Well, I am debating making the leap and getting a D3.
I currently have a D300 and D2Xs and the D2Xs never gets used. (Anyone interested, it's in mint condition, 19,500 clicks...).
I am wondering what the CONS of the D3 is coming from a D2Xs. To be honest, I've never owned a full-frame camera and a bit worried that my short end will be too wide and the tele end (70-200, 300) won't be long enough.
It meets and surpases all of my wishes for a full frame DSLR... I love it. I currenty have a D2x (with under 7k clicks), D300 and D3 and the D3 is my 'go to' camera. I love the big bright finder, the accurate and visable DOF, the bulk for stability... the wonderful battery life... on and on.........................
Cons: Dust, can't have everything!
Yes you miss the 1.5x a little, but I've just started using my TC2.0 again
I'm shooting the d3 and the d2x as well as the d300... everything on the d3 is superb, especially the af system and sensor lay out....
but.... the cons which i've noticed (compared to the d2x) is...
-the vertical grip shutter release and controls are set up a little tighter than the d2x..I just can't get used to it wereas the d2x subcommand dial , af, & shutter release is in the perfect location, for me at least...
- the pixel density of the ff sensor is noticably less then w/ the the 1.5x crop sensor of the d2x (or d300 for that matter) 11x17 double page spreads are def doable w/ the detail in the 1.5 sensor were as the ff sensor it is noticably less (of course rips can accomodate for this in print but there was a comment from one of the editors i submit stuff to concerning this).
& yeah Pat, dx lens by default will go to the dx mode on the d3
patricksmith04 wrote:
So, when DX lens are put on, does it automaticly go to the DX format size?
That is an option which can be set to your preference.
You will wish for longer glass, but that is just the nature of the beast. There are too many things to like about the D3; you will not look back. That said, the D2X is still a very capable camera, and a very nice compliment to the D300.
Edited by tkearney on May 09, 2008 at 08:53 PM GMT
jordanwd wrote:
- the pixel density of the ff sensor is noticably less then w/ the the 1.5x crop sensor of the d2x (or d300 for that matter) 11x17 double page spreads are def doable w/ the detail in the 1.5 sensor were as the ff sensor it is noticably less (of course rips can accomodate for this in print but there was a comment from one of the editors i submit stuff to concerning this).
Sorry Jordan I'm a bit confused by this, how does the lower pixel density of the sensor affect the quality of your double-page spreads?
Mark Kenfield wrote:
Sorry Jordan I'm a bit confused by this, how does the lower pixel density of the sensor affect the quality of your double-page spreads?
ummmm , maybe i didn't make myself clear...2 shots taken from the same field of view (ie ff sensor w/ 600f4 and 1.5 crop w/ a 400f2.8 (say at f4) from the same distance yields a similiar field of view.. when examining both files from its native 14x9.5 inch size (@300ppi) they may look very similiar...but when increasing the size to a 11x17 double page spread size there is a noticable difference especially in finer detailed areas...the denser pixel concentration of the 1.5 sensor yeilds more detail than the ff sensor (this is w/o up rezzing) ... now does that make alittle more sense?
jordanwd wrote:
ummmm , maybe i didn't make myself clear...2 shots taken from the same field of view (ie ff sensor w/ 600f4 and 1.5 crop w/ a 400f2.8 (say at f4) from the same distance yields a similiar field of view.. when examining both files from its native 14x9.5 inch size (@300ppi) they may look very similiar...but when increasing the size to a 11x17 double page spread size there is a noticable difference especially in finer detailed areas...the denser pixel concentration of the 1.5 sensor yeilds more detail than the ff sensor (this is w/o up rezzing) ... now does that make alittle more sense?...Show more →
Nope, still doesn't make sense. I've heard that argument before though. I think I've even some math that's supposed to prove it.
I've never seen anyone physically prove it though and my experiences with the 5D versus D300 don't bear it out either. 12mpix is 12mpix worth of resolution, you're gonna have ~2200 LPH with any camera with that resolution. Thinking you get more detail just because the sensor is more dense doesn't make sense.
Now if you took a cross section of the exact same physical size section (say .25x.25") of a FX versus DX sensor; the same physical sized area of the DX sensor would be higher resolution than that same size area from the FX sensor. But it doesn't matter because the FX sensor is larger overall.
