Nikon D3x Possibly Soon

[Digital Skunk]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9206-9252

I say possibly because I know that Nikon is at production capacity with the addition of the D300, D3, and D60. The D3 is still being produced with the D2xs and I think the D2hs and the F6, so their professional body factory is running at full speed. This new sensor however leads me to believe that either a full framed professional Sony Alpha body is due by years end or PMA 09 and/or a Nikon D3x announcement at around the same time.

Or, Nikon could utilize their smaller consumer body facilities to produce a D300x, 5D/6D competitor. Sounds good.

By the way... I am glad that the D300 and D3 are on such a long back order list. The new Nikon lenses are a nice addition and I will be purchasing all of them sans the PC models, and some Tokina and Sigma lenses as well. I think I can keep shooting with my D200 and D2hs for a while.

[cube]

Only 12-bit.

[Kamera RAWr]

By the way... I am glad that the D300 and D3 are on such a long back order list.

The D300 seems readily available on Amazon :)

[Digital Skunk]

The D300 seems readily available on Amazon :)

Yeah but not at my local camera shop. I need to support the little guys in my town. Most the photogs in Baltimore are buying them up and supporting them as well, so my name is probably number 10 or something on the list.

I am very upset that it's only 12 bit, but hopefully the proposed specs of the chip don't meet the announced specs. I hope that the future FX cameras from Sony and Nikon are 24.5MP at 6.3 fps though.

[Kamera RAWr]

Yeah but not at my local camera shop. I need to support the little guys in my town.

I'd support a local camera shop, but there aren't any where I live. I suppose I could order from Ritz Camera here at the mall though :p.

I hope that the future FX cameras from Sony and Nikon are 24.5MP at 6.3 fps though.

Sounds very nice, but thats for more than this amateur photographer needs. :o

[Digital Skunk]

Sounds very nice, but thats for more than this amateur photographer needs. :o

The great part about the professional stuff getting more and more advanced is the trickle treatment the consumer stuff gets. Take the D60 for instance. Now it has the same Expeed processor as the D3 and D300. I am sure the D80 replacement will be a D300 Lite and Nikon may put out that 5D replacement we have been looking for once the D300 sales/production evens out.

More importantly for me, I want to know when the first sub-$2000 FX body comes to the market. Not that we need a NEW model that is underneath the 5D/6D and the 1Ds Mark III, but when are the prices of FX bodies going to plummet like the DX/cropped sensor ones have.

It's more of a "I can't wait to see full frame become affordable for most" than a "I can't afford full frame so when will yadda yadda yadda..."

Also, I hope to see more full framed bodies with professional features to go along with their very respectable IQ.

[Kamera RAWr]

Indeed it will be interesting to see when a FX sensor makes it in to a sub $2000 camera. I'll probably pick up a D300 sometime this year or maybe even next year. I spent a bit of money on DX glass, so not sure I want to even think about FF :p.

[Digital Skunk]

Indeed it will be interesting to see when a FX sensor makes it in to a sub $2000 camera. I'll probably pick up a D300 sometime this year or maybe even next year. I spent a bit of money on DX glass, so not sure I want to even think about FF :p.

Not trying to keep my thread at the top, but I can't resist an invitation to a conversation :D

That's the biggest issue with many shooters that do want to go FF. I remember a lot of hobbyist shooters wanting a 5D for $2700, but all they had in their coffers was $3000 or $4000. Not enough to cover the costs of the body and a good piece of L series glass. They were better off getting the 30D and an amazing lens and flash to back it up. With the D3, you are looking to spend close to $10,000 if you don't have any GOOD FX lenses to accompany it. And I faced that same problem.

The FX lenses in my arsenal include a 60 mm Macro, a 50 mm 1.8 and a 70-200 VR... nothing else. I have more DX lenses but even those weren't top of the line. I want to stop borrowing DX lenses from my job to shoot with and I want to revamp some areas of my system, so I am going to take the time to grab some new DX and FX lenses and possibly a D300 and D60 to accompany the D200, D2hs, D80, and D50 sitting in my cabinet.

