Nikon's Turn with the D300 and D3

[sjl]

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.

Well, my personal take on all of this: I'm currently shooting a 20D, with four lenses - two EF-S, and two EF. My plans are for an upgrade to full frame in the near future; that means investing in a stack of L series zooms (17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and probably the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.) I don't own those lenses yet, but I intend to.

The D3 has knocked those plans back on their feet - there are a lot of really nice features in that camera, so I'm sitting back and waiting to see what Canon does with the 5D mark II before buying more glass. As I said to a cousin (who works in a camera shop), if I jump ship to Nikon, it'll be to the D3, and because the value over the 5D II is there. In particular, the focusing points, and the virtual horizon display are extremely tempting.

Having said that, the 50mm f/1.4, 100-400mm, and 580EX Speedlite are reasons to stay with Canon. But they aren't worth so much that I'll sit tight if I feel I'll get a better deal out of Nikon. Resolution doesn't matter to me; I've only once been constrained by 8 MP, and in that particular case, I would have needed a medium format to get the resolution I wanted anyway - even the 21MP of the 1Ds III wouldn't have been enough.

 

[Grimace]

The D3 isn't designed to compete with the 5D, it is supposed to go head to head with the 1D. It will be March before any 5D mkII upgrade hits the shelves.

The horizon thing looks really neat, but I can't image using it very often. Even if the photo was off a little, any photo editing program can fix that in a snap! The extra focus points are a little more tricky. Unless you are shooting sports you may not notice any difference at all! The AF system of the current Canon lineup is pretty darn good.

If you do stick with Canon, get the 24-70 and 70-200 before investing in the 17-40 --- you may end up liking 24mm on FF enough not to need anything wider (depends on your needs.) As your post aluded, glass is more important -- bodies come and go.

 

[sjl]

is ken rockwell legit when he says that there's a ceiling with mega pixels on a small-format?

Yes, he is. The smaller the pixels get, the more you have to amplify the signal to figure out what intensity you actually have, and hence the more noise in the output. So for a given sensor size, there is a practical limit to the number of pixels you can throw on it. This limit will increase as technology improves, but there is a hard limit set by the physics of the matter that no technology can get past. The 1Ds mark III is pretty close (I suspect) to the limit for a full frame sensor.

That's without considering diffraction and other such effects ...

The D3 isn't designed to compete with the 5D, it is supposed to go head to head with the 1D. It will be March before any 5D mkII upgrade hits the shelves.

Yes, that's what I figure as well, but that's ok, it'll take that long to save up the money for the glass I want anyway.

The horizon thing looks really neat, but I can't image using it very often. Even if the photo was off a little, any photo editing program can fix that in a snap!

I see where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree, but I'm of the school that prefers to get things as close to correct in the camera, rather than making up for it in post-processing - it gives more leeway for the corrections that have to be made anyway.

The extra focus points are a little more tricky. Unless you are shooting sports you may not notice any difference at all! The AF system of the current Canon lineup is pretty darn good.

There have been times - fairly recently - when I've been a little frustrated with the 9 point AF on the 20D. Nothing I couldn't work around, but more AF points would have been useful to have, especially if I could have used eye control (there's a subtle hint to Canon if ever there was one. ) It's not critical though - if there was no difference in price and that was the only feature lacking, I'd not make the switch.

If you do stick with Canon, get the 24-70 and 70-200 before investing in the 17-40 --- you may end up liking 24mm on FF enough not to need anything wider (depends on your needs.) As your post aluded, glass is more important -- bodies come and go.

Well, my original upgrade path was to get the 100mm macro, then the 24-70mm, then the new body. I'm really liking the EF-S 10-22mm on the 20D, which is why the 17-40 is in the list; I was planning on getting it after the 5D II (getting the money by selling the 20D, 10-22, and 17-85), so there would have been that natural pause to see if 24mm is wide enough.

Time will tell, and I can afford to wait another seven months before moving - the 20D still takes very nice photos, even if it is dated technologically speaking. Lens upgrades, other than the 100mm macro, are definitely on the "nice to have" list, rather than the "I need this ASAP" list, and I wouldn't be buying the macro without the ringlights in any case.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Well I mainly do sports, but right now I work with a d70–3fps. I'm wondering how much the D200 will drop, and if it goes under $1000 I think I'll have to bite, rather than going with the D300 (or the dreamy d3)

is ken rockwell legit when he says that there's a ceiling with mega pixels on a small-format? Since I don't do much wide-angle work I actually appreciate the extra telephoto I get out of DX sensors on a regular lens (70-200 suddenly =s 105-300). Does anyone know if you'll be able to manually force the d3 to go to dx mode?

