DaveMart wrote:
They have optimised the camera for high ISO, to compete with the perceived strengths of Canon.
If they had gone for ISO 100 natively, they would not have been able to hit ISO6400 natively - still less if they had made ISO50 native.
For most shooters fairly decent high ISO is more useful than marginal improvements in low ISO.
Regards,
DaveMart
Unless you shot wide open using fast glass.
Man, 51 pages in a Canon forum about Nikon gear? I guess Nikon did create a stir! This reminds me of when Canon released the 1DMkIII a short time ago.
Really, I think both camps got some awesome upgrades here. Maybe Nikon trumped Canon, or maybe not. Since we don't have our hands on any yet it is only speculation. And I doubt the digital leader for the last I don't know how many years is going to let it stand where it is for very long. Frankly, who cares?
Having shot my "inferior" D200 for the last year and a half, I'm perfectly happy with my gear. As an amateur photographer, the D200 is more than I've mastered yet, as the 30D might be for many Canon users. I don't really need a D300 or D3 at this point. (That doesn't mean I didn't rush out and put a deposit on one though! ) My point being that just because I haven't been using the "best" gear doesn't mean I haven't been able to take very satisfying photographs. I think "photographer" refers to the one taking the photograph, not the gear he/she is using.
The FX sensor is something many in the Nikon world have been looking for, and many others don't care. (I desire it, but can't afford it yet.) I applaud Nikon for these new cameras, just as I did Canon for their new releases. I suspect the D40 will be an incredible camera, as the 1DMkIII is too, auto-focus issues aside. The competition is helping both sides, so we should be cheering each other on. The success of the 5D may result in giving me a Nikon alternative someday - I hope so. But for my preferred subjects of wildlife, I think this new D300 (its auto-focus is what made me part with the deposit money) is going to work out beautifully.
Of course, about a year from now people will be asking me how I can use such an antiquated camera as that! I guess you just can't win...
I normally shoot with the 5D. Yesterday I shot again with my friend's D200. What a pleasure in the hand! Switching mode while shooting is a breeze, unlike with the 5D. Then I reviewed my shots in Lightroom. I was shooting under conditions that typically challenge the Canon mightily with bright sun against a shadowed background. With the 5D it is so easy to blow out the bright areas and to lose details in the shadows. The D200 did a remarkable job with excellent dynamic range. I've not been happy with low light performance with this camera because of noise, but if the D300 solves that problem it will be one exceptional camera, especially with pro auto-focusing system. I've heard many times about the superior ergonomics of the Nikon cameras and I'm finally coming to understand what was being referred to. Frankly, it is much more pleasant to shoot with the Nikon. Whether that is enough to justify selling a dozen lenses and a full-frame camera is another question...
gearhead5 wrote:
As has already been mentioned early in this thread, the Nikon has 900,000 DOTS, not pixels. There are three dots to a pixel, so the Nikon LCD is approximately 300,000 pixels. Clever marketing indeed.
Steve
Bottom line, people who have seen the results of these 300,000 pixels say the images are amazing. That is much more than can be said of the Canon dim, unusable in daylight LCD's.
brainiac wrote:
the real problem for me is that Canon do not, and possibly will not offer a camera that has three key features that I would like: full-frame, high frame rate, and high iso. Nikon are offering such a camera, while Canon seems to think that we should buy at least two cameras, each of which lacks one of those features.
And I'd add to that good resolution and IQ in that body. The D3 doesn't quite get there for me as in crop mode the resolution is 5.1 MP which is not much better than a 1D. Without a crop mode, the native resolution needs to be higher (i.e. >15-16 MP) so that when the image is cropped you still get around 8-10 MP. Long glass is very expensive, so the distinct advantage of FOV crop for sports and wildlife shooters.
soonipi1957 wrote:
Nikon has always used the term "dot" relative to it's LCDs and in fact...it has always meant pixels.
No, those 118k, 130k, 233k numbers have always meant subpixels. Each real pixel consists of 3 subpixels, one for red, one for blue and one for green. I've got a 1280x1024 TFT monitor. Thats's about 1.3 million pixels, not nearly 4 million.
The D3/D300 has a VGA screen. VGA = 640x480. And 640x480x3 = 921600 Round off and you have 922k.
