Photography Thailand Forum

[Marc Schultz]

For those of you who enjoy the Canon/Nikon debate:

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-introduction.html

[David Salmanowitz]

Marc--Had just finished looking at this, and it was very enjoyable as the reviewer had a good sense of humor--think the pics showed that. As I also had seen on luminous-landscape.com and other places that high iso with the Nikons is something to be admired. To be able to get a shot in very very low light is very nice.

[Marc Schultz]

Yes, the reviewer seems to be a fan of both brands so it is a lot less of a bias comparison than we often see. I did not read the whole thing, but I did read his conclusions and I was happy to hear that Nikon has sorted out their noise issues on this new model. It was certainly something holding them back in terms of their DSLR technology.

Part of it I believe really has had to do with cramming too many pixels into a smaller APS sized sensor. The D3 is their first FF body, which means they have a greater amount real estate now to spread out 12 million pixels onto than they had in the past with bodies like the D2X and the D300. Inceasing the size of the pixels receptor sites by going to a FF sensor will typically result in lower noise since the frequency of the sensor can run at a lower level and still be able to capture light accurately because of the higher pixel pitch. A good move for them, but not sure you will see the same low noise results across the board on some of their other APS sized sensor bodies. Lets hope for the best on that.

Anyway, I think low noise is really the way forward for all DSLR camera manufactures and creating RAW files with greater dynamic range for processing out better exposures is what most of us are looking for at this point.

What I think is interesting though is how Nikon is just getting noise issues sorted out now, which is something I think they should have made more of a priority before than anything else. That and the fact that they are now just offering their fist FF body, but yet it is only about 50% of the resolution of Canon's latest offering in the same category. 

It is true though that 12 million pixels is plenty, or even more than enough for most people, but they still have a way to go before their 35mm DSLR camera bodies will start challenging the MF range as Canon has done for more than 2 years already.

I know for most shooters these issues are not really a concern, since it is really only at the pro level where things like this matter to photographers. But since we are talking top of the range professional DSLRs here I thought these points are worth mentioning.

[epixx]

Yes, the reviewer seems to be a fan of both brands so it is a lot less of a bias comparison than we often see. I did not read the whole thing, but I did read his conclusions and I was happy to hear that Nikon has sorted out their noise issues on this new model. It was certainly something holding them back in terms of their DSLR technology.

Part of it I believe really has had to do with cramming too many pixels into a smaller APS sized sensor. The D3 is their first FF body, which means they have a greater amount real estate now to spread out 12 million pixels onto than they had in the past with bodies like the D2X and the D300. Inceasing the size of the pixels receptor sites by going to a FF sensor will typically result in lower noise since the frequency of the sensor can run at a lower level and still be able to capture light accurately because of the higher pixel pitch. A good move for them, but not sure you will see the same low noise results across the board on some of their other APS sized sensor bodies. Lets hope for the best on that.

Noise of the new D300 seems to be around one stop better than the D200, and around the same as with the Canon 40D.

What I think is interesting though is how Nikon is just getting noise issues sorted out now, which is something I think they should have made more of a priority before than anything else. That and the fact that they are now just offering their fist FF body, but yet it is only about 50% of the resolution of Canon's latest offering in the same category. 

It's not in the same category as the 1DsIII, but the 1DIII. The 1DsIII competitor is rumoured to be launched next year, maybe as soon as 1q.

Although the pixel count of the 1DsIII is around 75% more, the printed image size, and thus the resolution, is only 32% more than for the D3. To double the resolution, you have to quadruple the number of pixels. The increase in pixel count has to be squared to get the real impact on image size.

It is true though that 12 million pixels are plenty, or even more than enough for most people, but they still have a way to go before their 35mm DSLR camera bodies will start challenging the MF range as Canon has done for more than 2 years already.

Yes, I think 12MP is plenty too, particularly since the Canon equivalent (the 1DIII) has only 10 (and is not full frame). The autofocus on the D3 seems to work fine btw.   

[Paul Whitehead]

Jokes aside - one tidbit I can tell you is that the AF on the D3 makes the D2x feel like a vintage car laboring up a hill and coughing all the way. I was shooting with both two weeks ago (I got one of the first in Thailand in Nov) and I kept going back to the D2x for reach (bird photography) and was shocked at the difference in AF performance.

I have not gotten my own head around the D3s noise performance yet because my comparitor is the D2x - which is terrible at 320 and above . My initial shots suggest that 1600 on the D3 is cleaner than 400 on the D2x using a blue sky as a base rather than shadows.

[epixx]

I tried it last week, and then returned to my S3. It felt like this:

When I was a kid, I got this toy, plastic tools for Christmas, hammer, screwdriver and all, that I had a lot of fun with. A few weeks later, there was a carpenter in the neighborhood, doing some repairs on a building. So i borrowed his hammer for a couple of minutes, big and heavy, and I could hit real nails with it. Then, I went back home, to my plastic hammer, and..... that was what it was like going back to my S3    :'(

Now, if I could only find those 200,000 I stashed away somewhere...   