To get back on topic, I am sure that the D3x will be priced a bit over the 1Ds when it debuts, maybe $9000 or so, and have many of the advancements of the D3. Will Nikon make the sensor themselves like in the D3, or piggy back off of the Sony sensor ala the D300?

[Kamera RAWr]

I'm pretty amateur so my question may appear that way as well, but... who is to gain most from the advances of a D3x? 24mp is quite a bit. Studio photogrphers or?

[yeroen]

I'm pretty amateur so my question may appear that way as well, but... who is to gain most from the advances of a D3x? 24mp is quite a bit. Studio photogrphers or?

Pro studio photographers will probably just shoot medium format or large format film.

Either would look better than anything you'd get out of 35mm digital.

[colinmack]

On a similar topic, I'm still surprised there hasn't been a 5D Mark II released...one would think Canon would be getting nervous that Nikon now has a full-frame pro model, and within a year or so will likely have a 5d-ish FX size, and a higher resolution model using this latest Sony chip (or something similar).

They don't own that segment any more, but they don't seem to be acting accordingly (sorry, I forgot the 1D III...that worked out well for them). :rolleyes:

I went back and forth from Nikon to Canon (I'm not a pro, but am starting to bump against the limits of the equipment I have, and have started doing semi-pro gigs on the side)...I've decided to upgrade to the next iteration of a smaller body full-frame model from either company (if I'm going to throw all my money away, I'd prefer to be at least a bit more future-proofed).

Cheers, Colin.

[Digital Skunk]

On a similar topic, I'm still surprised there hasn't been a 5D Mark II released...one would think Canon would be getting nervous that Nikon now has a full-frame pro model, and within a year or so will likely have a 5d-ish FX size, and a higher resolution model using this latest Sony chip (or something similar).

They don't own that segment any more, but they don't seem to be acting accordingly (sorry, I forgot the 1D III...that worked out well for them). :rolleyes:

I went back and forth from Nikon to Canon (I'm not a pro, but am starting to bump against the limits of the equipment I have, and have started doing semi-pro gigs on the side)...I've decided to upgrade to the next iteration of a smaller body full-frame model from either company (if I'm going to throw all my money away, I'd prefer to be at least a bit more future-proofed).

Cheers, Colin.

I agree and the long wait for the 5D upgrade has me thinking that Canon has something good up their sleeve for the 6D or 5D Mark II. The body is aging and the IQ is on par with other offering from the market. The price really isn't justified IMHO. Hopefully Canon will make the new body a real performer in AF and shooting speed, two areas that suffered do to the sensor size. And hopefully if/when Nikon makes their D300FX they won't make the same mistake Canon did, put out a body with basically consumer features but it has a FX sensor in it.

If you are going back and forth Colin, and you want to invest a lot of cash, make sure you get the system that has that one feature/lens that you are looking for. Bodies don't matter and change often as you can see. Shooters that switched over to another system without checking out the road map of their previous system are usually left high and dry because their new system doesn't give them that one tool they need, or they incur more expenses to do the same tasks.

[Abstract]

On a similar topic, I'm still surprised there hasn't been a 5D Mark II released.


Big
announcements
will
come.

(or maybe not)

They don't want to pre-announce everything before the start of PMA 2008, do they? They also don't want to introduce all their new products in one shot. People are still talking about how great the 450D is compared to the Nikon D60. Let that settle down before adding more fuel to the fire.

Also, Nikon's FF camera is coming "soon"? Depends on what you mean by soon. If soon means "when Sony mass produces these sensors and is ready to sell them to Nikon", then yes, I guess you're right. Lets wait 9 months.

[Westside guy]

Indeed it will be interesting to see when a FX sensor makes it in to a sub $2000 camera. I'll probably pick up a D300 sometime this year or maybe even next year. I spent a bit of money on DX glass, so not sure I want to even think about FF :p.
That's the biggest issue with many shooters that do want to go FF. I remember a lot of hobbyist shooters wanting a 5D for $2700, but all they had in their coffers was $3000 or $4000. Not enough to cover the costs of the body and a good piece of L series glass. They were better off getting the 30D and an amazing lens and flash to back it up. With the D3, you are looking to spend close to $10,000 if you don't have any GOOD FX lenses to accompany it. And I faced that same problem.

