I'm in line for two D3's, but with the specs of the D300 I might just go for 1 D3 and two D300's. Then there's the lenses. The 14-24 is definitely on the list (and I'm afraid of what that sucker is gonna cost), and the 24-70 is probably also going to be a must have. Then there's the updated primes whenever they show (and I'm thinking it has to be fairly soon).
Consider this, Nikon is selling these two cameras for very competitive rates, so they "have" to make some money on their lenses... unless you're in Europe. Then it seems they'll make plenty of money off you! All I can say is I hope the US price isn't an error, and if you live in the UK, the US is practically Disney Land with the way our Dollar has lost so much value. Time to come across the pond and stock up!
I'll get a D3. I was going to get a D2xs, so the D3 is slightly more money (which I don't have accumulated yet), the same resolution, better high ISO (I do a lot of sports these days) and accommodates a couple of the superwides that I have been using on film.
Basically I'm skipping the D2x generation and going straight from the D2h to the D3.
That is, unless the D3x comes out before my money is collected...
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
At some point after November 2007 I'll sell the 12-24mm, buy the 14-24mm & 24-70mm, but skipping the D3 and D300 (waiting for the D3x). No plans on selling my D2x, will be worth more to me as a 2nd body than its value in cash (I do a lot of event photography).
Wow, Nikon launches the hottest camera I've ever seen and you guys are holding out for the D3X!
Without knowing what the images/noise/dynamic range look like on the D3, I think it seems to have everything we've been asking for (the buffer is the only thing that seems to be lacking for some).
Now seriously, are you thinking D3X because you feel you want the camera with the highest MP's, or because you feel the D3X will better suite your photography.
Honestly, for wedding photographers I can't think of anything a MKIII 1Ds would offer that would be an advantage to the D3. Commercial photography may be different (possibly), but I'm just not sure what a D3X might solve that a D3 wont?
You are right, indeed this camera seems like something that a lot of people have been asking for and the specs do look super!...
This is taken from the Nikon UK website:
"the D3 sets the benchmark for professional action photography."
Nikon target this camera at this market and I suppose that some people are still just waiting to see what Nikon might or might not release for other markets. Not that this camera will not serve some of their needs now...
>Wow, Nikon launches the hottest camera I've ever seen and >you guys are holding out for the D3X! >
I will almost certainly skip the D3 -- it doesn't offer me anything that I want that the D2X doesn't give. As a PJ camera I was already happy. For studio work, I might be interested in however many more MP or _better_ much more dynamic range the D3X offers, if there ever is a D3X.
The D300, on the other hand, seems a much more attractive proposition. D2X specs in a small, light body.
>Now seriously, are you thinking D3X because you feel you >want the camera with the highest MP's, or because you feel >the D3X will better suite your photography. > >I'm just not sure what a D3X might solve that a D3 wont?
My rationale is mostly financial. If I had the money I'd buy it the first day it's available
I need a 28-70mm (out of stock since last spring) and the new 24-70mm will meet my needs there. I've been a bit disappointed with the 12-24mm and have high hopes on the 14-24mm. These two lenses are a big investment, and I need to keep a high cash equity as some of my clients are slow payers (pay-out to subcontractors is faster than income from clients).
I now use a D2x (60 000 shutter releases "old"), mostly for events and sports. The high ISO performance has been of less importance to me because the majority is printed in newspapers, not fine print and the rest is for web use. I get good results already with 5 fps shooting football (ie. soccer), ice-hockey, handball and outdoor bandy (Scandinavian winters are dark!), so an increased frame rate will not earn me more money.
2008 is a new fiscal year, and by then I will have put aside money to finance both a D3 and a D3x without depleting my cash equity.
Yes, I will be getting one in February or March. I can use my D2X as my 2nd body (I love the D2X) and the D200 will be relegated to use as a remote camera, or shoved in my backpack on motorcycle and mountain bike trips. The question is: What’s to become of my D100. I’m thinking IR conversion!
I have a D2Hs and D200 and I'm pleased with them both. I see nothing in the D3 or D300 specs that would tempt me to change. The D300 has sensor clean -- so the dust just moves somewhere else. I probbaly won't purchase another body until one of my existing ones die.
Hedley Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas
With a lottery win I,ll go the same way and possibly throw in one of these 200mmf2 lenses also.If I can,t afford a D3 I might be able to find a cheap Kodak full frame SLR on the second hand market soon.
I'm debating what to do for a backup camera, but the D3 is already on order - I'm first on the list at my local San Diego, CA dealer (Oceanside Photo & Telescope).
I also ordered the new 24-70 f2.8, in anticipation of dumping my 17-55 f2.8 DX lens along with the D2Xs.
Don't get me wrong, but my favorite time to shoot is dusk and later, so the D3 is an answer to my prayers re low light performance, based on what's been said by Bjorn at the intro. "low light performance beyond what anyone could imagine possible". So I'm pretty excited.
I can't wait to see how buttery the bokeh from my Zeiss 85mm f1.4 looks...
I'm not sure what I'll do for a backup yet, but am considering the Fuji S5 Pro. I want to know more about the dynamic range of the D300 vs the Fuji. The 'dual' sensor/photosites on the Fuji make all the difference in capturing that wide dynamic range...