[Marc Schultz]

Good points. If though I were in the market for a professional level body like the D3 for example, I am not so sure I would be basing my decision on which camera body to buy based on its ability to shoot at ISO 1600+ with low noise. I say this because many of the people buying a body of that caliber and in that price range will be professionals who will be using it mainly at ISO 100 and often in studio environments for their professional work. Except for people who shoot events, weddings, and sports, most others wont ever even go up to ISO 800. I myself barely ever go above ISO 400 for anything I need to do professionally. And if I were an events photographer, I am not sure I would want to have to hold up that heavy body for 8-12 hours a day. So many of those people could be buying something lighter and possibly even with a crop factor sensor to make their event shooting easier. My opinion is the low noise at high ISO issue would be more important on the lower level bodies like the 40D by Canon for example and the D300 by Nikon and not so sure it is such a strong selling point of the camera. There would in my opinion be other reasons to buy it that would be more important to photographers buying a cameras in this price range. Just my thoughts on the noise factor.


 

[epixx]

I agree on most of your points. Although the D3 is a very usable camera for most purposes, it's most of all a sportshooter's machine, with up to 11fps and a rather mainstream pixel count. Sportshooters obviously need the high ISO to keep shutter times down, particularly with long telephoto lenses.

For most Nikon users, the D300 is a much more usable camera, and it even has the same AF engine as the D3. With the crop factor, a lot of money and not least weight is saved as well at the long end, and although Nikon doesn't have any fast WA primes anymore, there are some great zooms around. Tokina is launching a new 11-16mm f/2.8 for the crop format in a couple of months as well. If that lens is sharp wide open, my needs are at least taken care of.

Aside from that, Olympus is coming very strongly with the E-3. Build quality is on level with the best, and their lens line-up is extremely well planned. I would be able to do all my photography with 4-5 lenses plus a TC. It loses a stop at high ISO, but with an in-body IS that is now working more or less as the best that Canon and Nikon offer in their lenses (Olympus says 4-5 stops, users say 3-4), a lot of possibilities opens up. With the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 plus IS, you can take photos of the inside of the lens-cap   

I'll probably buy the Olympus before I buy a new Nikon, and if it's as good as they say, I will be more than pleased to dump 10 kilos of Nikon gear in exchange for 5 kilos of Olympus, all weather and dust sealed (two bodies and four lenses, ranging from 22 to 400mm 35eqv. and 560mm with a 1.4TC).

[Marc Schultz]

The Olympus line-up you mention certainly does sound like an attractive offer. It really comes down to individual users and what they are most comfortable with. If you feel better with the Olympus equipment with lighter weight and price than the Nikon gear then, I agree, that is the right camera for you.

[epixx]

Problem is, I kind of get emotionally attached to lenses, particularly good primes. Can I sell the Nikkor 180/2.8 or the Micro 105/2.8? Nah... probably not. I'll find an excuse to keep both systems and buy the E-3 as well as the D300. If anybody asks why on earth, I'll just claim insanity   

[Paul Whitehead]

I think the noise factor is THE selling point, coupled with fast AF, of the D3 and its intended market. Virtually all of its intended Nikon market is already trying to push shutter speeds to unattainable levels, due to the noise of the current Nikon line-up. As Jorgen has mentioned sports shooters are main thrust of the camera - nature shooters also benefit greatly for the same reasons (need for high shutter speeds in poor lighting with no option to use flash).

Its my hope (prayer ;+) that this camera (or the 1D3 if I were a Canon system owner) will help me take shots that would not be possible with the D2. Of course I have the advantage of not being Pro, so payback and such is not taken into account in my reasoning

[epixx]

The long term payback for the investment isn't so much of a problem. Written off over 4 years, the D3 costs THB 120 per day, which is not bad at all, particularly considering that the camera will probably have a decent resale value even then.

The challenge is the initial investment, particularly in this case, where investing in new WA and mid-range zooms (for those upgrading from DX format) amounts to almost as much as the camera body itself, at least for those who don't buy 3rd party lenses.

[David Salmanowitz]

The long term payback for the investment isn't so much of a problem. Written off over 4 years, the D3 costs THB 120 per day, which is not bad at all, particularly considering that the camera will probably have a decent resale value even then.--I love this reasoning as it takes away any possible guilt I would have buying new gear! I drink 120 baht if not more in coffee everyday. :-(

[Chris Savery]

Sure - cut the coffee - get the D3 - makes sense.
The coffee shops of the future will have free camera rentals as well as free wifi to keep their customers...
The place in my soi isn't going to though - they open and close randomly, which drives me nuts as I never know when to time my fix.
Chris :)