Drool...

While I will never, ever own a top of the line DSLR right after it comes out, it is fun to read about them.

John Harrington over at the Photo Business News & Forum just posted a comparison/review of the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and Nikon D3. Unlike most reviews, he focuses more on the usability of the cameras than the stats (for indepth reviews, check out here (1Ds) or here (D3)). His consensus was "Nikon by a nose" even though on most issues (especially high-ISO noise) Nikon came out ahead. And he's planning on shooting with both...

What's it mean for the rest of us, who don't have an extra $500 laying around, let alone the $5K (Nikon) or $8K (Canon) necessary to buy one of those cameras? Not much, really, since the primary component of your images is what you put in front of the camera. Harrington's conclusion really highlights this effect -- he's pretty happy with both cameras. Even though one is 22 megapixel (Canon) and the other is only 12 megapixel!

And just because a camera is expensive, it doesn't mean it will be free of problems (like the 1D Mark III's autofocus).

Although the one thing on the top of the line cameras that I'm jealous of is the reduction in high-ISO noise. That would definitely come in handy -- I feel like I'm always banging into limitations on the amount of ambient light, so less noise and higher ISOs would be awesome. Believe it or not, Nikon goes up to 25,600 ISO with less noise than the 20D's 3200 ISO!

Edit: The D3 vs 5D noise comparison at Ken Rockwell's site is worth looking at.