I'll be surprised if a full-frame sensor makes it into a sub-$2000 camera anytime in the near future - unless the camera is significantly crippled in some way (which admittedly Canon has been willing to do in the past). I'd guess a "D300FX" would probably be closer to $3000; but I'd love to see it happen. If the D3 were smaller, I know I'd likely have been willing to pay the premium... but it's just too big and too heavy to be practical for me.

[Lovesong]

You know, I'd hate to burst everyone's bubble, but it would appear that the new Sony CMOS sensor will be going into the Sony pro model (linky (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013109sonypma.asp)).

That really shouldn't be a surprise, given the fact that Nikon designed their own CMOS for the D3.

[Digital Skunk]

You know, I'd hate to burst everyone's bubble, but it would appear that the new Sony CMOS sensor will be going into the Sony pro model (linky (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013109sonypma.asp)).

That really shouldn't be a surprise, given the fact that Nikon designed their own CMOS for the D3.

Yeah, it's great to. I was thinking that Nikon may take the D300 and other consumer camera bodies route and get Sony's chip in the D3x, D300FX. I would rather like Nikon to build the chip themselves if Sony is going to be using it in their Flagship body.

The proposed Sony may be a market changer for Sony and the camera business. By years end, Sony, Nikon, and Canon will have FX cameras all priced under $6000.

I can see FX cameras under $2000 some time in the near future, around this time next year probably. If Nikon can set the price of the D3 at $5000 given it's features then I am I sure they can get the manufacturing methods to a point where even a 16-20MP or so chip can be made, and placed inside a D300 type body for slightly under $2000.... or maybe a little above, say $2299 or something.

[compuwar]

I can see FX cameras under $2000 some time in the near future, around this time next year probably. If Nikon can set the price of the D3 at $5000 given it's features then I am I sure they can get the manufacturing methods to a point where even a 16-20MP or so chip can be made, and placed inside a D300 type body for slightly under $2000.... or maybe a little above, say $2299 or something.

I sure wouldn't hold my breath. The economics don't make sense- if Nikon can get $5k for a D3, and if the sensor is the single-biggest component cost for the camera, and if a larger sensor decreases yield-per-wafer significantly, and Nikon's selling D3's like hot cakes WHY would they possibly try to build something under $2000 when they're still around a year from the D3 launch and haven't monetized enough to pay for the production line tooling and eeked out great profits yet?

It may be that the market moves us to around $2750-$3500 in terms of competition, but I can't see any of the players wanting to move under $2k. Canon's the only one who wouldn't have to massively re-tool and they're losing enough market share at the low end (well, technically they're losing the low-end growth share) that I can't see them wanting to take a profitability hit either.

People who want the "full frame" experience want it enough that making them pay a premium works out economically to offset the sensor yield and cost issues. Even if you start stitching together smaller sensors, you're still going to up the sensor costs.

Half your ASP without an equivalent decrease in costs and your margins start to suck- Everyone trying to play the game is going to decrease the available fab capacity for the larger sensors. I'm not sure the process scales up- I think you're talking either existing or new fab for the larger chips, especially if the wafers are bigger (I'm not sure how the current fabs source what wafers.)

With the D3 and D300 out the door, and the new camera in the works, another pro or prosumer body in that timeframe is a heck of a lot of expense for something that would cut into D3 and D300 sales. I just don't see a business rationale for it, they're doing really well selling what they're making, and have been for the D2x and D200 as well.

Granted, they're doing as much consolidation in production to reduce costs as they can, and the component re-use will help with the non-sensor costs, but the sensor is still the single-biggest cost.

Sony might do a lower-cost body because they don't have the market share, but I'd expect Nikon and Canon to try to keep things relatively close to where they are with some competitive breaks as they pay for the tooling and as the economy starts to affect sales, but I wouldn't expect it to come down to $2k before the D300 replacement is ready to come out, and even then, I think it's not very likely.

[Plymouthbreezer]

...D300 and D60 to accompany the D200, D2hs, D80, and D50 sitting in my cabinet...
Why so many? If I were you, I'd use the money you spent on the D80 and D200 to get a D2Xs or D3... And I suppose a good low-end body like a D60 for the times you don't need the cumbersome pro models.

