Nikon's Turn with the D300 and D3

[Grimace]

Anyone have price info on the new lenses yet?

I'm pretty heavily invested in Canon so I'm not looking to jump ship, but some of the features sound really promising!

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

Woah... Nice stuff. Amazing actually...

Can't wait to get a chance to try out a D300, seeing as it will probably be my next camera.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Anyone have price info on the new lenses yet?

I'm pretty heavily invested in Canon so I'm not looking to jump ship, but some of the features sound really promising!

Not yet but I am still looking. I may have to get my D300 and the two FX lenses first, then wait for my job to get me a D3. I am pretty sure they will be in the $1500+ price range though. For wide angle glass at f/2.8 and a new standard zoom that replaced a very good very high quality (28-70) f/2.8 lens that was $1799, I am sure we will be paying a premium. We may get more lenses than bodies.

Depending on the lenses and bodies you have, you might as well stay on board. The Canon offerings are still wonderful, and offer much more in terms of glass than the Nikons. That 85 f/1.2 I hear is a screamer. Besides... you'd be going through what a lot of impatient pros are going through right now. Kicking themselves for switching too soon.

I just got finished talking to my girlfriend about a guy we know that switched. He sold his D2h and D200 for a 30D and a 16-35 not but three months ago. I am pretty sure his arse is sore from the beating he is giving himself.

I should feel ashamed.... I haven't been asleep yet. I took a 2 hour nap and now it's time for me to get back to work at my second job. My girlfriend screamed so loud and smacked me for telling her these stories of a full framed Nikon. She is a D80 shooter and knows that Nikon may/will put the technology in the D300 into the next model of the D80, so she is just as happy as most of us are.

 

[GnrlyMrly]

That is fecking awesome. I didn't buy the D200 earlier this year, because I was waiting for the D300. Doesn't come out until Novemeber though. I'll have to wait until after the fall quarter to even think about getting it. This is exciting though!!!

 

[unknown87]

Does this mean that the D40 is gonna fall in price even more?! Or is it the D200 that's gonna tumble.... Us entry level DSLR students need as much cash as possible!

 

[jayb2000]

ooohhh, pretty.

I only got my D200 10 months ago, so I probably won't be upgrading till the D500, but those are nice looking cameras.

I need to get practice and some different lenses first.

 

[Mike Teezie]

Man, nice cameras! Glad Nikon got a ff sensor in the D3 - CMOS too. The D3 is pretty much the perfect wedding camera. That great Nikon body shooting 12MP RAW files would be dreamy, and the dual CF slots are killer.

Really nice features in both cameras!

 

[princealfie]

Now please give me a Nikon version of the 5D and we will be set

 

[cube]

Woot! Now to wait for FF D10/D400 and finally go DSLR...

 

[840quadra]

Congrats to all of us!

This is great news. Both camps are coming out with some killer cameras, and should make everyone quite happy. With Nikon switching to CMOS it will finally put to bed the debates over which sensor style is better, and will hopefully also kill the infamous "noise" debate.

Both systems produce noise, however it was the type of noise created that was slightly different. Since I shoot with both systems, I am looking forward to using the new high end Nikon and Canon systems!

Being freelance is fun sometimes .

 

[sblasl]

Nikon said that the D200 will remain in the product line. Most likely a price reduction for the D200, everything else I would think stays the same.

Does this mean that the D40 is gonna fall in price even more?! Or is it the D200 that's gonna tumble.... Us entry level DSLR students need as much cash as possible!

 

[Westside guy]

Anyone have price info on the new lenses yet?

I'm pretty heavily invested in Canon so I'm not looking to jump ship, but some of the features sound really promising!

From Thom Hogan's site:

Five new lenses were introduced:

• 400mm f/2.8G VR AF-S. This is the expected nano-coated update to the existing 400mm. US$8800.
• 500mm f/4G VR AF-S. This is the expected nano-coated update to the existing 500mm. US$7900.
• 600mm f/4G VR AF-S. This is the expected nano-coated update to the existing 600mm. US$9500.
• 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S. D3 shooters will find this their primary lens of choice, I think. That little bit of extra focal length at the wide end makes a big difference compared to the classic 28-70mm Nikkor. US$1700.
• 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S. Surprise, surprise, someone at Nikon still loves us wide angle lovers (though where are the smaller, faster primes?). Personally, I think 14mm is going too wide for 35FF, though perhaps this is supposed to be a crossover lens for both 35FF and APS users (where it would be a 21-36mm equivalent). US$1800.