>Is it possible, in the future, Nikon will be able to upgrade >D2X to D300's sensor? Remember Kodak story? What do you >think about that, gentlemen? THX. Dimitri.
It's never going to happen. The engineering effort, man power to perform such a significant heart/brain transplant, plus lack of incentives for Nikon to do it anyway would all suggest that it isn't a feasible option. When Kodak did this the market was much younger and they also had a PR problem with the previous generation of cameras. Nikon doesn't need to do this.
I cracked this morning and put myself on the dealer's list for a D3 & 24-70/2.8. It'll be great also to use my Nikon & Zeiss ZF primes as nature intended.
I'm looking forward to seeing the tested performance of the new camera, especially in terms of dynamic range and noise. I'd rather have 12mp of quality that can effectively use existing and new lenses vs a bunch more megapixels that just show up limitations in the lenses.
I knew it that was why I not get DX lenses before. Its funny, I asked a similar question before and pple made all kinds of statements or excuses.
I say the small segment who can buy it, no matter if a D2x using the cropped sweet spot of the lens, humanoids will want the latest and the greatest. Just like being compeitive against Canon, they feel good.
20yrs down the road I don't think there will be much new APS SLRs left.
Hey, does a D300/D3 give you significant better photo's ie.. I don't think so, think big, is it going to exhibit photo's or win competitions like inter club. I rather spend my money on travel, workshops, lessons.
I was about to buy a D2Xs and am now going to wait a few months to get a D3. I'm drooling over those two lenses (the wide angle and zoom) as well. To those of you who are passing on the inferior D3 while holding out for the much better D3X or the even better D3Xs, I would imagine (given how quickly Nikon responds to the wants of it's customers), it will be out sometime soon, maybe 2011 or 2012.
why is everyone in such a hurry to sell off their DX lenses if they plan on buying the D3? you can always shoot those old favorites (tokina 12-24 anyone?) in DX mode for now. I mean, the money you save by not replaceing your glass immediately probably makes up the difference in price for most people between a D300 and a D3...if that makes any sense at all. I suppose it depends on how much you have invested in DX glass.
>To those of you who are >passing on the inferior D3 while holding out for the much >better D3X or the even better D3Xs, I would imagine (given >how quickly Nikon responds to the wants of it's customers), >it will be out sometime soon, maybe 2011 or 2012.
Thom Hogan has so far been accurate in his product roadmap what comes to both product features as well as timetable for releases, and he's predicting a D3x in Mid-2008: http://www.bythom.com/roadmap.htm
For me, NAS is one thing and photographic/business needs is another. While the D3 is a tremendous piece of machinery that I would gladly buy, I can afford the wait for at least a firmware/hardware update or even the D3x.
Already ordered the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8, my trusted Nikon dealer said he'll gladly cash my 12-24/4 as soon as the new zooms arrive.
I would wait for another year or so but I think I would get the D3. 10MP is good enough for me and 12MP is nice. What kept me from buying a DSLR because all Nikon's before the D3 were not full frame camera. Don't really want to jump ship to Canon although I must admit that I've been thinking about it.
In October of 2003, I sold almost all my Nikon gear sans two FM3A's and 4 AIS primes and got two full frame Canon bodies and all the best glass they have, best move I could have did for my career.
I just got back from shooting for 11 days on a high end ad campaign in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. I used two 5D's and all my fast primes to great effect.
Then, I awoke at 5 AM yesterday to read the news...I put in an order to my rep in California for the D3 and D300 right away, first on the list of now over 100 people.
By the end of yesterday, I had a 17-35 2.8, 35 1.4 AIS, 60 Micro, 85 1.4D and 70-200 VR on the way to my house.
While I will keep my full Canon system until the new Nikons prove them selves, I am counting on the D3 to be my personal welcome back to Nikon. The D3 has *HUGE* shoes to fill as my 5D's have been totally flawless under relentless pro use in very tough conditions...and I do mean flawless! 65,000 cycles on one and 118,000 on the other, bombproof pro rigs.
But I have full confidence in the D3, it looks like Nikon really did their homework. I do not buy the Canon is better ##### in looking at the over priced and old bodied 1DS-III. Sure, 21MP is pretty awesome, but I have been getting double truck ads with the 12.8 MP 5D for over two years now, the 12MP D3 will be fine.
And if Nikon comes out with a 20-22MP FF cam next year, I will be getting it, not the Canon.
Canon makes the about the best digital SLR's in the world, but man, Nikon system is much better, it is time they took the lead and my FM3A had some pals to make images with.. .
Let's all hope the D3 is Oh My GOD good....
"Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."
I don't know what to do. I have really been waiting for a 600mm VR lens.
Saving the $5,000 that I would spend on a D3 and spending it on a 600 mm VR lens seems like a good idea. However, now that the 600 mm VR lens is available, I suspect that some of the 600 mm non-VR lenses are going to be up for sale at a much lower price than $9,5000. So, with the higher ISO available with the D3 and D300, do you still need the VR functionality in the new 600 mm VR lens? The answer probably depends on the high ISO performance of the D3. If not, given that I was going to spend $9,500 on a lens, maybe I could get a D3 and a used 600 mm for about the same price.