Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Hmac, Apr 18, 2008.
Phil seems to like it pretty well.
Everybody knows it's the best DSLR since a long time. Too late for it to be useful.
Good news for all of us with dreams of one day owning such a beasty camera system! lol
Nice to see the reviews live up to the hype
good enough camera. not worth switching platforms over. nikon already missed the boat to keep me as a customer. switched to canon 3.5 years ago.
Nobody gives a hoot my friend. Canon missed the boat for me over 5 years ago and you don't see me whining!
Seriously though you'd be an idiot to switch system back and forth, just stick with one system and be happy.
Glad I stuck with Nikon though.
I've never understood why people switch back and forth
is that one feature sufficient to take a multi-thousand $ hit? All the while planning to take another hit when you switch again in a few years?
I guess eventually you'd just have 2 redundant systems, you'd only be skipping generations (as far as the bodies go) on each side.
Exactly. Anyone who needed a D3 would have got it by now. If you honestly needed to see the noise graphs before buying the camera, you're probably not a real photographer anyway. Just looking at the plethora of photos before and after the D3 release, and hearing all the stories about its AF abilities, and you'd already know if it was good enough. Only gear-heads were waiting for the numbers....and official bragging rights.
Besides, what did the review tell us? That it's the best camera around unless you need more megapixels. That's it. Of course, we already knew it didn't have 21 MP, so.....
Honestly, Abstracts statement below says it pretty much. A lot of the photogs I know could care less about switching systems based on features. They aren't gear heads by far, and a lot of them know how to use the camera to the fullest, but anything after that is fair game. They don't get into the technical terms that make some people's heads big.
One colleauge won a few east coast journalism awards, and she barely knows how to reset her Mac workstation, but she can shot circles around a lot of the photogs in my area hands down.
Personally, I get good IQ out of my D2hs at ISO1600 any day of the week and in some tricky lighting situations. Mainly because i don't have the guts to throw down $5000 on a D3 just yet (just updated the old work horse MBP as well, that was a hit in the wallet) so I have to make do with what I have, and learn the bodies limitations and compensate.
I am not going to jump ship because I don't know how to use the system correctly, or some flashy (useless in most conditions) feature has me drooling.
I agree as well, and for all intents and purposes the reviewers of the body did their jobs fairly well before the body hit the market. I guess they are just posting their official reviews now, but there isn't anything new or just discovered. My test of the D3 was finding one, putting my card in it, and shooting it at all ISOs at the worst possible settings and no flash.
The IQ was impeccable.
I couldn't agree more. I think this is the part where I start to stand on my soapbox and laugh that people actually do believe there is that one feature that will get them that shot. Those people have day jobs by the way working for a company that probably doesn't have anything to do with photography. Just saying....
Or they know they need/want it and knew before some review hit. But the review is nice to see.
Many aren't. I do know when the D2 came out there were quite a few people who bought it to take pictures of their kids.
I have a theory about people who have to inventory their gear for others to see......
Most people don't switch back and forth; but some people have lots of money and simply must have the latest and greatest. I doubt you'll hear much complaining from the people that were able to buy those folks' one-generation-back gear for much less than the new price.
I agree with most of you - it certainly seems silly to me. But in the end it is their money. I'd love to have that sort of cash on hand, myself.
that's why I'm not complaining (I have yet to benefit, but someday I will), but I AM confused.
Most, Phil Askey included, seem to feel that the D3 is the new D2H. I loved my D2H - it's given me a lot of good shots under difficult circumstances and been totally reliable and a very, very fast camera. I was surprised, however, at what a remarkable advance the D3 is by comparison.
My only disappointment with it is that my 70-200VR has some vignetting at minimum focal length. I also had an old 24-120VR sitting around that I didn't use much because it tended to be soft on my S2Pro and the D2H. That lens is razor sharp on my D3, but it vignettes even worse. That problem can be addressed to some degree with the new D3 firmware or in Capture NX, but it's far from a perfect solution.
20+ megapixels isn't for me, but I will be curious to see how the D3X turns out. The Canon forums at DPR are already outraged at the D3 and the review there.
Sometimes there is an external event (like a need to upgrade equipment to do a major job, or when one's equipment is stolen) that puts one in a neutral position, where you get to choose a platform for the future.