 

[Westside guy]

The D3 is Full-Frame (finally) but only 12 megapixels

I don't think anyone who had an inkling about these releases has been saying that either would be a competitor with Canon's high-end camera - that one is still rumored for sometime mid-to-late next year.

It's not my market, in any case.

 

[cube]

[*]14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S. Surprise, surprise, someone at Nikon still loves us wide angle lovers (though where are the smaller, faster primes?). Personally, I think 14mm is going too wide for 35FF, though perhaps this is supposed to be a crossover lens for both 35FF and APS users (where it would be a 21-36mm equivalent). US$1800.

Not wide enough. Sigma 12-24 is in my plans.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Now please give me a Nikon version of the 5D and we will be set

With the 5D still at around $3000, you might as well spring for the D3 and get the faster better built body... But I do understand, the D3 will undoubtedly be heavy. I didn't pay $3000 for the F5 I used to use so I have this thing about paying more than $2000 for a camera that doesn't do more than 3fps.

Not wide enough. Sigma 12-24 is in my plans.

I wish it was a 12-24 too, in fact I wish they had VR in them. But that Sigma has a variable aperture, and it starts at f/4.5 (yuck!). But if you need wide... I do understand.

 

[rubbersoul]

suck it canon

The magnesium frames on both of these incredible cameras will leave canon shooters sitting at home while us nikon folks are out playing in nothing short of warzones all the while not having to worry about knocking our cameras around.

sweet

 

[Lovesong]

The magnesium frames on both of these incredible cameras will leave canon shooters sitting at home while us nikon folks are out playing in nothing short of warzones all the while not having to worry about knocking our cameras around.

sweet

While I'm excited about the direction the market is taking, with Nikon coming out with excellent cameras of their own, I do have to take exception to rubbersoul's comment here. What exactly is Canon supposed to suck? Their new 21 MP 1Ds, or the 1D with the 10 fps, both of which are as well built as the D3, and are head and shoulders above the D300. Both companies have just come out with great cameras, and while I do admire the new Nikons, I really can't be too envious as a Canon user. Your comments are simply silly.

 

[Abstract]

Now please give me a Nikon version of the 5D and we will be set

Wouldn't the D3 count as one? It's like the 5D on paper, but with a better fps, better screen, and better live view than anything Canon has (in terms of AF and screen quality). D3x early next year should be Nikons "24 MP is too many megapixels for it to go past ISO 3200, but hey.....it's great marketing" camera. I know, long name.

I don't really see the practicality of it. Too many MP crammed onto that sensor. We're likely to see the weakness caused by the number of small photosites. If you want Medium Format, choose medium format. For the money you pay for a Canon 1Ds MkIII, you may as well. You'd get better image quality, too (although not at high ISO.....).

I think the D3 is my dream camera, with the D300 a fantastic 2nd choice. Actually, in some ways, I'd rather have the D300 because it's a APS-C sized sensor, and I'd like to stick with it. However, I must say that I have more worries about the D300's image quality. I don't think the D3 could possibly be bad. After all, it wouldn't be like Nikon to introduce ISO 25600 if it's going to be completely and utterly unusable. If it was unpleasant but still quite usable (ie: not the best, not even "good" without post-processing, but usable if touched up) , then Nikon would include it. However, Nikon would have stopped at ISO 12800 setting if no useful photos came from ISO 25600.

They would still have bragging rights at ISO 12800, so there was no point going beyond that unless it worked.

This is great news. Both camps are coming out with some killer cameras, and should make everyone quite happy. With Nikon switching to CMOS it will finally put to bed the debates over which sensor style is better, and will hopefully also kill the infamous "noise" debate.

It was stupid anyway. They're both equally good at collecting light. It's just Canon's readout technology was better. Sony's CMOS didn't fare as well as Canon's. Why do you think they didn't use CMOS in the Alpha-100? They had at 10 MP version in their R1, but they didn't bother using it in their DSLR? There's a reason. Readout noise and the size of each photosite is most of the problem.

The choice of CCD or CMOS also depends on the output from the sensor, I believe. They both output analogue signals, but after this first step, the processing is slightly different. Maybe the CMOS signal undergoes one less processing step, or a step that's less noisy. I don't know enough specifics to want to discuss it further, though.

 

[ksz]

I don't think anyone who had an inkling about these releases has been saying that either would be a competitor with Canon's high-end camera - that one is still rumored for sometime mid-to-late next year.