[Abstract]

$2000??? Ok, that's another case of wishful thinking. "Some time in the future" is, again, correct. Come back in 3-4 years.

In America, the D3 costs $5000+, correct? Do you think all of those D3 customers would buy a D3 successor (a D4??) if Nikon came out with a D300/D400 FX for $2000? Or even $2500??? Not within the next few years. The D300 is comparable enough to the D3 that many potential D3 customers would look at the $2000-3000 price difference and avoid the D3.

At least the D300 has the option of taking off the battery grip. Not everyone wants to carry around a D3-sized camera for casual shooting. This makes the D300 smaller and more flexible than the D3.

What compuwar said about full frame is correct. I don't really see Canon or Nikon introducing $2000 full frame cameras because they don't need to. In fact, neither does Sony or Pentax. The only reason the 5D is so cheap now is because, in relative terms, it's an ancient DSLR. It's still a good camera, but it's ancient.

[Digital Skunk]

Why so many? If I were you, I'd use the money you spent on the D80 and D200 to get a D2Xs or D3... And I suppose a good low-end body like a D60 for the times you don't need the cumbersome pro models.

I have those bodies because they were the progression of my system. Got the D70, then it was destroyed from heavy use after two years, then obtained the D200 and D50, then the D80 and finally got the D2hs from the job. I don't have the glass for it because i can just grab it from the work pool, but having my own is something I am trying to do in the future.

$2000??? Ok, that's another case of wishful thinking. "Some time in the future" is, again, correct. Come back in 3-4 years.

In America, the D3 costs $5000+, correct? Do you think all of those D3 customers would buy a D3 successor (a D4??) if Nikon came out with a D300/D400 FX for $2000? Or even $2500??? Not within the next few years. The D300 is comparable enough to the D3 that many potential D3 customers would look at the $2000-3000 price difference and avoid the D3.

At least the D300 has the option of taking off the battery grip. Not everyone wants to carry around a D3-sized camera for casual shooting. This makes the D300 smaller and more flexible than the D3.

What compuwar said about full frame is correct. I don't really see Canon or Nikon introducing $2000 full frame cameras because they don't need to. In fact, neither does Sony or Pentax. The only reason the 5D is so cheap now is because, in relative terms, it's an ancient DSLR. It's still a good camera, but it's ancient.

I know, I pushed the price up to around $2500. Under $2000 was a bit too low.

[YGoh]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9206-9252

I say possibly because I know that Nikon is at production capacity with the addition of the D300, D3, and D60. The D3 is still being produced with the D2xs and I think the D2hs and the F6, so their professional body factory is running at full speed. This new sensor however leads me to believe that either a full framed professional Sony Alpha body is due by years end or PMA 09 and/or a Nikon D3x announcement at around the same time......So there might be a possibility that Nikon will not develop the 24megapixels full frame sensor themselves, and uses the SONY's?

[Digital Skunk]

So there might be a possibility that Nikon will not develop the 24megapixels full frame sensor themselves, and uses the SONY's?

It's possible that they may develop it themselves given the near perfect image quality of the D3 in all ISO ranges... but Nikon has done a lot of work with Sony sensors in the past and still. The only chips that Nikon has that they made themselves are the D3 and the D2hs. The D2x's sensor was a joint venture by Sony if my memory serves me right.

Either way, many of Nikon's sensors in their pro and consumer bodies are from Sony, and Sony uses them in their bodies as well, ala the D300/Alpha models on the market right now.

Nikon could use the Sony sensor if it proves to be worthy. Or they could at least use it in their version of the Canon 5D.

[Techguy172]

I could see Nikon lowering prices on the D60 and the D300 maybe even making a successor to it. If sony can make there High chips decent that would mean we could definitely see a D4 coming within a year or two which would make the FX chips cheaper maybe we could have a D300/400 for Below 3000 maybe even 2500 this is all good news if that doesn't happen then maybe Canon will be buying up these censors and using it for the D5.