It seems that Nikon hasn't taken the D200 out of the lineup yet. The price has come down to around $1250 in some online stores, so if you really want one grab it while it's hot. Ken Rockwell makes a good point, but he wasn't the first to do so. The limitations on pixel density has been known since Nikon made a big fuss about sticking with DX for the long haul. So far, we have gotten up to 12.4+ on DX format sensors, and that is a lot compared to where we started. If there is a ceiling we won't care about it enough when it is hit, and by that time full frame may come back to all levels of photography (i.e. full frame digital rebels and D40s).

Well, my personal take on all of this: I'm currently shooting a 20D, with four lenses - two EF-S, and two EF. My plans are for an upgrade to full frame in the near future; that means investing in a stack of L series zooms (17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and probably the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.) I don't own those lenses yet, but I intend to.

The D3 has knocked those plans back on their feet - there are a lot of really nice features in that camera, so I'm sitting back and waiting to see what Canon does with the 5D mark II before buying more glass. As I said to a cousin (who works in a camera shop), if I jump ship to Nikon, it'll be to the D3, and because the value over the 5D II is there. In particular, the focusing points, and the virtual horizon display are extremely tempting.

Having said that, the 50mm f/1.4, 100-400mm, and 580EX Speedlite are reasons to stay with Canon. But they aren't worth so much that I'll sit tight if I feel I'll get a better deal out of Nikon. Resolution doesn't matter to me; I've only once been constrained by 8 MP, and in that particular case, I would have needed a medium format to get the resolution I wanted anyway - even the 21MP of the 1Ds III wouldn't have been enough.

Good to have some company on the fence. I have a D200 and a company provided assortment of glass and D2 bodies. The only investment I have is my D200, SB-800 and 17-80; there's a bunch of glass from the girlfriends collection and she has a D80 and D50 as well. But right now I am waiting for the IQ from the D3 and D300 to fully jump ship in the next few months (January when supplies of both systems become stable). The few things keeping me Nikon are CLS, the D3, easy access to Nikon gear via newspaper. I do kinda like the compatibility of the DX sensor across the line sans D3 of course, but that isn't that big of a deal.

On the Canon side the only thing that really has me looking over there now is the proven IQ of their bodies and lenses.

Happy hunting though.

 

[Grimace]

Well, my original upgrade path was to get the 100mm macro, then the 24-70mm, then the new body. I'm really liking the EF-S 10-22mm on the 20D, which is why the 17-40 is in the list; I was planning on getting it after the 5D II (getting the money by selling the 20D, 10-22, and 17-85), so there would have been that natural pause to see if 24mm is wide enough.

I'd look for a 12-24mm f/4L lens before xmas. That might fit the niche even more. The grapevine was whispering that one for a December release.

 

[ksz]

The horizon thing looks really neat, but I can't image using it very often. Even if the photo was off a little, any photo editing program can fix that in a snap!

I have taken a few too many shots where the horizon was tilted slightly, but correcting that tilt cropped away good parts of the edge. I like to crop with the camera, as they say, and having the horizon feature will certainly help. Too bad it's not available on the D300.

 

[Kamera RAWr]

It definitely has been great to see this release from Nikon. Was hoping Nikon would come out and go head to head with Canon, again. As I was telling a friend earlier.. it'll be nice if we see more black lenses on the sidelines of sporting events.
I'm greatly interested in the D3, unfortunately I have already invested a bit into some DX lenses. D300 seems like its going to be a great camera. I figured that unless I could make my living off photography, the D300 should last me a good while. D300 will probably be hard to come across for awhile. Which might be good to wait until some bugs are found and fixed

 

[OreoCookie]

I do kinda like the compatibility of the DX sensor across the line sans D3 of course, but that isn't that big of a deal.

The D3 automatically switches to an APS-C-sized imaging area as soon as you connect a DX lens, i. e. the D3 is fully compatible (that's really a very nice feature).

