Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon's Turn with the D300 and D3
- Thread starter ksz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
compuwar
macrumors 601
"Switching?" Don't tell my D2x that- it's firmly convinced that it has a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors actually generally produce less noise, but require more voltage and generate more heat. LBCAST and LBCAST II weren't either, but had more of the properties of CMOS than CCD.
You may want to read http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
After you read that, you may want to contemplate why NASA generally chooses CCDs for critical imaging applications and CMOS for low-power applications.
http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/Sensors_page/DD/HST&GLL_CCD.html
http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/Sensors_page/MicroInst/APS/CmosAPS.html
The truth is that it's not all about quality and building good CCDs is expensive, the applications are difficult to cool and the power drain is much higher.
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
Brilliantly said. Nikon did a good job at producing an FX 12MP camera. I bet some would have wanted 14 or 20, but 12MP FX at 9fps is really breakthrough. Of all the FX cameras to date only the 1Ds has gotten to 5fps and with a price tag of $8000. Those that think having more MP on that sensor are just gripping. I would hate to see how a 16MP camera shoots at ISO 25600, (very interested in seeing how this Nikon does too) I would also want more DR than more resolution... and since Nikon was 4 years with the 4.1MP D2h/s then it logically goes to prove that the D3 is an entirely new type of camera, but it replaces the aging and very reliable D2h/s. Will Nikon split the line like they did with the D1? No one knows, but we will find out in a year or two.
You think correct.
I also read in my early days of digital that Nikon and Sony were dabbling in CMOS in the beginning, but since Sony practically revolutionized the CCD with camcorders and other digital machinery they decided to go with that. CMOS at the time was noisier than CCD but the only reason Canon was interested in it was for its low power draw (D1 series battery life sucked) and it's cheap construction. The LBCAST was a Nikon only (no Sony needed) sensor that combined the attributes of a CMOS with a CCD, which gave the D2h the image quality of CMOS with the faster speeds of a CCD.
I don't really care which one is used, I just hope Nikon doesn't start charging $8000 for anything in their lineup. I like the cap of $5500 for a Nikon camera, but maybe the D3x or equivalent will get up there in price.
Yes. The 5D is two years old hence the price difference. Wait for the 6D which will most likely be $3300. And for what the cameras can do I am sure the $1700 price difference will push some people over.
If you can get your hands on close to $3000 for a camera body only that does 3FPS then I think raising the $2000 needed for the glass won't be a problem. College students shouldn't be buying a 5D with an 18-55 unless they just have money to burn, and if you are struggling to get the initial $3000 for the 5D, that person should consider the 40D.
We all have to be careful to assume that one poster is suggesting people think a certain way, then post comments about how you think they are thinking, and how other people think.
Nor would I expect someone to just lay down $3000 for a camera body, then have problems raising $2000 more.
Canon's AF and Live-view has been tested with rave reviews. I hope that Nikon's completely redone from the ground up AF system is just as good or better than Canon's. Now that the hype has died down... I might have to go back to sitting on the fence until initial testing is done on the D3 and D300.
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
Really? The 1Ds MkIII and 40D haven't been tested yet, and the 1D MkIII has horrible AF. 😕
Not sure about your comment regarding Live View, but I doubt very much that the LCD included with even the top end 1Ds MkIII is good enough to use if you want accuracy. You sure aren't going to be able to manually focus on that screen, which is what Nikon seems to understand. They didn't just include a better LCD for the sake of doing so. They did it so that Live View serves a purpose, and if you want to manually adjust focus in Live View mode, then you should be able to in an accurate way. Otherwise, it's a feature only consumers would use, as they're used to having Live View on their p&s.
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
Oh.. I agree my friend. They gave the systems on the Mark III rave reviews... I never said I agreed with them though. I honestly think that the AF on the Mark III wasn't worked through all the way before they unleashed it. And Live View on an DSLR (originally mastered by Olympus as well as dust removal) wasn't really understood by Canon engineers.
All's fair in the next comment... I don't want to start a B*tch-fest.