[YGoh]

It's possible that they may develop it themselves given the near perfect image quality of the D3 in all ISO ranges... but Nikon has done a lot of work with Sony sensors in the past and still. The only chips that Nikon has that they made themselves are the D3 and the D2hs. The D2x's sensor was a joint venture by Sony if my memory serves me right.

Either way, many of Nikon's sensors in their pro and consumer bodies are from Sony, and Sony uses them in their bodies as well, ala the D300/Alpha models on the market right now.

Nikon could use the Sony sensor if it proves to be worthy. Or they could at least use it in their version of the Canon 5D.Thank you for your info........

BTW, how would you compare the D3 picture quality compare to the Canon 1D Mark III?

[termina3]

Yeah but not at my local camera shop. I need to support the little guys in my town. Most the photogs in Baltimore are buying them up and supporting them as well, so my name is probably number 10 or something on the list.

I'd support my local camera shop, except they're too cocky, condescending, and in retrospect they 'gamed' me once.

[Digital Skunk]

Thank you for your info........

BTW, how would you compare the D3 picture quality compare to the Canon 1D Mark III?

Funny you should ask that. I went to New York, YUCK!!!, this past week to go to B&H Photo Video just to check on that, and take some images on my card with both to judge IQ.

Both cameras have amazing IQ, but of course the D3 blows the Mark III away once you get into anything above ISO1600. The ISO12800 and 25600 images on the D3 look amazing for the ISO rating...

mind you while I was shooting that ISO with a 35mm f2 wide open my shutter speed was at 1/2000 yielding me very sharp images

... but I would say that some sharpness was lost.... but that was at 12800!

If I were a Canon shooter I'd be jealous... of that, the FX sensor, the new glass on the wide end that finally rivals Canon, and the dual CF card slots but nothing much after that. Both cameras are worth that weight... and wait... as in the D2h/D2hs users (ME) can finally get that true speed performer/resolution that we have been waiting YEARS to get a hold of.

I'd support my local camera shop, except they're too cocky, condescending, and in retrospect they 'gamed' me once.

I almost thought that about mine too, I got there with 5 minutes to spare to buy a strobe and they had closed their doors. I told the guy I was going to throw down $500 and he replied.... "That's not even a lot of money" and for me at the time that was. I had to get a friend to buy it for me the next day and pay him back. Then I came when they weren't closed and it was mayhem. Just about every photog in the city was there, including heads of staff from both local papers selling their old equipment and picking up three or four pro bodies.

And this is a tiny store. Then I got to know them a little more and a former Ritz camera, YUCK!!!, associate that worked with me got a job there as well. After going to B&H and seeing how big and corporate it is I don't think I will ever shop anywhere else but local shops even if the price is a little high.

[YGoh]

Funny you should ask that. I went to New York, YUCK!!!, this past week to go to B&H Photo Video just to check on that, and take some images on my card with both to judge IQ.

Both cameras have amazing IQ, but of course the D3 blows the Mark III away once you get into anything above ISO1600. The ISO12800 and 25600 images on the D3 look amazing for the ISO rating...

mind you while I was shooting that ISO with a 35mm f2 wide open my shutter speed was at 1/2000 yielding me very sharp images

... but I would say that some sharpness was lost.... but that was at 12800!

If I were a Canon shooter I'd be jealous... of that, the FX sensor, the new glass on the wide end that finally rivals Canon, and the dual CF card slots but nothing much after that. Both cameras are worth that weight... and wait... as in the D2h/D2hs users (ME) can finally get that true speed performer/resolution that we have been waiting YEARS to get a hold of.- How about the contrast/dynamic range between both the 1DS MARK III and D3?

- At ISO <800, how do they compare in terms of IQ?

- How do they compare in terms of features and functionallities?

...........And this is a tiny store. Then I got to know them a little more and a former Ritz camera, YUCK!!!, associate that worked with me got a job there as well. After going to B&H and seeing how big and corporate it is I don't think I will ever shop anywhere else but local shops even if the price is a little high.I completely agree, I got the same 'who cares' treatment from big stores, I will get the cameras from small stores before I go to the big ones...

BY THE WAY, THANKS AGAIN.....

