>Forgive me if I seem underwhelmed....I don't see what the >big deal is...and the D300 has .2 more megapixels than the >D3....the jury is way out IMHO.
I looked at the specs and 9fps at full frame and 11fps at 5.1MP plus the 25,000ISO is just incredible! The faster startup and the very, very fast shutter response is just fantastic. If you're not into sports or anything that needs an ultra fast response then the D300 is the camera for you.
Nathan, I guess I was hoping for higher megapixels....I know it's not crucial...but it would have been nice....to be fair, I'll just have to read the literature and check it out....but it was kind of a let down....I just may have to come back and eat a huge piece of humble pie...LOL....no worries....I love pie...:OD
Rather strange that the D2x becomes the D3. I wouldn't be at all suprised to see a D3x with 16-20 mp in the not too distant future. For sure this is aimed at the 1D III market.
I'll be getting a D3 for sure. I love the D2x but would like a better and more flexible AF and if the High ISO is better it will be great for avaiable light photography - particularly weddings. It will be great to fet a 'true 85mm and 105mm from my f1.4 and f2 DC lenses respectively. The x1.5 DX causes me some hassle for sure!
Also the twin CF slots is a brilliant idea.
Can't personally see me wanting much more mp than this for 95% of my work.
I am sorry but the FF sensor is a very big deal to me. It means my 17-35mm on the D3 body will give me the true 17-35mm wide angle view... just like my old dependable F5. That is the biggest plus if you ask me. Thanks Nikon! You can finally compete with Cannon.
I for one are glad that I have not invested in any of the DX lenses.
Now if I hurry up and pay off my Toyota and the roof repair loans AND convince my wife then maybe I can get one (I'll probably have to sell my other four Nikons and the Bronica as a good faith gesture!). I sure would like a D3 (or TWO)!
"Great things are not done by impulse but by a series of small things brought together." Vincent Van Gogh
After some reading it seems the D3 is smart enough to sense a DX lens and it crops to 5.1 megapixels and the viewfinder blacks out the area not in the picture. Thats pretty darn smart if you ask me.
Folks to me this is the super D2H/D2X in one body Nikon may have hit a homerun. I applaud their own path not to get sucked up in the megapixle race I bet the high ISO noise is incredible plus at the same price as a D2X new way to go Nikon. But all that said I am more of a D300 guy and I have plans for my tax 2007 refund already!!
This is actually a really clever way of going about the DX/full-frame(FX) problem.
From what I read on several credible sites, you can voluntarily enable DX mode. This means that you get 5.1 megapixel NEFs or JPEGs with a 1.5 crop factor on a sensor that has almost the pixel-pitch of a D2Hs. This means low storage requirements, fast processing times, good high ISO (3200 onwards) performance and over all better speed from the camera (even without using the slightly crippled 10/11Fps modes), all the while retaining the possibility to go full frame with the same good high ISO noise characteristics and all the benefits of large/higher resolution FX NEFs. This is like having a Canon 5D, a D2Xs and a D2Hs all rolled into one. I thing we couldn't have asked for a better present from Nikon.
If it delivers just 80% on all of the announced specs, then this is a really truly versatile camera, suited to all fields of mainstream photography (Landscapes, portraits, sport, studio, wild-life).
This shows that Nikon really put a lot of thinking into how people want to use this camera and how it could satisfy all of the pro-market without making crippling compromises (hell, even making compromises at all where it counts).
If it can be operated with one hand, I'm selling my left arm and preordering one. (maybe I'll throw in a kidney and get a 24-70mm too)
At first look, it sounds great! the only immediate issue I might have is 200 starting ISO. This is an issue with my current D2H when shooting in full sun. But potentially, I think that the trade off for high ISO shooting might be well worth it.
Reading more, extended ISO down to 100. ;-} Selectable bit depth, great. With the amount of options (flavors of NEF) will Adobe ever be able to figure out how to decode a NEF for ACR without Nikon's help? But I am all for more information. I just want the ability to use 3rd party RAW converters....
The new WT-4 sound interesting. The ability to use it with a Ethernet cable sounds good for setting up your FTP server without having to worry about wireless connection headaches simultaneously.