Anyway, the practice isn't limited to Nikon, just about any tiny screen specification consists of the number of subpixels (dots) and not real pixels.
CGrindahl wrote:
I normally shoot with the 5D. Yesterday I shot again with my friend's D200. What a pleasure in the hand!
Interesting. I had the same experience shooting a friends 5D / 24-70 combination. Granted, I love the ergonomics of the Nikon, but that viewfinder in the 5D was to die for. (Ah, there I go overstating things again!) Maybe the thing is both manufacturers make great gear that appeals to different people in different ways.
I've always been a fan of Canon's commitment to pushing the DSLR envelope, and watching Nikon come out with these latest cameras has been a joy for me, as in maybe they are doing the same thing in their own way. If it helps to advance Canon as well, I think we will all benefit from that.
Very impressive specs, the D3 is very nice, I can not wait to see some samples from it to see if nikon has good noise levels at higher ISO now. I must admit, very tempting to jump ship if that is the case.
camerapapi wrote:
The D300 is a new camera. We know its specs but not its performance.
It is not a professional camera although it is close. I would not make comparisons with a professional camera like the Mark III. Very soon if 6 FPS or 9 FPS are not enough we will be buying a video camera.
If a camera like a Mark III is what you need I would say it is money well expend. I surely do not need one and a camera like the D300 would make me a happy camper.
I am almost ashamed to say that I like and shoot with an ancient D1X and NO, I will not be in line to order the D300.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida....Show more →
I was just perusing as I haven't been here and didn't want to intrude. I personally think that both camps make wonderful cameras and am enthusiastic to see how Nikon's latest will hold up.
William, I too shoot with an ancient D1X but feel no shame as it's still a wonderful camera.
I'm just going to sit back and see where all the dust settles.
Nikon reaqly come through on this one. Personally, I'm not going to switch from Canon because I'll buy a 40D and it will be more than I need and I'm happy with my current set of lenses. If I owned Nikon gear I'd have said the same thing when the new Canons came out.
I'm sure alot of people are tempted to jump ship. Nikon users wanting 21 megapixels and Canon users feeling Nikon won this round. (Personally I feel Nikon did win this round) I'm betting that in the end very few people will switch. There's not that big a difference. My guess is come March Canon will agian impress the world with one if not two or three cameras(I still think Canon is going to do a soccer mom DSLR). I'm guessing there will be some real updates in glass for Canon also. Nikon winning this round will be good for all of us.
I have to agree that the 1dsm3 is the cat's meow in terms of ubercameras. I'm sure canon will sell thousands of them. Unfortunately, other than bragging rights the 1dsm3 won't contribute much to the overall DSLR market. On the other hand, there are tons of midrange wildlife and sports shooters that were looking for much improved AI servo over the 30D AND higher frame rate and crop-reach than the 5D. Now there is 1 camera that combines both in a weatherproofed body for 30% more than the 40D and 30% less than the 5D. I can assure that my plans to purchase the 40D by the end of the year are certainly on hold. Since I only have 4 lenses and I bought most of my gear used I don't view switching as that big a deal. It will take the Nikon sensor having AS GOOD AN ISO 3200 AS the 30D to push me over, but frankly Canon has never done me any favors to earn any kind of loyalty. And yes, being able to get those significant pro features for $1800 is definitely worth it. Every lens they have updated in the last 2 years has come out at double the old lens price.
Anyway, glad to see so many fanboys but realistically Canon's 5 market segment crap is beyond silly.
David, the fly in the ointment is its expected that Nikon will release the high MP camera early next year. Personally I hope they wouldn't, the market for these is just so small, I'd rather they concentrate elsewhere. But if there's a market then Canon and Nikon will try and exploit it I suppose.
That camera could be around the 22MP size. Then we'll have to listen to everyone talk about which one is 'better' blown up to 5 metres at ISO 3200.
Nikon really impressed me with the 2 new cameras. It will promp a response from Canon and both camps would have better and less expensive cameras. I would not be surprised if the 40D and the 400D have special rebates around November with the launch of the Nikon D300.
