Luxury Digital SLRs

If money is no object...;

The flagship digital SLR cameras from Canon and Nikon are both priced at about $8,000 -- a big jump in price even from the middle price range. Paying this much doesn't necessarily bring you speed for action shots; both cameras shoot at the modest speed of 5 fps. On the other hand, you do get very high resolution for big, big prints -- 21.9 megapixels on the Canon 1Ds Mark III (*Est. $7,000, body only) and 24.5 megapixels on the Nikon D3X (*Est. $8,000). You also get viewfinders that show 100 percent of the image. The less expensive Nikon D3 (*Est. $4,350, body only) discussed earlier also has a full-frame sensor, but this isn't available on less expensive Canon cameras.

At this price range, the Canon 1Ds Mark III is the top pick in many more reviews than the Nikon D3X, but this isn't a fair comparison because the D3X is so much newer. Full tests and reviews of the D3X aren't available yet from many prominent sources at the time of this report. The most thorough review can be found at DXOMark, which tests camera sensors, and ranks the D3X at the top. Comparing features, the Canon 1Ds Mark III boasts a self-cleaning sensor -- still lacking even on this flagship Nikon -- but the LCD and live view are better on the Nikon D3X.

The Canon 1Ds Mark III still uses an LCD with 230,000 pixels, while the newer Nikon D3X uses a high-resolution LCD with 922,000 pixels. Both cameras provide live view, but the Nikon has two modes while the Canon live view works only in manual mode. In "tripod mode" the Nikon live view provides a virtual horizon to assist with setup, and up to 27X magnification on the LCD screen ensures focusing accuracy. The Canon's LCD magnification tops out at 10x. Dual card slots also give the Nikon D3X an advantage.

When it comes to ergonomics, reviewer Ken Rockwell prefers the Nikon D3X to the Canon 1Ds Mark III. It's also worth considering that the DXOMark lab tests of sensors rank the less expensive Nikon D3 (*Est. $4,350, body only) higher than the Canon 1Ds Mark III (*Est. $7,000, body only). In fact, the Nikon D3 had the top-ranked sensor on DXOMark until it was displaced by the D3X.

Keep in mind that these objective sensor tests don't measure all the factors that go into image quality and overall usability. For example, comparison tests at Pro Photo find that in bursts of action shots, the Canon 1Ds Mark III gets more shots in focus than the Nikon D3. (There's no comparison there with the newer Nikon D3X.) A review at The Luminous Landscape also compares these two cameras, without reaching any definite conclusion.

In a sense, however, this very inconclusiveness favors the 12.1-megapixel Nikon D3 since it costs about half as much. It's also worth considering the 21.1-megapixel Canon 1D Mark II (*Est. $2,700), discussed earlier. A preview of the flagship Nikon D3X at CNet Asia suggests that the much less expensive Canon 1D Mark II is a better buy partly because of its "wow" feature, the HD movie mode.

Of course, if you've already assembled a set of SLR lenses -- either Canon or Nikon -- this shifts the arena for comparisons. The main choice is then within the brand: between the less expensive digital SLR camera bodies and these $8,000 flagship models. For Nikon photographers, it's a choice between the higher resolution of the Nikon D3X and the extra speed of the less expensive Nikon D3 (*Est. $4,350, body only) discussed earlier. The Nikon D3X has a sensor with twice the resolution of the D3, but about half the speed (5 fps vs. 9 fps on the Nikon D3). Otherwise, the two cameras have quite a few features in common, including a 100 percent viewfinder, dual card slots and a high-resolution LCD screen.

The choice for Canon photographers covers an even wider price range. Unless you need the 9 fps shooting speed of the Canon 1D Mark III (*Est. $3,800), it's a no-brainer to find the Canon 1Ds Mark III a better choice. The 10.1-megapixel sensor on the 1D Mark III provides half the resolution and isn't a full-frame sensor.

The newer, lighter and much less expensive Canon 5D Mark II (*Est. $2,700, body only), on the other hand, has a full-frame 21.1-megapixel sensor plus better live view and a sharp LCD screen with 920,000 pixels. Then there's the video capability that the 5D Mark II throws into the mix. Comparing it with the Canon 1D Mark III, Ken Rockwell finds image quality on the Canon 5D Mark II just as good, concluding that "the old $8,000 1Ds Mark III can be tossed out, saying sayonara to its hideous little LCD and too much weight."

Rockwell adds, "Of course if your [sic] a sports or bird pro, you'll live with it for the frame rate." That's one of the three main reasons to choose the more expensive Canon 1Ds Mark III. The 5D Mark II shoots at a maximum of only 3.9 fps. The second reason is that some high-contrast shots on the 5D Mark II show the "black dot" phenomenon. At the time of this report, Canon says it's working on a fix for this, but it isn't clear yet whether it will involve a recall or a firmware update. Finally, there's the issue of durability. Both cameras use magnesium-alloy bodies, but the Canon 1Ds Mark III has been tested for up to 300,000 shutter cycles, while Canon rates the 5D Mark II for half that many. The flagship 1Ds Mark III model is the one that's designed for daily, day-long professional use.