One of my favorite features is dual CF cards, with the note that both are CF. Now I can simply buy huge CF cards and set to back up each image. No more worries about putting all of your eggs in one basket vs changing cards often. And I can still use the plethora of cards that I already own without having to purchase another card format for backups. I see 16GB cards becoming very popular now...
in regards to ISO 200...the quality is getting so good that it doesn't matter...200 is just as good as 100 (but yes...if ur in bright sunlight..that could be an issue...)
BUT the bigger issue is that you feel the need for third party raw converters..
realize that Nikon has given you the power that Medium format Digital back companys have giving you... Nikon/MF Software (Capture NX) allows you to change/add on to the NEF files Instruction set!!! (a raw/mosaic file consists of 3 things... RAW data+INstruction Set+Generated Preview) So basically if you went and shot 1000 photos using your Nikon camera and say you did a bunch of wonderful in camera adjustments and then you proceed to open your NEF files in Photoshop...Photoshops Camera Raw will tag your file with an XMP file which is an Instruction Set for an Encrypted Instruction set...its not as good.. What this means is Photoshops RAW Converter completely ignores your NEF files instruction set!!! Meaning that you just shot 1000 photos and all the custom settings have been ignored and you have to process 1000 photos OVER again!! that sucks
also i mentioned that you can Add on to the instruction set....after your done messing with exposure/sharping/color modes/WB (all of which u can change after the fact.. like you took the photo again!!!! you just change the Ins. Set) you can do some pretty wonderful things like U-Points, Levels, Curves, Sharping, BW Conversion, Blurring, etc etc etc...you can do a lot AND guess what? YOU CAN DO IT ALLLLL SELECTIVELY !! selective curves, selective sharping, selective Noise Reduction....selective whatever you want!!! its really really amazing AND the file size stays pretty much the same because your only missing with the files Instruction set...the raw data never changes !! this means that you can Just archive ONE file the NEF file and a year later..if your upset with the results or Nikon has a better program you can open that file up again and revert back to the original RAW data and start again!!!! NEVER having to miss with some ridiculous XMP file which isnt as good
You Need Capture NX its revolutionary ..Its EXACTLY like Leaf MF Digital backs Software!! MF backs ALSO allow for this wonderful capability with your mosaic files... and GUESS what ? If I went out and purchased a 20,000-30,000 dollar Digital Back I Would ALSO have to purchase their software!! 150 bucks for Capture NX is a steal.
I download the NX again. But other than "selective blurring", I can kind of do exactly the same things non-destructively in ACR. When was the last time that you used ACR? CS3 is amazing IMHO. The xmp file is just a sidecar with the "instructions". It does not modify the NEF file at all. So you can keep changing it non-destructively.
I do no "in-camera" adjustments ever. I shoot everything in RAW precisely just so that I do not need to worry about the in-cam processing set-up. I worry about that after the fact when I have time. So the fact that NX reads my in-cam settings is of absolutely no use to me. But all of those other things, curves, BW by color or channel, color mode, sharpening, masking, red-eye, spot healing, etc are all available non-destructively in ACR via the xmp sidecar. The only one that sounds unique is "blurring". I'll download the trail of NX if you download the trial of CS3 so that we can talk in further detail about the merits of each on the software forum.
The best color rendition is with NX....I use CS3 for all my editing AFTER my RAW conversion...it is an absolutely amazing tool. I use in camera settings for a few reasons...why do it ALL in post? I wanna do as LITTLE in post as possible. I want my images to be as close to finished as possible. This way the client or model (who will always ask to see something) will see 80% of the idea....Plus there are things NX does that I just CANNOT do in ACR...like color booster with the protect skin box checked...if you shoot people, and do this, you can get the most vibrant colors, but the skin tones look natural....I tried this in Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, and nothing comes close to NX no matter how hard I try.....
I use in camera settings for a few reasons...why do it ALL in post? I wanna do as LITTLE in post as possible. I want my images to be as close to finished as possible.
If you are talking about settings that you can set "in camera", certainly you can apply these same settings in post even easier in NX? I can update a thousand images in ACR for the generic settings in just a few seconds. This type of post production is not an issue for me.
