 16MP image has slightly more noise but is shrunk to the same number of pixels, to the same size in other words, as the Nikon image, what will the noise comparison be, all other things equal. The one thing we do know for sure is that you can’t upsize 12MP to 16MP.
Another item is the speed. Your chart states the speeds at 9fps for the Nikon and 10fps for the Canon. There was some vaporous detail in the Nikon spec sheet about 9-11fps and it would be interesting to understand where they are getting the extra speed. I’ve heard on past Nikons it is via a grip, however, this camera appears to already be built size for the grip portion.
And finally, an item that was not addressed was the cropping itself. These are both Sports cameras and that is the market they are directed towards. I have read in previous reviews on various occasions that Canon has a 1.3x crop sensor because Sports pros prefer a slight crop. The Nikon spec stated they had a 1.2x crop available on the D3S, which lends truth to this concept. I didn’t see this stated outright, but I would assume that if you shoot at 1.2x crop on the Nikon you’re simply cropping the shot and will lose a little more resolution - down to perhaps a 10MP shot. I think addressing this portion of the comparison is significant also.
I have a photographer friend who uses Nikons and obviously I’m a Canon user. These types of articles are very useful and fuel for discussion. Since we both pay very close attention to both manufacturers and this little digital war they’ve had going for some time now.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Great posts everyone. I’m really looking forward to the results from both these cameras. I am a wedding photographer, and I currently use nikon bodies. However, I can easily switch systems since I rent most of my lenses as events come. This gives me the advantage of having the best body out for my needs, and what I need is good high iso performance, IQ, and autofocus accuracy. Megapixels is the least of my concern and I try to get the composition right when taking the shot, and this eliminates the need for cropping.
I’m just wondering when people will have access to the 1d mk iv and the D3s to do real world comparisons, because I know that numbers on paper are one thing and real life results can be different. Although the new AF from canon on paper does seem very good, 39 cross type points vs 15 of nikon…but testing will determine how good it really is and if it can be as good or better than the tried and trusted nikon’s 51 pt AF system. One thing I know almost is a fact is the high iso performance on D3S will be better.
And Zen, I have shot weddings with the 5d mk ii many times so I did try canons… And I have many friends who left canon for nikon as well. And fyi the nikons pro bodies don’t have a “green” square mode like the canon’s 5d mk ii, the most full auto mode the nikon’s pro bodies have is P mode.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I was searching for any sample images at high ISO from the upcoming 1D Mark IV. I am a current Mark III owner. Your comment in the second to last paragraph will make me a follower of your site:
Neither camera will magically make you into a great photographer if you have no experience or vision. But both cameras will expand the abilities of working still photographers who want to shoot faster and get better images in more extreme conditions.
So much of the time I read all of the back and forth about full versus cropped frames, technical BS,. etc. My feeling about the art of photography is summed up in your statement I quote above. In my mind a lousy picture looks lousy on a cropped frame or full frame image. It’s truly what lies behind the equipment that makes the most difference. Bravo to your outlook.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Wow - just checked back in and I’m impressed with the amount and depth of the discussion here. Malik, I’m also anxious to get both cameras for testing. I sent Nikon an e-mail yesterday letting them know I want one for review. B&H started taking orders for the D3S yesterday, which indicates cameras will be available soon.
Rick - thanks for pointing out my error regarding the D3S touch-up AF. I actually have a 7D, too and didn’t even know it had that same feature. I saw it mentioned in the Popular Photography article and have yet to look at it. But I’m please it’s there. By the way, please write a user review for your 7D. We need more reviews for that camera: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slrs/canon/PRD_445830_3127crx.aspx
You also asked about the Nikon’s 9-11 FPS frame rate. Nine frames per second is the maximum high-speed full-frame rate. But you can swith to the DX crop mode (1.5x) and get 11 frames per second.
I’m honestly not sure there’s a good reason for the Canon’s APS-H sensor. Yes, some sports photographers like the more reach offered by the crop factor. I do. But I’m sure there are others who don’t. Canon will throw that out there if you ask. But I expect there’s a more technical / production-related reason for the APS-H sensor. It could be as simple as it costs them less to make it. The Nikon DX mode has a 1.5x crop factor. I believe Nikon offers it so that photographers with DX lenses can upgrade and still have their lenses work. And of course, the lower resolution DX mode also allows them to offer the 11 FPS burst rate.
I’m working to get both cameras for studio and field testing. rest assured we will have reviews and high-res sample images for both as soon as possible.
Thanks, huys!