[Digital Skunk]

- How about the contrast/dynamic range between both the 1DS MARK III and D3?

- At ISO <800, how do they compare in terms of IQ?

- How do they compare in terms of features and functionallities?

I completely agree, I got the same 'who cares' treatment from big stores, I will get the cameras from small stores before I go to the big ones...

BY THE WAY, THANKS AGAIN.....

No problem man.

Now I never shot with either camera professionally. We had a loaner from Nikon months ago when my paper had whispers about buying one for each of the main shooters and a few as backup, but nothing came of that yet. The guy who shot a basketball and a football game with it came back with beautiful images at ISO 6400. I didn't have to do much tonal adjustments at all sans the switch from RGB to CMYK.

And in the store, the first images I shot with the the D3 were very muddy, but the store clerk and I adjusted the settings a bit and got the not noisy but grainy, high contrast, average dynamic range images that everyone touts at ISOs beyond 1600. I really didn't test ISO 800 and below, since most SLRs do a good job of producing sound images at that level.

As for the Mark III, the same was true except for the saturation and contrast. The images just weren't as bright and popping, but it's not like I know how to fully control the IQ on a camera system I haven't shot with in almost 4 or more years. We would have to ask a Canon Pro to upload some images to judge them.

I just realized that I don't have the ISO 12800 and higher images, but this is a 6400 right here. 35mm f2.8.

And it's compressed.

[YGoh]

Off subject a bit here...........

1.) What are the lens' F-Mount (Nikon) and EF-Mount (Canon) diameter?

2.) What are the advantages of having larger lens mount?

[YGoh]

Have you heard anything about the new D4 or D3x will have the sensor cleaning, like Canon?

[Digital Skunk]

Off subject a bit here...........

1.) What are the lens' F-Mount (Nikon) and EF-Mount (Canon) diameter?

2.) What are the advantages of having larger lens mount?

I don't know the diameter of each lens mount but the lens mount diameter will be the same for most SLR cameras (typically). The diameter and how wide the diaphragm (iris/aperture) are determine how much light the lens will let through the glass in most cases. For DX lenses, the diameter of the elements are smaller since the sensor is smaller.

On FX, the opposite is true, but both lenses perform as good on the high end, except for the plethora of other changes that happen due to smaller lens element/glass diameters.

Have you heard anything about the new D4 or D3x will have the sensor cleaning, like Canon?

Nope, I doubt anyone knows a thing about the D3x or whatever Nikon will call it. Nikon is having a very hard time keeping up with the D3 orders they have in. Most places still have it on back order, and if you shop at the same place your local newspaper shops at, then you might be on a long waiting list.

[YGoh]

Anybody know where can I get this lens, http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom200-400mmf_4g_if/index.htm?

[termina3]

Anybody know where can I get this lens, http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom200-400mmf_4g_if/index.htm?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300488-USA/Nikon_2146_200_400mm_f_4_G_AFS_ED_IF.html

still looks like it's backordered though… costs a pretty penny too

[Grimace]

Gosh I wish Canon would make that lens!

[YGoh]

Gosh I wish Canon would make that lens!Isn't this (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM) close enough?

[YGoh]

Gosh I wish Canon would make that lens!
It's time to make that switch to Nikon, it's not long before they have their >20megapixels version of full frame SLR. You don't have that much lens to make that switch, and they're all great lenses...I'm sure people will buy them.....

[termina3]

Isn't this (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM) close enough?

a) you say "this", but you forgot the link

b) there's a difference between 400mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. some would find it noticeable and annoying.

my suggestion is to get some 70-200L /2.8 and put a teleconverter on it… how much does the converter close it down?

[ChrisA]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9206-9252


Wow this sensor is finally about as good as film. The 6um pixels are almost a match for the best Nikon glass and 12 bits is abut the dynamic range of film.
But for all we complain about "noise" digital is cleaner than film. I've thought for a long time that a 24MP full frame would be as good as you need.

THere is likely some way to look at trends and figure out when this will be afordable to the masses. But I'm betting that Nkon will be able to ditch the DX format in 10 years. when sensors like this will go into $600 cameras

[Digital Skunk]

Wow this sensor is finally about as good as film. The 6um pixels are almost a match for the best Nikon glass and 12 bits is abut the dynamic range of film.
But for all we complain about "noise" digital is cleaner than film. I've thought for a long time that a 24MP full frame would be as good as you need.

