Photography Thailand Forum

[bjorn slis]

Nikon just announced the D3 and D300, and the D3 is FF

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/index.htm

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/index.htm

[epixx]

Full frame, 9-11fps, live view, ISO25,600 (!!), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc........

WOW!

A pity it won't teach me to take better photos.

[bjorn slis]

but your bad shots will be taken comfortable, and with style  :P

[epixx]

but your bad shots will be taken comfortable, and with style  :P

... and I'll get 11 of them per second. Certainly that must be a good thing   

On a more serious note: if I had the money, I would be queuing up for the D3 and for the new 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. Unfortunately, my bank statement doesn't correspond with Nikon's price list  :'(

Anybody know of a nice, little goldmine that nobody knows about?

[bjorn slis]

http://www.thaipro.com/thailand_00/286_phichit-gold-mine.htm

[Marc Schultz]

I haven't looked too closely at the specs of the D3, but at this point in time US$5,000 for a FF 35mm DSLR of only 12MP sounds like a camera company very in denial about what they should be charging for their latest technology. New technology for them, but not for the market. Honestly, Nikon's conservative approach on following trends, rather than leading them, puts them about 2 years too late on both price and resolution on their first FF DSLR offering when you consider that Canon's latest DSLR entrant is double that on resolution. That and the fact that the FF Canon 5D, which has been about for close to 2 years already, can be had for half the price of the D3 and provides the same general specs in terms of resolution.

I guess Nikon does have a monopoly on those photographers who have a bag full of Nikon glass and who desperately want a FF camera, but for those who haven't invested a lot yet into lenses yet, to me, the 5D would still be the obvious choice. Maybe even an obvious choice for some Nikon users who rather pay half the price for a FF DSLR.

[Markus]

mmmhhh....as far as I know the D200 outruns the 5D in most categories except noise and resolution , so I would assume that the D300 will show off some nifty stuff to challenge Canon. Comparing the D3 with the D1 Mark III that does not even offer the double resolution (remember: do double the pixels you need to double the resolution ) seems to be more real, but then there is a price difference of 3000 USD plus on the Canon you cannot use the DX lenses. If resolution is the main criteria then a Mamiya ZD would question Canons pricing as well.

[Marc Schultz]

The comparison I am making here is FF for FF. So I would not compare the D200 to the 5D. In all fairness, not the same. The major advantages to FF are obvious, unless you are a bird or sports photographer and looking to reach father, in which case you might prefer a crop factor DSLR instead.

But if you want to fairly compare the D3 to a Canon camera then you must compare to their FF cameras. If we do that, the camera closest in resolution to the D3 is the 5D. And so the question is the D3 worth double the price of the 5D? I don't think so. The 1DS Mark II is also not worth double the price of the 5D, but it does at least offer 20% higher resolution. Resolution is not so important for many people as you said, but when you are in a price range that attracts professionals who need very hi-res images for their work, it will matter to them.

As for the comparison against the Mark III and MF, I did cover that here in another forum and I am with you on that one:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=9708c98b484199f60a920e2440154be1&showtopic=18979&pid=134422&st=0&#entry134422

I also believe the DX lenses you refer to would not be used on the FF D3 as they are made for Nikon’s crop factor DSLR bodies only, but I could be wrong.

[epixx]

Marc,
The 5D is no competition for the D3. The 1DIII is. The D3 is a fully specified pro camera with weather sealing, integrated vertical grip, up to 11 fps, live view, dust removal, ISO up to 25,600. 3" monitor with 922,000 pixels, two CF card slots (that can be configured in three different ways), 51 point AF sensor and the list goes on. The 5D isn't even close in any area, and even the 1DIII struggles to follow here.

Even more interesting is that the D300 approaches the 1DIII in specs with its 8fps, 12MP and live view among other things. It's already labeled the "Baby D3". Very bold move from Nikon, since it will obviously eat from the same table as the D3 right away, although I believe that many photographers will buy one of each.

Still, the D3 is not the expected top-model from Nikon, which will probably arrive some time during 2008. Nikon now markets no less than 7 DSLR models, D40, D40X, D80, D200, D300, D2X and D3. Very impressive.

