Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nikon D3x Possibly Soon

YGoh said:
Thank you for your info........

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

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.

termina3 said:
I'd support my local camera shop, except they're too cocky, condescending, and in retrospect they 'gamed' me once.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Digital Skunk said:
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.
Click to expand...
- 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?

Digital Skunk said:
...........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.
Click to expand...
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.....
 
YGoh said:
- 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.....
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • _DSC7815.jpg
    _DSC7815.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 109
Lens Mount

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?
 
Sensor Cleaning

Have you heard anything about the new D4 or D3x will have the sensor cleaning, like Canon?
 
YGoh said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

YGoh said:
Have you heard anything about the new D4 or D3x will have the sensor cleaning, like Canon?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grimace said:
Gosh I wish Canon would make that lens!
Click to expand...
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.....
 
YGoh said:
Isn't this (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM) close enough?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Digital Skunk said:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9206-9252
Click to expand...

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
 
ChrisA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
compuwar said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
YGoh said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
compuwar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info......

1.) What other Nikkor Lenses that's build the same quality as the 200mm-400mm?
 
YGoh said:
Thanks for the info......

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

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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back