I think I get what you're saying Jordan, it does seem strange though that you'd get notably different performance, in a pixel-for-pixel comparison, from the two cameras at equivalent focal lengths - perhaps it was a result of the smaller DOF from the D3?
jordanwd wrote:
ummmm , maybe i didn't make myself clear...2 shots taken from the same field of view (ie ff sensor w/ 600f4 and 1.5 crop w/ a 400f2.8 (say at f4) from the same distance yields a similiar field of view.. when examining both files from its native 14x9.5 inch size (@300ppi) they may look very similiar...but when increasing the size to a 11x17 double page spread size there is a noticable difference especially in finer detailed areas...the denser pixel concentration of the 1.5 sensor yeilds more detail than the ff sensor (this is w/o up rezzing) ... now does that make alittle more sense?...Show more →
This appears like a lot of photons from fancy lenses are falling on dead space between ff sensor pixells ... makes sense.
I was in your position last November and made the jump. The cons:
1. Sensor dust. But, a good cleaning process overcomes this problem.
2. Size. It fit very snugly in my camera bag. So, I've bought two new bags since. The 14-24 and 24-70 added to this "fit" issue.
3. The AF system presented a slight learning curve, since I didn't have a D300 before making the switch.
4. You must get use to not having the 1.5X factor.
5. Wanting a second D3 as a backup and buying the new glass, which is sensational stuff.
I have a D2Xs as a backup, but find I rarely use it. The D2Xs used prices are too low to justify selling and buying a D300. Maybe next year.
The D3 is the best camera I've used and would buy it again. Upgrading camera systems is a difficult decision, given the commitment of funds.
It depends on how use use it. I am a sports guy so I still use our old D2h's as our work horse (I have 8) but I find the D2x's 2 times crop invaluable for our work (skiing) so find I reach for one of my x's for most work. Now that i have a few D3's I am torn. I like the D3's low light performance, colour straight out of the camera and 11 fps in DX great but find the full frame thing bad for most sport work, although I do shoot it on DX mode by defalt.
It dose rock as a portrait/real estate/nature tool.
So keep the D2xs for action and also get a D3 for finer work.
Also get the new 14-24 and 24-70 they are awesome!
Gav
gavin wrote:
I like the D3's low light performance, colour straight out of the camera and 11 fps in DX great but find the full frame thing bad for most sport work, although I do shoot it on DX mode by defalt.
Are you saying that you do not need a DX lens on a D3 to use the D3 in the 1.5 crop DX mode?
Sorry if it seems like a dumb question. I’ve done no research on a D3, but as a sports shooter, I do think there is a serious possibility of picking one up by next football season just for the low light capability.
________
Gary
Will Fly for Food... and More Nikon Stuff
Wingspar wrote:
Are you saying that you do not need a DX lens on a D3 to use the D3 in the 1.5 crop DX mode?
Sorry if it seems like a dumb question. I’ve done no research on a D3, but as a sports shooter, I do think there is a serious possibility of picking one up by next football season just for the low light capability.
________
Gary
Will Fly for Food... and More Nikon Stuff
Wingspar wrote:
Are you saying that you do not need a DX lens on a D3 to use the D3 in the 1.5 crop DX mode?
Sorry if it seems like a dumb question. I’ve done no research on a D3, but as a sports shooter, I do think there is a serious possibility of picking one up by next football season just for the low light capability.
louis fusco wrote:
yep you can.
Now, I did not know that. I have to wonder why all the complaining over losing the extra reach with a non DX lens then. Do you loose resolution by using DX with a non DX lens?
________
Gary
Will Fly for Food... and More Nikon Stuff
the pros of the D3 (reasons to switch)
- ISO performance - opens new possibilities (THE reason to switch to me, not for ISO as such, but you can just think differently and pictures that were just impossible with ANY camera a few months ago become possible)
- auto ISO combined with Manual mode
- the viewfinder
- the IQ (pictures really have a distinct look on my printouts, and this is not just psychological)
- the speed (9-11FPS, reactivity in general)
- the crop mode, the 5:4 mode
- multiple function buttons
- wonderful wide angle possibilities with the 14-24
- the lifeview mode and the PP mode including D-lighting etc... (same as D300)
the Cons: (and things Nikon could improve)
- dust is an issue unless you always shoot fully open to f6.3 approximately
- AF not intuitive (51 points 3D system is useless)
- AF sensors not visible in the viewfinder
- no crop factor in full res (D300 is a better choice for wildlife unless you can afford 600mm lenses)
- serious vignetting problems with a number of lenses
- not really related to the D3: inconsistent UI between bodies (I find this disturbing when using a D200, D300 or D2x as a backup)
- I would appreciate to have a second pad/joystick for vertical mode just like the D300+grip