I don't know for sure if Canon fully understood the needs of the market when they put Live View in their Mark IIIs. The fact that it can't autofocus when used makes it useless for PJs and serves some small function for studio shooters. The Wireless transmitter is amazingly small and powerful for what it can do, but it isn't very useful outside of the original one that Canon made.
Nikon seemed to have been waiting just a bit longer than PMA to see what Canon had to offer. Then they picked through the gimmicky stuff on the Mark III and thought "How can we make this useful for shooters" and made them work. Live View autofocuses while in use, and the WiFi transmitter allows a photo runner (or digital equivalent) to download images from the shooters camera while in the field. The photog doesn't even have to come back to her/his laptop while shooting, the runner can edit the images and upload the best shots so far when on deadline.
On a scale of 1-10 I give the Mark III and all of its features sans the AF issues that will get resolved a "7" It was an expected update with an improvement on the outstanding image quality of the Canon lineup but it wasn't revolutionary or breakthrough or innovative. None of them were going to change the way people took photos, or how pros got their jobs done. No one will use Live View in the field I expect and the transmitter will be used as it once was.
The D3 has caught up to the Mark III and has only surpassed it in my book because Nikon turns the gimmicky features into something that shooters will use. Nikon finally gives us dual card slots although I kinda wanted SD, since my MBP can't keep CF inside the Express Card slot, but I can get an adaptor for that, and I am nit picking. The things Canon is allowed to get away with is sometimes funny, but as a Mac Fanatic I understand.
All Nikon has to do now to reclaim the pro market it once had in 2000 is make an FX D300 and D3X, and fill in the spotty lens lineup (add VR too).
*****
I have to disagree. IMO, the D300 is *almost* eye to eye with the 1dmkIII....yet the D300 costs $1800.!!!! Ok...the 1dmkIII has a little better body build quality...and 10fps vs 8. Is that worth $2700 to you?
Btw, to other posters, I also don't agree with saying the 1dmkIII can't focus....yes, it has some issues in some circumstances, but.....let's not get carried away.
The 1ds mkIII *is* king....at least for now. "Those in the know" have made it pretty clear Nikon is releasing it's competitor to the 1dsmkIII the middle of next year. I never intend to spend $8000 for a body...Nikon or Canon...pretty small market.
miloblithe
macrumors 68020
All products experience diminishing returns as they get more expensive. This is why they are usually not worth it to most people, but easily worth it to some.
In my circumstances, for instance, I doubt I would consider the $500 premium for the D300 over the 40D worth it, especially as Nikon glass is almost always more expensive than Canon glass for similarly spec'ed lenses:
85mm f/1.8 (Nikon $390 Canon $340)
35mm f/2.0 ($320, $230)
20mm f/1.8 ($490, $420)
135mm f/2.0 ($1080, $900)
300mm f/2.8 VR/IS ($4500, $3900)
24-70 f/2.8 ($~1700, $1140)
17-35 f/2.8 / 16-35 f/2.8 ($1500, $1370)
12-24 f/4 / 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 ($910, $690)
You do save with Nikon on the 70-200 range though, although Canon has more offerings.
Not to mention the 5D which I find very hard to justify over a 40D which is faster, of the same built quality and a lot, lot, lot cheaper. Not to mention the comparison with the D300/D200. The 5D doesn't even have environmental seals (which the 40D, D200 and D300 have)!
I also think that the pricing/feature strategy corresponds to the traditional `zig-zag': 400D < D80 < 40D < D300 < 5 D < D3 < 1D Mark III < 1 Ds Mark III.
I usually tend to think that third-party glass has better value than original manufacturer glass.
Have to agree with miloblithe and OreoCookie if the above prices are really correct. The superlative Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR sells for less than the newly introduced wideangle lenses sans VR. My enthusiasm for them will quickly evaporate if these prices turn out to be true. (Don't know whether street prices will be less.)
Mike Teezie
macrumors 68020
The 5D has a magnesium body, and a stainless steel frame. Hardly anything to worry about.
The new Nikons are excellent enough in their own right - you don't have to resort to this kind of tripe.