It's not my market, in any case.

Oh, I wasn't comparing the D3 to the Canon 1D Mark III. Whereas Nikon raised the D200's megapixels from 10 to 12 on the D300, they did not raise the D2X's megapixels in the D3.

 

[Digital Skunk]

While I'm excited about the direction the market is taking, with Nikon coming out with excellent cameras of their own, I do have to take exception to rubbersoul's comment here. What exactly is Canon supposed to suck? Their new 21 MP 1Ds, or the 1D with the 10 fps, both of which are as well built as the D3, and are head and shoulders above the D300. Both companies have just come out with great cameras, and while I do admire the new Nikons, I really can't be too envious as a Canon user. Your comments are simply silly.

I agree... Canon users won't be missing out on anything at all. In fact they will most certainly be reaping the benefits of a more robust lens lineup, but it isn't far to compare the 1Ds to and the 1D to the D300. I know that you weren't literally doing that but it was typed in there. For the first time in almost 6 years, Nikon is going blow for blow against Canon instead of cutting them off at the knees. The D3 is just a new type of camera. I think Nikon's decision to go FX is going to carry throughout the pro line. The D3 may break off into an "H" and "X" delineation but I think it may be FX across the line. The D3 goes blow for blow against the Mark III, which (until we see some images taken at high ISO and AF performance specs) matches and in some instances supersedes what the Mark III can offer.

Now I don't see any Canon users being envious, since Canon has been on top for more years than Nikon was, and since Canon has shown consistency in catering to their pro market. Nikon has solidified and shown consistency to consumers and prosumers, but this new thing that Nikon is doing (catering to the Nikon Pro PJ and releasing a new model 2 years from previous iteration) may not last for long. I hope it does since I have made my bed. I have been looking at Canon long and hard for about a year, and as I thought Nikon gives "me" (just me) more options across the board and consistency in body type. I just wish the glass (primes) were more extensive.

Oh, I wasn't comparing the D3 to the Canon 1D Mark III. Whereas Nikon raised the D200's megapixels from 10 to 12 on the D300, they did not raise the D2X's megapixels in the D3.

Why not compare the D3 to the current 1D? It sure can't compete (resolution wise) with the 1Ds. I haven't seen any images from that beast but I am sure that they will be as sweet as previous models. But the D3 and it faster and notably less expensive CMOS FX sensor just won't come close to a sensor that is almost twice the rez. I am sure it was meant to compete with the 1D where it out shines it in many respects, but we will have to wait until later next year or even longer for the flagship, high end pro studio "I don't want a Hasselblad" body from Nikon.

Wouldn't the D3 count as one? It's like the 5D on paper, but with a better fps, better screen, and better live view than anything Canon has (in terms of AF and screen quality). D3x early next year should be Nikons "24 MP is too many megapixels for it to go past ISO 3200, but hey.....it's great marketing" camera. I know, long name.

I don't really see the practicality of it. Too many MP crammed onto that sensor. We're likely to see the weakness caused by the number of small photosites. If you want Medium Format, choose medium format. For the money you pay for a Canon 1Ds MkIII, you may as well. You'd get better image quality, too (although not at high ISO.....).

I agree with this statement my friend. The only thing that I always think to myself is... are the Hasselblads and Leaf backs almost $10,000 better than the Canon? If I were a high end studio with no budget and I didn't want to deal with the lens problems (lack of noticeable change in quality) that 22MP would impose I would go MF. But the price just isn't there. I guess the only thing the Canon offers users is cropping space. 17MP was great... hell... 11.1 was just enough and still is (i.e. D3, D300) but 22 is a bit over the top in terms of 35MM rez. The H3D gets to 39MP now, it may be reaching a limit to noticeable quality changes too. Either the MP wars are going to come to an end... or sensors, glass, bodies, printers, monitors, etc need to get better for us to even notice a change in the resolution.

 

[miloblithe]

With the 5D still at around $3000, you might as well spring for the D3 and get the faster better built body...

The 5D is on bhphotovideo for $2613 with a 4GB card. The D3 is listed at $5000. Are you seriously comparing these two cameras?

 

[840quadra]

With the 5D still at around $3000, you might as well spring for the D3 and get the faster better built body... But I do understand, the D3 will undoubtedly be heavy. I didn't pay $3000 for the F5 I used to use so I have this thing about paying more than $2000 for a camera that doesn't do more than 3fps.