This way the client or model (who will always ask to see something) will see 80% of the idea....
this makes sense for studio work. But I do mostly event work and my clients rarely have the time to look at the LCD with me during the event. But I do set up the camera to be "punchy" and "sharp" for some effect on the LCD. But the end image will look a lot different once I get through with it. I do a lot of custom coloring and effects in my work. This stuff cannot be done in camera.
Plus there are things NX does that I just CANNOT do >in ACR...like color booster with the protect skin box >checked...if you shoot people, and do this, you can get the >most vibrant colors, but the skin tones look natural....I >tried this in Lightroom, ACR, Aperture, and nothing comes >close to NX no matter how hard I try.....
Now this sounds like a great feature of NX and one worth exploring. I would agree that there is no way to do this in ACR. You can selectively apply sharping and detail so that it does not affect the skin, but not color. I purchased NX via upgrade from Capture. So all I have to do is learn how to use it... I am am able to get a D300 or D3, I will need NX anyway until ACR catches up.
WHY why why waste anymore time ...if you dont need to?
So say you shoot 1000 photos of a model...in Color Mode I (which is for natural tones...skin and what not).....and you do whatever else it is you do in camera....in you get pretty killer images... if you now take all 1000 NEF files to ACR it ignores all that!! and you have to re-proccess to what your camera already did...that's no good...it ignores my instruction set...and i have to do it all again? have a little faith in your D series camera...i mean it as to take at least one or two Amazing images with in camera adjustments applied ( i would much rather preserve that..)
Im just say'n... I would much rather edit maybe 100 images out of that 1000...than all 1000
especially if your shooting events ...its even more valuable to you
and...if i just spend the money to get a D2xs or even a D200...I would hope that it could produce killer files that dont need much work!!!
Also, here's a helpful pointer - your posts are rather difficult to read. Using sentences starting with a capital, ending with a single dot, and separated by spaces, would help us and probably get you more readers
what is useful to you is that with capture nx you can ADD ON to your NEF files instruction set as well! so u can apply things like...selective noise reduction, selective sharping, selective levels and curves...you basically can edit the hell out of the raw files instruction set (you just add on to it) SO when you save it out as a tiff or a jpeg...you will get waaay better results (also you must use "new steps" to take advantage of selective adjustments...and you must leave the adjustment palette open while using the selection tools..)
see a sidecar file(xmp file) is an instruction set for an Encrypted instruction set.... its ONLY non-destructive to a certain point... once you decide to save that NEF + xmp file to a tiff or a jpeg...it applies the xmp file to the data...therefor being destructive...
maybe I wasn't clear enough about the fact that your actually working with the ORIGINAL instruction set....not a xmp file which is trying to take its place...Because your NEF files Instruction set is encrypted.....Adobe cant access it...
and again..NX is the best possible way to convert your NEF file...ask around
I hate to say it, but I'm not real thrilled, and I've been waiting for this release with the intent of buying one. Now I have second thougths and am actually (I can't believe I'm saying this) going to check out Canon.
Why? Because I think it's neither a FF nor DX, strictly because of the MP count. As a FF, it's low on pixels, especially compared to Canon. And as a DX, it's way low on MP count - even lower than my old D70. As such I don't see it as a step forward to a state of the art FF, and it's a step backwards as a DX.
Now if the FF were 16-20MP, and in DX mode it was at least as good as the D200 (10MP) or preferably the D2X (12MP), then I'd be really excited. That would be a DX mode equal to a D2X (since I'm imaginging this, I'll imagin what I'd like most), plus a FF mode with super MP count. I do't knwo what the math is, but scaling a DX up to FF appears to be more than 2x the MP, so the FF mode would probably be around 24MP which I supose it too much to ask for just yet.
All the other features sound great. Mybe my view will change after I get over my initial dissappointment.
By the way I've been (am) a die-hard Nikon owner since 1981, have a significant investment in lenses including a 200-400F4 VR, etc. My point is that I'm not trolling.
I've already ordered mine today!! Was actually in the process to buy a second D2Xs along with the NEW VR 600 f4 and the 300 2.8 VR!!! I'm so glad I waited two weeks since we last had a chat!! At that time nobody could tell me if the 600 was comming out in VR!!