If I was a Nikon shooter the only thing I would be disappointed about is Nikon's lack of fast primes. Canon still has the upper hand here. Hopefully they will release some if/when they release the D3x.
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
The Mark III's AF problems stem from its inability to focus in high contrast, bright and sunny days. Where AF should shine on any type of camera. Read Rob Galbraith's review for more info and a pro Canon shooter's opinion.
As for the Mark III being on top, that is far from the truth. If the IQ of the D3 proves itself worthy, and matches or supercedes the Mark III, then the D3 will have it beat in all arena's sans frame rate. The Mark III would have 10fps, while the D3 has 9, and I would spend the extra $500 for an FX camera that did 9fps rather than have a 1.3x crop, 10mp, and 10fps. That's just the truth.
p.s. The D300 going up against the Mark III is like the D200 going against the 5D. It works... but I know Nikon never intended to go toe to toe with Canon, and they did a great job cutting them off at the knees, and offering users better features at lower prices, with the loss of IQ.
I agree with you, but there are just those photogs that need that superior IQ once they get over ISO640. As for the D3 being under the 1D Mark III --> it ain't happening. I know that no matter which high end system I put my money with, the D3 is hands over foot better and a bit more practical than the Mark III. Right now, the only thing holding the body up is its proven IQ. Once we see samples from the D3 at ISO 800 --> 25600 we can judge which camera may be worth the $5000 these companies are asking for.
As many other photogs say, it depends on what you need. There are plenty who spent $1500 more on the 5D rather than pick up the D200, for only the IQ, which is only worlds better than the D200 above ISO 640. To some that is worth it, to some it isn't. After going to spend $3900 on a lens, $600 shouldn't be a problem, if it is, then that photog has to work out their budgeting problems.
And Canon's glass may be cheaper, but their bodies are a tad expensive, and don't offer as much as the rest of the market in some minor instances. The Pentax K10D offered similar specs as the 30D sans the frame rate. IQ was on par up to ISO640, and the K10D offered a much more advanced battery grip and better weather sealed body.
You give and take no matter which system you go with.
I just pulled the trigger on a Sigma 10-20mm. Then I hear of Nikon releasing a new wide lens but I find it's price beyond what I can afford now anyways so whew.
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
Sorry... I guess I did misread the post. The 1Ds is on top in terms of resolution. But as many of those high end bodies go (like the long forgotten Kodak DSC 14n back in the day) they are just too expensive to justify the purchase unless you were considering medium format. I would like to see if the IQ from that body is all that different from the IQ of the 1Ds Mark II.
I got to use that Sigma 10-20 once and I thought I could see the back of my head. that lens is a beauty to use. Congrats on the new glass.
freebooter
macrumors 65816
These new Nikons look great. I'd have bought the D300 yesterday had it been in the shops.
But I can't wait until November--or December, perhaps, here in Korea, notoriously slow to get new stuff at times--for an untested, rev.a camera to become readily available. By Nov/Dec fall will be over and summer a distant memory. Winter here is not very photogenic for my nature subjects.
So, once I saw the release date for the new models, I decided...D80! I bought one yesterday for $1000 less than a new D300 will cost. (nothing to sneeze at) I'll use it as camera #1 until the D300 is tested and any problems discovered by the early adopters. (remember D200 banding problem and the Canon D1 Mk III focus debacle)
If it turns out to be the wonder camera it appears to be, I may get one in, say, January, February or March.
Too bad all the new lenses are in the pro (i.e. expensive) category. Those two new zooms appear to be in the $2,500 (each) range from one post @ dpreview I saw. Makes sense, however, given the nature of the D3 full frame sensor.
I was hoping (with little expectation) to see an updated macro, like a new version of the well-regarded but discontinued micro 70-180mm or 200mm.
Oh, and I should add that here in Korea, Nikon and Canon lenses are very close in price. I just checked and, in the wide to "normal" tele lenses, Canon is actually a bit more expensive, especially if I add in the cost of a hood ($25-40 extra for a piece of molded plastic!!!). I think in the really high-end tele primes Nikon is more expensive, though, at least at the moment.