On the Canon side the only thing that really has me looking over there now is the proven IQ of their bodies and lenses.

I don't think there is any significant difference in image quality between the two companies.

 

[Digital Skunk]

The D3 automatically switches to an APS-C-sized imaging area as soon as you connect a DX lens, i. e. the D3 is fully compatible (that's really a very nice feature).

I meant the sensors, sorry about the confusion. One of the things that I personally like about the Nikon bodies are the consistency with the sensor sizes. I can put my 12-24 on any body and the focal length will be the same. Now that Nikon makes one that is FX with a constant f/2.8 aperture it will better suit my needs than the DX one that had a maximum aperture of f/4. It will be extremely wide on my possible D3 and around 18mm on my D300 and every Nikon model down to the D1.

I don't think there is any significant difference in image quality between the two companies.[/QUOTE]

There isn't much, especially when it comes to good shooting and in the pro systems. The consumer stuff (30D and down) seem on par to me with only a slight advantage in the lenses. I just give Canon the upper hand in doing it longer with more consistent results. Nikon's D1x and D2h had very good IQ for the time, but once the pixels started to fill up on the sensors things got a little noisy, not as bad as users that can't shoot claim, but they were noticeable, and at ISO 1000 and up noticeably worse than Canon's 1D and 1Ds.

 

[840quadra]

"Switching?" Don't tell my D2x that- it's firmly convinced that it has a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors actually generally produce less noise, but require more voltage and generate more heat. LBCAST and LBCAST II weren't either, but had more of the properties of CMOS than CCD.

You may want to read http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

After you read that, you may want to contemplate why NASA generally chooses CCDs for critical imaging applications and CMOS for low-power applications.

http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/Sensors_page/DD/HST&GLL_CCD.html
http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/Sensors_page/MicroInst/APS/CmosAPS.html

The truth is that it's not all about quality and building good CCDs is expensive, the applications are difficult to cool and the power drain is much higher.

Switching was the wrong word. How about moving more to CMOS ?

My point wasn't to bring up which was better, it was stating that it will (hopefully) put to bed the noise debate between Nikon and Canon.

I am fully aware of the points you bring up, I too read countless articles, and sites on the web. On a side note I enjoy reading technology doccuments from NASA, and closely follow HST events.

If you can get your hands on close to $3000 for a camera body only that does 3FPS then I think raising the $2000 needed for the glass won't be a problem. College students shouldn't be buying a 5D with an 18-55 unless they just have money to burn, and if you are struggling to get the initial $3000 for the 5D, that person should consider the 40D.

We all have to be careful to assume that one poster is suggesting people think a certain way, then post comments about how you think they are thinking, and how other people think.

Okay I am now lost (with your last paragraph) .

$2000 is still $2000 no matter how you and I look at things.

Nor would I expect someone to just lay down $3000 for a camera body, then have problems raising $2000 more.

Again $2000 is still $2000. That is enough to buy one, or a couple good quality lenses, and still be ahead of the person buying the $5000 camera isn't it?

Canon's AF and Live-view has been tested with rave reviews. I hope that Nikon's completely redone from the ground up AF system is just as good or better than Canon's. Now that the hype has died down... I might have to go back to sitting on the fence until initial testing is done on the D3 and D300.

I am not aware of any tests being published. I have been away from the net for a few days. Can you post up some links to these ?



::EDIT:: Added the following

I don't know for sure if Canon fully understood the needs of the market when they put Live View in their Mark IIIs. The fact that it can't autofocus when used makes it useless for PJs and serves some small function for studio shooters. The Wireless transmitter is amazingly small and powerful for what it can do, but it isn't very useful outside of the original one that Canon made.

To be honest I don't know how it works on the Mark III, however the 40D has an auto focus function that I would be amazed if it also wasn't included in the 1Ds MkIII

On Canon's Live view

Optional Auto Focus can be activated using the AF-ON button, this drops the mirror momentarily to achieve focus and then lifts it again to restore the Live View.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos40d/page3.asp

 

[Digital Skunk]

Again $2000 is still $2000. That is enough to buy one, or a couple good quality lenses, and still be ahead of the person buying the $5000 camera isn't it?