Now I will have ALL the latest models for my sports and wild life photography!
"With the Nikon D3, users can select one of the three image areas — FX format (36 x 24), DX format (24 x 16) or 5:4 (30 x 24). When a DX NIKKOR lens is attached, DX format is automatically selected. With DX format or 5:4 format, an area not covered by the sensor is automatically masked in the viewfinder. High-definition, 3-inch VGA, TFT LCD monitor with wide-viewing angle Ultrahigh-definition , 3-inch LCD monitor with tempered glass provides 170° viewing angle. Large monitor is quite effective when confirming focus with enlarged playback images. Wide-viewing angle enables easy recomposing of the frame in Handheld mode of Liveview. "
Note the 5:4 "traditional" aspect ratio mode. That should make wedding photographers happy when shooting for 8x10 or 16x20 prints!
Jason P. Odell Colorado Nikonian Author, The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX Now includes Supplement One
Well I'm sure there's a camera with more megapixels coming... But for me, this is THE camera... The dual CF cards alone is good reason... The AF system, if it works the way it shows on paper should be a gigantic improvement over the D200... same goes for the D300... The ability to use my beloved 85mm f/1.4D the way it should be used... same with the 17-35mm is also reason enough for me to go to the D3... Yes it's $5k but I have $3,500 in glass that'll work right on this camera without adding another piece of glass... Though that 14-35mm does look interesting, I'm underwhelmed by the 24-70mm... It should have had VR...
Anyway, I'm perfectly content with the D3 if it does everything it says it will--we'll see! I think they did everything right--especially by keeping the megapixel count down.
I'll tell you what else was a "WOW...." when I read the prices of the glass for those new NIKON LENSES.....that was a wow....I'm gonna be saving the shekels for real to invest in even one of those things. They must be some kinda glass!
why should it have VR when they have just completely gone worlds ahead with sensor noise (and yes we'll have to see the results! but) if this camera does as good as it sounds like its going to do on paper....you wont need VR just crank up the ISO ....
>Not QUITE full frame. > >Perhaps someone can explain why, after all these years, >Nikon comes out with an ALMOST full-frame sensor at 23.9 mm >x 36 mm. Why not just go full frame with another 0.1 mm in >the vertical direction? > >Canon can truthfully say that Nikon's sensor in the D3 is >NOT full frame. > >Puzzled...
If Canon or any shooter harps on 0.1mm then they need to get a life and look at all the other features that blow the Mark III out of the water.
To me this is as close to perfect as you can get for a DSLR. I knew as soon as I saw the pixel count there would be plenty of whiners. For those who want 20 or so megapixels, are you prepared to install the computer system to handle that size file? Also, now that you know it's only 12 are you going to jump ship and go with the Canon? Do you have the money? I am not being sarcastic, I'd like to know. I have been a salesman for 25 years and those who dont buy the product because it doesn't do (?) were never going to buy anyway.
BUT – sometimes I get asked from the customers and agencies in Germany: Why don’t you use a Canon because of the more mega pixel they have…….. And if you look around in Germany – you can see more and more photographers switch to Canon. – Except the paper photographers. So it is not so easy not to follow this trend if you get asked from customers and everyone around you dos not only think to move.
>I don't think anybody will ever be happy. > >"We want full frame" >"We want compatibility with DX lenses" >And yet, there's still complaints and waiting for a better >camera that 99% of the population cannot afford anyway. hah.
I have never heard anyone say that they wanted DX lenses to work on a Full Frame sensor. Nikon made it clear when they started the DX lens format that these lenses would not be compatible with a FF film or possible future FF digital. And what did Nikon do, they did make it possible (cropped image) to use a DX lens on there FX digital. So they did better than they promised. So I do not think there should be any complainers on this issue.
sure spend a huge hump on a 8000 dollar camera...but remember they dont have the NEF file (which at any given time you can rewrite the instruction set) they dont use a magnetic shutter, which means that at slower shutter speeds u will get mirror vibrations
also...Also...they DO NOT concentrate on the quality of the pixels sites ...Nikon in my opinion just pulled an "Olympus" move... they did what they should have done from the very beginning...they put all there concentrating and R & D on the photo sites....