The most impressive features (according to many on this and other websites)of both the D3 and D300 is that it has rendered all current and the next generation of Canon cameras totally obsolete and all those cameras stopped working and should be given away as scrap metal. All this happened without any head to head lab controlled comparison of the cameras. All the experienced photograpers has totally lost their ability to function because a new and possibly better specced camera was launched. Please get a grip on reality and switch systems if you have to and not because the neigbour has a new toy and you have to keep up appearances.
Cameras are tools and an artisan and artist use tools according to their ability.
Well, the way I see it, the rumors of Canon's death are greatly exagerrated. Nikon has yet to prove their product and even if it does prove to be awesome, it will not make the Canon gear any less good. Canon FF primes are proven, and in most cases work great or are slowy being phased out with better replacements-the lastest being their mediocre 14 mm.
Nikon, once a company that had the best Japanese SLR glass has fallen signficantly behind and are now trying to catch up. While having a better LCD is nice, not essential. Their ISO settings, hopefully will match the MKIII, but sounds more of a gimmick than real-alhtough if if functions at 200-6400 the way the Canon functions at 100-3200 great for Nikon users-all over claims are just hype and gimmicks. If the color AF works, this is clearly a breakthrough-I have heard Nikon claims before regarding their Matrix metering that turned out to be terrible, so I will wait-but if it does what it claims, that is the most revolutionary aspect of the camera. As to shooting landscapes and having a horizontal vector showing the camera is level I think is pretty cool in my opinion-however landscapes will be much better shot with a 1DsMKIII. As to FF v. 1.3 crop-for a high speed wildlife camera (don't know sports), I much rather have a 1.3 crop. As a second body, shooting portraits and landscapes, I much rather have FF with higher pixel density. So if there is a need for two bodies, Canon is the clear winner in my opinion. If you can only have one body, and haven't yet purchased a system and/or are sitting on the fences, if the hype proves real from the D3, then the D3 may be your camera.
Glass still is a huge determinant for what system to buy, and Canon has proven lenses. Who knows with Nikon.
But still, kudos to Nikon, not for bringing out a competitor but for defining a new camera that breaks the mold.
Sanlameer wrote:
The most impressive features (according to many on this and other websites)of both the D3 and D300 is that it has rendered all current and the next generation of Canon cameras totally obsolete and all those cameras stopped working and should be given away as scrap metal.
Yes, my D200 quit working too with these new announcements. I had to go down an put a deposit on a D300 so I could have a camera that would take a decent photograph again. It is really hard to get enough resolution with only 10 megapixels to work with!
Every new release is claimed to be so much better than the last that we go through this every time. While I'll admit I'm doing better with my latest gear, I haven't noticed published photographs getting that much better than what I saw 20 years ago. True, they probably are, but not so much that they are noticeable. Yes, 22 megapixels is incredible, and if the noise holds up at that level it will be impressive. But frankly I don't think it will make much difference in the final print - that is why we do this, isn't it? Pixel peeping is for geeks, mostly like us, but hardly for the clients - whether they are paying customers or simply ourselves for our own enjoyment. I have shots taken with instamatics that I still enjoy. I suspect Nikon will release a high megapixel camera someday, but considering the price of the D3 it isn't going to matter to me unless I become overwhelmed with some serious cash. I mean, how many Canon users actually own the 1DsMkII? The improvements are appreciated, but only a few will benefit from them.
The latest Nikon's may revolutionize the industry, but I doubt it. They have raised the bar - at least for a sub-$2000 camera - and I suspect that few could argue that, assuming that the claims hold up. But in the end it is about the photographer, not the gear. If I was taking lousy photos yesterday with my D200, I'll be taking lousy photos tomorrow when my new D300 arrives.
In fact, my wife often produces better results with her more modest gear (the high tech stuff intimidates her, so she sticks with the older and simpler gear) due to her more critical eye when she composes a photograph. She's never even seen a 1DsMkII or D2Xs, nor does she care too. And my F5 is too heavy for her. Even the F100 is too complex, though she will use that. Her weapon of choice for this type of shooting is the modest N50. It can't even auto-focus with our better glass. Go figure. But she does produce some great results. I guess she never lost sight of what photography is all about.
) My point being that just because I haven't been using the "best" gear doesn't mean I haven't been able to take very satisfying photographs. I think "photographer" refers to the one taking the photograph, not the gear he/she is using.