But I can't wait until November--or December, perhaps, here in Korea, notoriously slow to get new stuff at times--for an untested, rev.a camera to become readily available. By Nov/Dec fall will be over and summer a distant memory. Winter here is not very photogenic for my nature subjects.
So, once I saw the release date for the new models, I decided...D80! I bought one yesterday for $1000 less than a new D300 will cost. (nothing to sneeze at) I'll use it as camera #1 until the D300 is tested and any problems discovered by the early adopters. (remember D200 banding problem and the Canon D1 Mk III focus debacle)
If it turns out to be the wonder camera it appears to be, I may get one in, say, January, February or March.
Too bad all the new lenses are in the pro (i.e. expensive) category. Those two new zooms appear to be in the $2,500 (each) range from one post @ dpreview I saw. Makes sense, however, given the nature of the D3 full frame sensor.
I was hoping (with little expectation) to see an updated macro, like a new version of the well-regarded but discontinued micro 70-180mm or 200mm.
Oh, and I should add that here in Korea, Nikon and Canon lenses are very close in price. I just checked and, in the wide to "normal" tele lenses, Canon is actually a bit more expensive, especially if I add in the cost of a hood ($25-40 extra for a piece of molded plastic!!!). I think in the really high-end tele primes Nikon is more expensive, though, at least at the moment.
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
But why plan on selling your D80, especially when it may do everything you need, and more? I can understand going from your D40 to the D80 or D200, but why go from the D80 to D300 if you were shooting quite happily with a Sony DSC-R1 several months ago?? There's probably going to be a D80s or something within the next 12 months, and it'll likely have the D300's sensor, but maybe a newer version.
What you're doing with the D40 is just great and proves that the camera is subordinate to the skill of its user. Now if Winter in S. Korea is not a particularly photogenic time of year, I'm a bit confused by your decision to buy a D80. The D40 requires lenses with their own motors, so perhaps this was the motivation for upgrading? The D200 had banding issues and it's probably wise to wait until the dust settles from what will likely be a D300 stampede, but the wait should not be too long. Bugs and problems with the D300 will be discovered quickly and one could skip the D80 in the process.
freebooter
macrumors 65816
Actually, I don't know if I will sell the D80 if/when I buy a D300. I need a relatively small camera for my runs up the mountain. What I like about the D300 class, however, is the weather resistant body and the new sensor, which seems to promise much better grain and I hope better color.
I bought a D80 because I wanted more pixels to crop, and a few features like the extra flash flexibility, better focusing, bracketing, and others.
As to the Sony R1... I still like it more than the Nikons. The lens, the body, the controls, the lcd and especially the color--wow! I just don't take many pictures in that focal range at the moment. I don't plan on selling it. When I go travelling this fall it will probably be the camera I take. If only it focused closer...
In Korea, summer goes until October and fall until mid-December. (Actually, speaking as a Canadian, my part of Korea has real winter only sporadically, maybe two weeks total at most) So, I've got 3 or 4 months of summer/ fall colors ahead. That's a lot of pictures. I'm ready to learn to use flash more, and the D80 has the full gamut of options available. Once I learn more about that, maybe I'll be ready for the D300. Lens motor issues are a non-sequiter in my opinion.
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
I agree. The only real thing holding myself back from desiring full frame was the performance set backs. There wasn't a full frame DSLR that did over 5fps and that would have been agonizing to some.
Now that we can do 9fps at full frame 12MP it will be just like shooting with an F5 all over again... sans the weight and terrible battery life. I might pick up an F6 just to relive the glory days of TMAX and TRI-X.
Thanks. I am excited. Now I just need to get my old 200mm modded so it will fit on my D70s.
Well I mainly do sports, but right now I work with a d70–3fps. I'm wondering how much the D200 will drop, and if it goes under $1000 I think I'll have to bite, rather than going with the D300 (or the dreamy d3)
is ken rockwell legit when he says that there's a ceiling with mega pixels on a small-format? Since I don't do much wide-angle work I actually appreciate the extra telephoto I get out of DX sensors on a regular lens (70-200 suddenly =s 105-300). Does anyone know if you'll be able to manually force the d3 to go to dx mode?