Nikon has HUGE buckets collecting light as opposed to canons small wine bottles collecting light..... I cannot wait to see the D3 blow everyone away with is huge enlargements BECAUSE the D3 will be getting more quality information/light collected...and you will be able to do more with it because of that fact
i could go on about a lot more...but no one wants to here that...everyone likes to believe marketings propaganda...not real life professionals that have experience with more than just 35mm Digital cameras
>By the way, you DO realize the Canon 5D is 35.8 x 23.9 mm >right?
No, I didn't since I don't use Canon equipment--I use Nikons and just ordered a D300. Is this true of all their other "full frame" cameras?
So, my question will be (again) posed to the forum: Why do the engineers choose a sub 24x36 mm format when they could just as easily make it exactly 24x36 mm? There must be SOME good reason. Hard to imagine them saying, "Well, that's close enough, let's go with that."
Thank you!!! That is BEAUTIFUL!! I can't believe people are arguing over just under 4 Thousandths of an inch (.003937")!!! (Perspective: that's the thickness of a piece of normal copy paper...)!!
JohnnyO "What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about?
>Klifton et al: > >The original 35 mm format as developed by Oskar Barnack of >Leica fame was 24.5 X 36.5 mm. > >Source: "Leica Lens Compendium" by Erwin Puts (Hove Books, >2001, footnote 2, page 13) > >Let the full frame discussions begin! > >Regards, > >HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
JohnnyO "What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about?
Well, I'm absolutely made up! Top job Nikon. The D3 has addressed everything - and more - that is lacking in the D2X/s. IMHO. A sort of ramped up D2H/D2Xs hybrid.
OK, it's only on paper at the moment. No real life reviews. But for me, better noise control, awesome AF, dual CF slots........outstanding! No silly MP race with Canon. Phew...at least I won't have to invest in a new computer!
I am particularly keen to try the Scene Recognition System with birds in flight.
Early adopter glitches or not - I have pre-ordered!
Too expensive, no way I can swing $5000.00, already love my D200 and my D40 and I am not going to buy another camera. Full size FX frame and CMOS, hmmm. Usual great build, No I am not buying another camera.
Oh #####, where do I sign. I am in D3 love. It is a winner.
Want to feed my knowledge and starve my ignorance.
I'm in Tokyo now this machine has created quite a buzz amongst the camera folk..... I only saw the brouchure in shinjuku lastnight... I asked for it but the guy said in plain english "no way" I understood.. so i took my old crappy D2XS out and continued wandering around..next stop Akihabara... i'm sure to find one there. Cheers Gig
I dont normally post here but I really admire what Nikon has done. giving both worlds of FX and DX. Really really good achievement.
My only wish was they could improve the camera with 'anti-dust' feature – this is something that Canon SONY and Pentax have done right. The sensor would vibrate on start-up/shut down to shake off any dust particles that got onto the sensor.
“The D300 also employs a new self-cleaning sensor unit. Four different resonance frequencies vibrate the optical low pass filter in front of the image sensor to shake particles free and reduce the appearance of dust.”
So, does it just shake it around, so it can land somewhere else? Sort of a random dust re-distributor?
That was my thought when I saw that feature. Frankly, cleaning the sensor is so quick and easy, I wasn't too impressed with that 'shake' feature. And I wondered why the D3 didn't have it.
I was gonna jump ship, trade in all my Nikon gear and go with the new canon III. But, reminiscent of the Rebel/D70 "affordable" DSLR, Nikon has conceded nothing in the heavyweight DSLR championship. The $3,000 gap between the Canon III and the new D3 cannot be sustained. This technology will trickle down to a FF, second tier D400?, all metal FF soon. And (you got my back Nikon?) it will undercut the Canon prosumer FF in price.
It's all about the sensor. I want more information about the sensor. With 12 MP in a full frame you have lots more room for big fat photosites. A CMOS sensor will have some of the space used for circuits instead of photosites but the photosites will certainly be much bigger than on the D300. Large photosites combined with clever circuit layout has the potential of reducing noise and increasing dynamic range. To me this is the most exciting aspect of the D3.