Another interesting feature: the D3 CMOS sensor is made by Nikon and not by Sony.

[Marc Schultz]

Good swing back Jorgen and you do raise some good points here and my fault for starting another Canon vs. Nikon debate.

I am though not in agreement the points you raise would influence a buying decision to spend double the price for a D3 over a 5D, but everyone is different and has different needs.

I think at this point though it is good to agree that there will remain to be 2 camps which will always see the same exact issues from different perspectives. And at least Canon and Nikon users can agree that they will never agree on some things.
 
Competition for my camp is good though as it keeps the camp on its toes. I though do stick by my opinions and I am afraid to say I won’t be switching camps anytime soon. Please feel free though to continue to debate my opinions if you want. I think the banter can be fun to read as long as it remains friendly.

[epixx]

I think we can agree that they are two completely different cameras. If we think in traditional terms, this would be a sport-shooter's camera, but with as high pixel count as 12MP, it will obviously see other uses as well. I know many Nikon users considered changing to Canon when the 1DIII was launched. I suppose those who didn't, have shelved thoughts like that now.

I wouldn't mind having a 5D btw., particularly for studio and low light use. Nikon still doesn't have a real competitor for that one, but when I add the lenses that would make it a useful camera for me (fast wide-angles in particular), I would be approaching the D3 price anyway. The new Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 looks like an interesting alternative, although it's not as fast as some Canon primes.

[agitlits]

Glad I didn't switch to Canon. I was really tempted at one stage. It was worth the wait.

Alex

[David Salmanowitz]

As Mark had pointed out and I think I might have said the same thing in an earlier post last year, Canon usually comes out w/the new technology first and then eventually Nikon gets on board. Image stabilization/vibration reduction lenses, Canon was first. Tilt/shift lenses--except for the 85mm Nikon is way behind. When the revamped Canon 5D shows up ( thought maybe this fall as it will be 2 years old, but now perhaps the early spring?) I think some Nikonists  might be jumping ship, again. :-)  All that aside both companies make good cameras, just personal preferences and $ one wants to spend. Not trying to fan the flames, as many photographers whose work I admire shoot Nikon.

[Marc Schultz]

One last point to make, since I only compared the D3 to the 5D and not to the 1DS MK III:

If I had to make a decision to spend US$5,000 for a 12MP camera (which seems like way too much money for a 12MP camera in today’s developed DSLR market) versus US$8,000 for a 21MP DSLR camera, which is a camera that competes on the MF format level with digital backs, I would definitely spend the US$8,000 for the 21MP camera. Two years ago, a 22MP digital back from Phase One would have cost you US$30,000. So to be able to enter the resolution of the MF realm for under US$10,000 is amazing.

Two years ago when I bought the Mark II I considered the 5D as well and thought a 12MP camera at US$3,000 was not worth the money since it was not nearly enough resolution to come close to MF levels. So I went for the Mark II and hardly ever need anything more. Had I bought the 12MP camera I would not have enough resolution for a number of commercial applications. So convincing me now, 2 years later, to buy a 12MP camera again, but for US$5,000 seems ever more out of line.  

Again though, it comes down to people's needs and as I said in my first post, if you have a bag full of Nikon glass already and really want a well built FF body and feel that 12MP is enough resolution for you, then you have no other choice but to spend US$5,000. Maybe in the next year or so Nikon will offer a lower priced option in the FF category so that you can get something full frame without spending so much money for only 12MP.

If though you are still sitting on the fence about which brand to buy then the decision is still obvious to me.

[epixx]

Nikon's Pro offerings have been lagging behind for a number of years, and many Nikon users have been annoyed that all development have seemingly been within the amateur sector. However, with the first full frame DSLR that has a fast frame rate, and with built in features that equals or betters any competition, they seem to be back to where they were seven years ago, when they launched the D1, the first "affordable" DSLR.

What remains to be seen, is if image quality is on par with the competition (Canon and whatever Sony will come up with this autumn), and if high ISO noise is as low as with Canon cameras.

Tilt/shift lenses btw., are as old as photography itself, and Nikon used to have a whole range of them. Why they discontinued them is beyond me, but they are available on the second hand market down to 28mm. I will certainly start searching after one for use for architectural photography with my future    D3.