I wish it was a 12-24 too, in fact I wish they had VR in them. But that Sigma has a variable aperture, and it starts at f/4.5 (yuck!). But if you need wide... I do understand.

The D3's MSRP is ~$5000 (USD). $2000 extra dollars is not something that is easy to come by for some people. With regards to a fast burst mode, I agree. With that said, Your and my criteria for camera features does not equal that of everyone else. At the time it was introduced, and currently, it stands as the most affordable full frame camera, with proven excellent image quality.

I personally would scrape every penny possible to get the D3 if I had Nikon gear, however not everyone thinks the same, nor do I expect them to.

Wouldn't the D3 count as one? It's like the 5D on paper, but with a better fps, better screen, and better live view than anything Canon has (in terms of AF and screen quality). D3x early next year should be Nikons "24 MP is too many megapixels for it to go past ISO 3200, but hey.....it's great marketing" camera. I know, long name.

I don't really see the practicality of it. Too many MP crammed onto that sensor. We're likely to see the weakness caused by the number of small photosites. If you want Medium Format, choose medium format. For the money you pay for a Canon 1Ds MkIII, you may as well. You'd get better image quality, too (although not at high ISO.....).

I think the D3 is my dream camera, with the D300 a fantastic 2nd choice. Actually, in some ways, I'd rather have the D300 because it's a APS-C sized sensor, and I'd like to stick with it. However, I must say that I have more worries about the D300's image quality. I don't think the D3 could possibly be bad. After all, it wouldn't be like Nikon to introduce ISO 25600 if it's going to be completely and utterly unusable. If it was unpleasant but still quite usable (ie: not the best, not even "good" without post-processing, but usable if touched up) , then Nikon would include it. However, Nikon would have stopped at ISO 12800 setting if no useful photos came from ISO 25600.

They would still have bragging rights at ISO 12800, so there was no point going beyond that unless it worked.

In regards to the bolded point... Are you serious? The 5d costs thousands less than the D3, and is obviously in a seperate class. Also, as far as I am aware nobody has even had a chance to review or test Canon or Nikon's versions of Live View, or to judge the quality of the LCD screens or AF systems.

It was stupid anyway. They're both equally good at collecting light. It's just Canon's readout technology was better. Sony's CMOS didn't fare as well as Canon's. Why do you think they didn't use CMOS in the Alpha-100? They had at 10 MP version in their R1, but they didn't bother using it in their DSLR? There's a reason. Readout noise and the size of each photosite is most of the problem.

The choice of CCD or CMOS also depends on the output from the sensor, I believe. They both output analogue signals, but after this first step, the processing is slightly different. Maybe the CMOS signal undergoes one less processing step, or a step that's less noisy. I don't know enough specifics to want to discuss it further, though.

Agreed. I understand all I want about CMOS or CCD systems to know (kinda) how they work. I respect both systems, and have had great pictures from both CCD and CMOS based cameras in the past.

 

[150hp]

Well, I am still in love with my D70s so I guess this D300 will have to wait to join my collection.

 

[walangij]

Even though I have always been a Canon shooter, I was EXTREMELY excited to see the arrival of some awesome new Nikon DSLRs. I recommend to friends looking to purchase new DSLRS to go D40 or D80 instead of Canon just b/c they like the feel better b/c the Nikon bodies feel great. I just have too much invested in Canon, but I'm excited because it creates more competition in the DSLR ring again, no more Canon monster charging 8k for the 1Ds series with the D3 out. And I'm sick of white lenses b/c I see them too much, can't wait to see some good ole' black lenses back on the sportsfield like before.

 

[ksz]

Why not compare the D3 to the current 1D? It sure can't compete (resolution wise) with the 1Ds. I haven't seen any images from that beast but I am sure that they will be as sweet as previous models. But the D3 and it faster and notably less expensive CMOS FX sensor just won't come close to a sensor that is almost twice the rez. I am sure it was meant to compete with the 1D where it out shines it in many respects, but we will have to wait until later next year or even longer for the flagship, high end pro studio "I don't want a Hasselblad" body from Nikon.

The D3 should certainly be compared to the 1D Mark III, but in stating that the D3 has "only" 12 MP (i.e., Nikon did not increase the count), some would construe that as a failure of Nikon. They could certainly have created a denser sensor while sacrificing a little sensitivity if only to further distance the D3 from the D2X. However, if the larger pixels in the D3 really do achieve a substantially wider dynamic range, then it was a good decision. As someone who dabbles in HDR, I'm a huge proponent of dynamic range expansion.