Long time film advocate here, and i have to say that film is just about finished in the pro world unless you need to shoot medium format or larger and don't want to throw down $30,000 plus on a camera body. The D300's IQ and noise handling make it a very versatile camera. I don't believe the hype behind it as much since I have shot with it and have seen the IQ and noise handling above ISO 1600. I get about two stops (which is a lot) better exposure and much more natural looking grain than the D200 produces, and i can handle that so far.

And I hear that Thom Hogan says the D3 is about 1 stop or so better than the D300. Basically, wedding season is starting up and I may skip out on the D300 for the first few months and see how I feel about the IQ from my D200/D2hs and a borrowed D2xs then decide if the D300 is a get'em now body or a wait until the price comes down/wait for D400 model.

If I had the cash for a D3, i'd be in my bag yesterday though, that body seals the deal for film.

[YGoh]

........there's a difference between 400mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6. some would find it noticeable and annoying........Yes.....you're correct, but it's the closest thing.....

[compuwar]

Isn't this (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM) close enough?

1. They're nowhere near the same class of lens (despite the 'L' moniker.)
2. You need twice as much light at f/5.6

[YGoh]

1. They're nowhere near the same class of lens (despite the 'L' moniker.)
2. You need twice as much light at f/5.6I understand that f/5.6 and f/4 is really different, but they're nowhere near the same of class lens?? How do you mean?

[compuwar]

I understand that f/5.6 and f/4 is really different, but they're nowhere near the same of class lens?? How do you mean?

The 100-400IS is a great lens for the price, but it's basically a prosumer zoom. The Nikon equivalent would be the 80-400VR[1]. The 200-400VR is a professional lens, the reason it costs 4x what the Canon 100-400 does and is selling like hot cakes is in the IQ difference.

Comparing the 400/5.6 to the 100-400 shows the IQ differences between two Canon lenses:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

Expect roughly the same level of difference.

[1] The 80-400VR isn't my poster child for IQ though, I'd expect the 100-400 to outperform it.

[YGoh]

The 100-400IS is a great lens for the price, but it's basically a prosumer zoom. The Nikon equivalent would be the 80-400VR[1]. The 200-400VR is a professional lens, the reason it costs 4x what the Canon 100-400 does and is selling like hot cakes is in the IQ difference.

Comparing the 400/5.6 to the 100-400 shows the IQ differences between two Canon lenses:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

Expect roughly the same level of difference.

[1] The 80-400VR isn't my poster child for IQ though, I'd expect the 100-400 to outperform it.Thanks for the info......

1.) What other Nikkor Lenses that's build the same quality as the 200mm-400mm?

[compuwar]

Thanks for the info......

1.) What other Nikkor Lenses that's build the same quality as the 200mm-400mm?

Probably the old 80-200 two ring zoom is the closest analog in terms of build and IQ. The 200-400 is unique though, it's close enough to a top-of-the-line telephoto lens, but rather small, cheap and slow[1] compared to the top-tier telephoto lenses (200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4.) Build quality is as good as any other professional Nikkor telephoto lens. Image quality is good to very good throughout the zoom range, and it's only outperformed by the appropriate prime lenses (the 300mm and 400mm primes are two of the sharpest Nikkors.) With the D3, the slow speed becomes less of an issue, and the primes only really have the advantage in DoF terms and obviously when it's really dark.

Lots of people have the 200-400 as their only "expensive" telephoto and are getting great results. The extra stop from the 400 prime and two stops from the 200 prime are important to some shooters and not others. I predict we're going to start seeing some really amazing pre-dawn wildlife shots as the D3s get more widely dispersed. But for folks who can't haul a 400/2.8 out into the field, the 200-400 is a miracle, and it's probably more optimum for birds-in-flight shots than the primes.

[1] My primary nature lens is a 400/2.8, pretty-much anything is small, light and cheap in comparison except the 600/4 (even the 500/4 is lighter and cheaper.)