If you are spending $3000 on a camera body and don't have enough money for the glass that is needed to make the image features of that body work then that photog shouldn't be getting a $3000 body. There is no "ahead" in terms of budgeting. If i have $1900 and I want a D300, but have no glass to work with it, then I should really consider getting the D80, or D200 and the quality glass that was made for professional use, or glass that will perform well, not the old 28-80 kit lens from the N80 days that costs $129. Even the kit 17-80 is $300.

If a photog is looking to buy a 5D for $3000, and all they have is $3000, then they should be looking at the 40D instead, since they won't have any cash for the glass. If that photog was in the market for a 5D they should have at least enough for the body and the glass ($4500 - $5000). If they can raise that much, and decide they want a slightly higher resolution, but real performance, they can raise another $2000 and get the D3, and good glass to work with it. If that same photog is struggling to raise the initial $5000, then they should consider adjusting their budget, and learning about how to manage their finances better.

I am not aware of any tests being published. I have been away from the net for a few days. Can you post up some links to these ?

http://www.robgalbraith.com

He has had it up for about a month now, as have many others. Not mad at you 840; just that this is the third time (second time in this thread) that someone asked me to post info about testing of Canon's systems. I don't know if they just think that the 1Ds is the only camera in existence or not. The same AF and LCD screen and body used in the 1D mark III are in the 1Ds.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you are spending $3000 on a camera body and don't have enough money for the glass that is needed to make the image features of that body work then that photog shouldn't be getting a $3000 body. There is no "ahead" in terms of budgeting. If i have $1900 and I want a D300, but have no glass to work with it, then I should really consider getting the D80, or D200 and the quality glass that was made for professional use, or glass that will perform well, not the old 28-80 kit lens from the N80 days that costs $129. Even the kit 17-80 is $300.

You nailed it.

 

[840quadra]

If you are spending $3000 on a camera body and don't have enough money for the glass that is needed to make the image features of that body work then that photog shouldn't be getting a $3000 body. There is no "ahead" in terms of budgeting. If i have $1900 and I want a D300, but have no glass to work with it, then I should really consider getting the D80, or D200 and the quality glass that was made for professional use, or glass that will perform well, not the old 28-80 kit lens from the N80 days that costs $129. Even the kit 17-80 is $300.

If a photog is looking to buy a 5D for $3000, and all they have is $3000, then they should be looking at the 40D instead, since they won't have any cash for the glass. If that photog was in the market for a 5D they should have at least enough for the body and the glass ($4500 - $5000). If they can raise that much, and decide they want a slightly higher resolution, but real performance, they can raise another $1000 and get the D3, and good glass to work with it. If that same photog is struggling to raise the initial $5000, then they should consider adjusting their budget, and learning about how to manage their finances better.

I agree with your point that people looking to buy camera bodies should also consider glass. I say it in my other posts when people look at going into a DSLR, and I will going forward. With that said, please tell me where (in our debate) I said that everyone considering these two cameras only has $5000 to spend ?

Lets say the person had $8000 to spend.

With them not spending $2000 more on a body that they may not need (or want), the photographer still got a great camera and had $2000 extra to spend on lenses, flashes, battery grip, tripods, or whatever.

That to me sounds like someone that actually does understand their budget.

And while you are slamming Canon (which I notice you do quite often) take a look at the reviews on the 5d. It has proven image quality, durability, and solid features. You keep going back to the burst mode, well honestly, not everyone (even professionals) will need fast burst for their style shooting.


::EDIT::

It is not you who often slams Canon products, I wrongly confused you with someone else, and am sorry. (that person will remain nameless)

http://www.robgalbraith.com

He has had it up for about a month now, as have many others. Not mad at you 840; just that this is the third time (second time in this thread) that someone asked me to post info about testing of Canon's systems. I don't know if they just think that the 1Ds is the only camera in existence or not. The same AF and LCD screen and body used in the 1D mark III are in the 1Ds.

Thanks for the link.. Missed it, and no I am not exclusive to Canon. See my other posts .

 

[Digital Skunk]

I agree with your point that people looking to buy camera bodies should also consider glass. I say it in my other posts when people look at going into a DSLR, and I will going forward. With that said, please tell me where (in our debate) I said that everyone considering these two cameras only has $5000 to spend ?

Lets say the person had $8000 to spend.

With them not spending $2000 more on a body that they may not need (or want), the photographer still got a great camera and had $2000 extra to spend on lenses, flashes, battery grip, tripods, or whatever.