I was in that position in 1999 - I opted for Canon to get my hands on their IS line of L-series lenses. Best choice I ever made, for my particular style of shooting. I was lucky enough that Canon also led the charge into cheaper DSLR models in 2000.
Bought my first D30 in December 2000 for $4000, and that was the best money I ever spent. We all need to remember that in early 2000 you'd pay almost $15,000 for a Kodak DSLR with Nikon or Canon mounts. Wow, times have changed...
Luckily for Nikons users and competition in general, their VR lenses finally came out (how long after Canon's IS line was it?) and Nikon is now on top form with their DSLR's.
Some Nikon user scanning the code for that camera's new firmware update 1.1 found reference to a "Nikon D3X" with resolution of 6048 x 4032 (24.4 megapixels) likely a version of the sensor being used in the Sony A900. The speculation, in fact the assumption, now seems to be that a high-resolution version of the D3, the mythical D3X, is imminent. Thom Hogan speculates that that camera is already "in the wild" being tested. It kind of explains the assumption by a lot of reviewers that the D3 is actually the D3H - a fast-action sports camera meant to be the companion to the higher resolution D3X studio/landscape camera in the same body.
Anyway, I would guess that if and when the D3X is released, there looks like there's going to be a lot of upgrading users, and therefore maybe some pretty good deals on used D3's in the not-too-distant future.
While most people switching back and forth simply can't expose properly with any camera (trust me, seen the results on DPR hundreds of times,) some folks actually need a capability.
For the D3, the extra couple of stops, speed and dual slots can make the difference. If you're doing commercial work, the camera body cost is just a business expense that can be ROI'd in almost no time- so losing $2-3k switching really isn't a big deal if you'll be more competitive for 2-3 months even. More than likely though, you'll shoot the new body for a year or two. Let's say you spend $2k on lenses and $4.5k on the body, that's 6.5k, and let's say you lose 1.5k on selling your old system. That means you're out 8k- if you're doing one shoot a week each month for a year, that's $166/month of expense, so if you can get an extra $160/shoot the camera is going to pay for itself in that year- if your old body also paid for itself, then you're not really losing the switch money per se, you're just decreasing your profitability- in which case you're looking at $135/month for a 12-month ROI, and less than $75/month for a 24-month ROI.
In reality, you could pick up the delta in 2-4 jobs in some markets for some types of photography. Obviously, it changes your bottom-line profitability, so there's more to it than just the capital ROI calculation. However, if the one difference gets you an extra 4 assignments a year, it's probably going to be worth it. If it increases referrals, gives you more headroom for marginal circumstances, etc. then it may be worth it anyway.
Emotional brand attachment isn't good in a professional environment- it's a tool, and you use the right tool for the job, balanced with your needs and profits. If you're only going to do 2 brake jobs a year, you borrow a brake spring clip tool, or you work with a screwdriver. If you're going to do two a week, the tool's probably worth having, at two a day, you just get one.
I just want to add that the reason I didn't care about waiting for a Nikon D300 review before buying a D300 is because I saw enough pre-release photos to love the camera before I bought it. Also, I'm a Nikon user, so who cares what cameras Canon has in their line-up. As far as I can see, I only had the option of the D80, or the D300. I read the review for the Canon 40D long before, and thought it sounded like a great camera The D300's specs were better, but the price of the 40D was far better as well. Did it matter? Not really. I just read the review for fun. In reality, I only ever compared the specs of the D80 to the D300 when it was time for me to make a purchasing decision. Either get the D80, D300, or be an idiot and switch brands to save $300-400 on a 40D. I'm not an idiot, so I bought what was available for me.
When I look at computers, I do the same things. I don't go through every single laptop review, compare specs between different brands, and then buy a MacBook. As an Apple user who has no intention of switching away from OS X, it didn't even cross my mind to look at the specs of an HP or Sony laptop. For me, it was either a MacBook or MBP, the only 2 choices I had at the time.
Nice summary. The switchers that get "hurt" in the trade-ups are the amateurs that have no ROI. Instead, they have discretionary income to spend on their hobby, either because they love the photography, love the technology, or both. Those amateurs also tend to be the most shrilly brand-loyal.