Only 12mpx, not 36mpx as promised. Only 9 fps, not 25fps with simulataneous video. Only CMOS, not the new LABMOSCCD-Cast.
This is the last disappointment I´m ready to take from Nikon. How could I go shooting a wedding with the D3 as I would be losing against the compacts in the megapixel jargon? I wonder, can the internal microphone on the D3 be used for noise analysis & compensation? On the D2x this was not possible and so there were problems with noise at over ISO 400..
hahhah... this is fun, I mean cameras following the electronics in development. We get new reasons for excitement every 2-3 years now.
GOSH ( nice name or is it an abbreviation? ), I have as much fun as you with many people "being disappointed" by the "only 12mpx resolution" of the D3.
Perfect 12mpx is actually all I ever need, it is good for any magazine spread and that´s it. People needing seriously higher resolutions (I mean to make a real difference, you need 20mpx or more) just have to wait for the next FF Nikon, the so obvious D3x.
Just about every lens struggles to produce perfect 12mpx out of the D2x - the lens resolving power limitations are allways haunting you on the D2x. Therefore, I hope for Nikon to have a look at pixel pitch, lens resolving properties and photon energies per mm2 before they pack 36mpx into a 35mm sensor.
Or then just buy a 39mpx Hasselblad. They are affordable for what they are and quite excellent. Not very handy on the beach though.
what lenses are you talking about? I have yet to have one problem with my lenses (105mm VR, 70-200 VR, 17-55mm)
also...it goes back to what a veteran Nikon rep told me....he said "Once Nikon figures out how to fix light falloff towards the edges of the frame..from older lenses...Nikon will putt out a FF DSLR"
See realistically they just did that... See photo "wells" are huge!!!! the quality of the photo sites is something to be wowed by...
A main reason for going to a medium format camera is because the bigger sensor size allows for bigger photo sites...therefor more quality information is collect..
thats the point... but I say again...at what point are we going to stop and say "wow ...my photo sites are the size of point n shoots"... The megapixel race is a great great marketing tool...one of the bests....look what its done. everyone around the world that's into cameras is only worried about having the higher megapixel camera...
I just cant wait to see results from the D3... no one should ##### until then
also I would not suggest the H3D...the battery grip has a tendency to come off the body during a shoot and one really REALLY depressing point about the camera is the LACK of Zeiss lenses!!!! The H system lenses are made by Fujinon!!! its funny that most ppl dont know that... Mamiyas glass, for the 645AF, is actually better now!!! its hilarious!! also Hasselblad has decided that from this point forward...ONLY Hasselblad backs will work on their system. Thats a big negative blow... Leaf Aptus backs are a lot better (in my opinion)
I only have the 12-24, 17-55, 70-200, 300, 400 AF-S, 105 micro, 60 micro, 85 mm 1.4. It is much required from a lens to resolve 33.000 pieces of information on one mm2. The requirement grows to 128.000 pieces of detail per mm2 when you use a 2x extender... which means, that on a FF cell, it would need to resolve not more than 110 mpx.( 12.3 x 2 x 2 x 2.3 ) I think that´s too much and so, a lens with a 2x extender has no possiblities to give 100% results when on a 12.5mpx DX system.
The light falloff problem at Canon is more related to the sensor than the lenses. The Nikon sensor has to be able of take in the same amount of light with both direct and inclined light hitting it... or else they have to do it in the software. This is a problem specially with the wideangles, which light is striking the sensor at more radical angles.
I was wondering the same thing... I asked a similar question on another thread and was advised to stand by until i either get the D3 or not.... if i do then it's easy to figure out- I'll get the 14-24 If i dont and Stay with the D2XS then i will keep my 12-24 AND my 17-35 2.8 BTW how do you like the 17-35? Thanks. Cheers Gig
Right... I will give it more of a workout tomorow.... I have been shooting with the 12-24 for a while I do like the speedyness of the 2.8 though.... from what I have shot with it and those who have one like it also.. with minimal complaints. thanks for the reply. Cheers Gig