That to me sounds like someone that actually does understand their budget.

And while you are slamming Canon (which I notice you do quite often) take a look at the reviews on the 5d. It has proven image quality, durability, and solid features. You keep going back to the burst mode, well honestly, not everyone (even professionals) will need fast burst for their style shooting.

The problem with hypothetical statements like the photog we are both talking about is that anything goes. You're right, we never said how much money the guy has, and if he did have $8000 then nothing we are talking about matters. What if he/she wants to go Sony, or Pentax? What if they had $20,000 to spend and decided to raise another $10,000 and go Hasselblad?

The main issue I did have way back when was when someone mentioned something about getting a D3 over a 5D, then someone else mentioned the price, and I said that the price difference would be negligible given the cost of both cameras. Anyone in the market for a system built around a 5D or D3 wouldn't care too much (note: too much) about the $2000. They would pick either the Canon for the price, or the Nikon for the performance, since that seems to be the main difference between the two (sans any specifics).

I am not out to bash Canon, just as some aren't out to bash Nikon when they speak of bad high ISO noise. The 5D is a wonderful camera and when it was introduced I sang its praises as being the perfect alternative to the 1Ds, or a backup for 1Ds shooters. It is still the least expensive full frame camera on the market.

--BUT--

For those photogs that have a thing about speed and price-per-performance ratios (i.e. what am I getting for the price) the 5D is a bit over priced still. I know it's full frame, but 3 fps is just slow and for the price you pay, some find it just not worth it. As economists say "All things equal" the 5D doesn't offer much over the 30D or 40D except for the sensor and larger body to hold the sensor and prism.

Now, when some look at the D3, and see what they are getting for the $5000 price tag, they see two things... (1) A full frame camera that can do 9 fps and has this and that feature set, and (2) That camera costs only $500 more than the Canon equivalent.

That is where the wow comes in. Even if we all agreed that the feature set of the 1DIII and the D3 were the same, the deciding factor would be the FX sensor vs. the 1.3x crop; the 9 fps vs. the 10fps; max ISO of 25,600 vs. ~ 6400 and the 12.4 MP vs the 10 MP.

Now, for us fence sitters (I am a Nikon shooter still waiting for the D3 to prove itself, if it fails in IQ then I will have to go Canon) the only thing holding us back is the D3 IQ at ISO 1600 and above. As many on the web say: "If Nikon made ISO 12,800 on the D3 look like ISO 800 on the D2xs I am satisfied," and I agree. That sensitivity is unheard of in DSLRs, and if Nikon can pull it off then the D3 will be hand over foot worth the $2000 price difference.

Thanks for the link.. Missed it, and no I am not exclusive to Canon. See my other posts .

That's okay... I didn't mean to say you were exclusive to anybody. On the other websites and forums shooters are gawking at the D3, saying it doesn't come close to the 1DSIII, when the camera wasn't intending on aiming that high up the Canon ladder. The D3 matches the 1DIII, not the 1DSIII. And a few posters on those forums asked me for proof that the 3.0" LCD, AF, and other features of the 1DSIII have been reviewed, like they completely forgot that the 1DIII has been out for a few months now. I am sure Canon fixed the AF with the 1DSIII and carried many of the same features over from that body to the 1DSIII.

 

[sjl]

And a few posters on those forums asked me for proof that the 3.0" LCD, AF, and other features of the 1DSIII have been reviewed, like they completely forgot that the 1DIII has been out for a few months now. I am sure Canon fixed the AF with the 1DSIII and carried many of the same features over from that body to the 1DSIII.

I'm not so sure about the AF fixes being in for the 1Ds III. If they had a fix, surely they'd be rolling it out to the existing 1D III owners?

If I were a professional looking at buying the 1Ds III (I'm not, and I won't be buying it - I'd rather plonk $AU13k on glass, not a single body), I'd be sitting back and waiting to see what the AF is like, especially if I were interested in burst shooting and AI Servo focus, rather than plonking down the hard earned in the hope that it's been fixed. Canon needs to have a fix, and they need to be seen to have a fix; otherwise, their bodies are worth significantly less than they're charging for them.

I'll be very happy if somebody proves me wrong, but "wait and see" is the only sane approach given the issues with the 1D III.