I getting the impression that this beast will make the perfect landscape camera. A little heavy for week long trips into the back country at 5 pounds with that sweet 14-24mm. But I’m getting a little discouraged by what some people are saying about the D3 for landscapes and wildlife. Is it for Press/Sports only? I know Nikon they really want to get back into this market in a bad way. I’m not an engineer like most on these threads. But this is going to be a costly for me if I screw up this purchase. First let me say, I’m going with this set-up because it seems like the best bang for the buck over the competitors right now. The future so called, D3x is going into to be 8 grand plus. I love the specs of 14x24 lens, and I'm really beginning to think this new sensor is capable of some extremely large and detailed prints. From what I've read about test shoot ant a Mets game and a few other first impressions. Who needs 21 little bottles of wine when you can have 12 one gallon jugs of detailed color with great dynamic range. That's my logic. I shoot pre-dawn landscapes mostly. In cold/wet hostel enviroments, sometimes. Digital noise kills me. This will be my first foray into a complete Nikon System. I want to make the right move and MF is not a option.
Well no one has reviewed the camera, so I can't see how "someone" would have any clue what they are talking about, unless they are a Nikon engineer or one of the very few people that have tested the camera. In any case, the smart money is on the D3 being a better camera than the D2x. Why on earth would Nikon take a step backwards? Yes the megapixels are the same, but the noise characteristics will be better no doubt simply because of the larger photosites.
I think your right about this. I guess I'm feeling a little starved for realtime information. But your right, no reviews by anyone that knows anything except the specs. Those specs. are what I'm baseing my decision to buy on. I've done my pre-order and I'm a little nervous I guess. This is a big buck purchase and I has to made by the end of the year for me. So I can't wait until it's been out for awhile. So I'm going to be watching for as much information as I can get.
The only thing with the D3 is that you might be paying for a high frame rate that you really don't need for landscape photography,. The D3 covers the basis really well in my opinion,,,.
If 12 MP from a DX sensor is good enough for landscape why wouldn't 12 MP FX pixels with better noise characteristics and improved Dynamic Range do the job better,. Some folks think more pixels are necessary for larger prints others are claiming that they are getting good prints with out going any higher,,. I think the new leveling feature is a great addition for landscape with those wide angles especially the new 14-24,,.
Comments pigeonholing cameras into certain roles are almost inevitably silly. Ignore them. I'm sure the D3 will make a great landscape camera, just as with many other Nikons. Heck, I've used a D2H for landscapes, and it worked well. I just couldn't print quite as large as with my D2X.
With the D3 you can use faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures at sunrises and sunsets. You can get a 14mm lens full angle of view with a 14mm lens, in contrast with a cropped one with a 12-24mm in DX (18-36mm). The D3 is a most versatile camera. The only possible exception is for shooting of small birds, where one needs to really go for the big guns.
Perhaps it would be fairest to say that the advantages of the D3 are not as apparent for landscape: if you are shooting on a tripod at ASA 100, noise should not really be a problem on the D2X. If you are bracketing for HDR, then the extra dynamic range of the D3 won't do much more for you, neither will the improved autofocus nor the shutter speed.
As others have said, the reviews have not yet arrived. However, there doesn't seem to be anything about the D3 which would make it a _less_ useful camera for landscape. If the question is: "should I ditch my D2X to buy a D3 if I mainly do landscape?", the answer is probably (but not certainly) no – the only advantage would be if you used the 14mm angle of view, though in fact this can be achieved on DX with an independent lens. If the question is: "should I wait until the D3X comes out with higher resolution?", then this is a more difficult question. I've never seen an application which actually requires more than 12 MP, especially given the power of modern scaling software. Nikon _may_ bring out a higher MP version of the D3, but they haven't promised to. Doubtless in a few months time there will be people posting on this forum saying "I'm going to Canon because Nikon has abandoned the pro market by failing to give us a 25MP camera". Mostly I take those kind of comments with a pinch of salt.
jrp is right on here. You now have the ability to go wider without a fish-eye with the D3. Seems to me that landscapes wound benefit from the full frame sensor. Sure, you are paying for more camera than you need for landscapes. But I suspect that it will exceed the D2X in some regards for landscape photos.
The only rational for thinking that the D3 is not such a hot landscape camera is that Canon is coming out with a 22MP full frame camera. For very large prints, more resolution is important. But if you are printing 20x30" (and below) landscapes, I think the resolution of the D3 is going to be fine.
I will go on to speculate that there will be a D3X with 18 to 20 MP on an FX sensor released by November of 2008. So if you are really concerned about the 12MP resolution limiting your print options, either wait until a D3X is announced or buy the Canon. But I will be trying to scape up enough cash to purchase a D3 as soon as I can get one. And I suspect that I will be pleased with its ability to shoot landscapes.
I saw a user forum post from a Canon pro 1dmII user who was given the use at Shea Stadium for a night game and the next days' afternoon game. He said the D3 outperformed at 3200 the Canon at night at 800 iso. During the day game the DR was so wide that even thought there were harsh shadows caused by strong sun both the dark shadows and the white uniforms were both without either burnout or loss of shadow detail.
He was given the New 600mm lens and loved it. When he openned the files on his laptop, shot taken with the 600mm he could read the time on the wristwatch of a fan in the upper deck. He could see the veins if a persons eyeballs too. He says he never saw shots this good from any digital slr he has used. He also said the OOF was creamy and the colors both day and night were rich.