Phil is Nikon biased honestly thats pretty much why I've stopped going to dpreview.com for any decent camera related news. I might check out the forums once in awhile but its pretty evident by the Canon 1D(s) Mk III's being out that he hasn't posted any review whatsoever and the latest I see are lower end Canon lens reviews.
I still find it funny that NOW Nikons finally caught up to Canon in terms of ISO performance when for years and years Canon beat Nikon and for Nikon to finally release a FF camera thats just funny. Megapixels arent everything but for Canon to be holding its own with a higher resolution sensor (ala 1Ds Mark III) is pretty impressive.
No question...Canon used to be the high-ISO leader. Likewise, no question the 1Ds MkIII is an impressive camera for its purpose.
Its an interesting discussion, I'll add my 2 pence
Do you think amateurs are able to stay truer to the 'art' of photography, because they are not limited to the professional constraints of fulfilling a brief? Do you think pros have their creative vision undermined because of market trends dictating what images 'should' look like?
I also feel many amateurs make better images than pros, purely because they have a greater will to create images, as doing can be seen as a welcome diversion from the 'day job'?
The latter statement is true ("for years Canon beat Nikon"); the former ("Nikon has finally caught up to Canon") is not. Even most Canon fans admit that Nikon just blew by them in terms of high-ISO noise performance (technically, we should probably say that Sony just blew by Canon, since they make the sensor). It's not just a matter of "catching up".
I fully expect that Canon won't sit still on this, and we'll all benefit from the competition.
Nah. I suspect that, on average, a professional photographer would have a better chance of bringing out a stunning image than an amateur based solely on their greater experience in working with light and composition. I say "on average"... I've seen some beautiful work by amateurs, and some not-so-great stuff from professionals.
I'd say that some amateurs take better images than some pros.
I'm guessing sour grapes. For years, back when Canon was outperforming Nikon in their upper level dSLRs, Nikon users "honestly" were certain that Phil was biased toward Canon.
If you go back a few years in his profile, you'll see that most of his general posts were in the Canon forums. He rarely or never participated in the Nikon forums at DPR. Mostly still doesn't. I don't know what kind of camera he uses these days, but he was a Canon user.
This is a misguided statement for sure. When you look at the IQ on both systems Canon only had the lead with the 1D Mark II. The D2h creamed the 1D in IQ, even at ISOs higher than 800.
Canon gained the lead in IQ with the 8.2 MP 1D Mark II which had the lead for 3 years max, mainly because Nikon was producing the D3 and the systems that would work in that body. The 1Ds wasn't as great a body as many want you to believe. Most Canon users grab that body because of the sensor alone, the rest of the tech inside of it is pretty standard. Even the 5D and the 1D Mark II had better features.
IQ notwithstanding, the 1Ds wasn't a very smart buy.... unless you needed that much resolution. It wasn't until now with the 1Ds Mark III that Canon brought the tech from their 1D to the 1Ds, making it an actual performer.
Canon was and still is to some degree lagging behind in battery tech, flash tech, wireless tech, and ergonomics. Not that this makes the company any less by any means. Just that there is a misconception amongst novice tech heads that Canon had the lead in IQ for many years, when it was only 3 and it was mainly due to Nikon putting all of their efforts into doing something Canon had been doing for years, making their own sensors, and putting useful features into a pro journalist body that would and did blow away the competitions.
When you take a good look at it, and study the bodies, Nikon surpassed Canon with the D1, D1x, D1h; lost the lead with the D2h, then got it back with the D3.... simply leapfrogging every system.
p.s. So this thread doesn't turn into a Canon vs. Nikon thread remember that Canon still leads in AF lenses and long teles. Nikon's new glass is perfect for the FX sensor, but even they don't have VR which is a Nikon strong point. Wide angles from Canon are rated better as well as their primes.
There really isn't much domination going on in the market, just user opinions and misconceptions that lead other users to sway one way or another.
1. There is to date no definitive statement from either Nikon or Sony that Sony fabricates the sensor for the D3. We do know that Nikon doesn't fab their own sensors, but there has been at least some speculation that the D3 sensor isn't fabbed by Sony.
2. Even if Sony did fab the sensor, it's more likely than not that it's a Nikon-designed sensor rather than a Sony-designed sensor.