- both machines are just amazing
- couldn't bring back any pictures - cards were taped
- the display is fantastic - you can see all the information on the same screen (picture, histogram, shooting parameters...)
- the High ISO performance is amazing in both cases ! My personal estimate is a 2 stops gain vs the D200 for the D300 (i.e. 6400 is similar to 1600 on the D200) and 3 to 4 stops gain on the D3 (25600 is amazing)
- the shooting speed of the D3 is just incredible (and the shutter is maybe a bit too sensitive, if you just touch it, you take a burst of pictures in a fraction of a second)
- the life view mode works pretty well thanks to the excellent screen but I tried it in a low light environment. Don't know how this would work in the sun...
- the D3 in incredibly heavy (I tested with the 28-70 2.8) That combo was heavier than my F5 with the 35-70 2.8
- I find it a pity that the user interfaces are not exactly the same when you switch between the D200, D300 and D3
- zooming on the D300 is via a + and a - button (cf the D40x for instance)
- zooming on the D3 is similar to the D200, zoom mode pressed, use the thumbwheel
- you can allocate many functions to several buttons on the D3
- they solved a problem on the D300 (vs the D200): you can now save the settings (banks) and recall them - I really miss this on the D200
- the viewfinder on the D300 is improved
- the viewfinder on the D3 gives me an F5 feeling
- no group dynamic mode - don't know how this will work
- AF seems very very fast on both cameras but this was with AF-S lenses (28-70 and 17-35 2.8)
- I find AF a bit unclear, you only see one sensor in the viewfinder among the 51, you can select with the thumbwheel and I didn't find a simple way to reset the sensor to the center. I found the system less intuitive than the D200 (I didn't understand what the camera was doing) According to the sales guy, the system was performing much better than even the CAM2000, less hunting, faster processor, tracking, just better in all aspects
- I saw a problem in the High ISO pictures on the D3 (only @25600 in a very dark picture) I took a picture of a number of Nikkor lenses in a very dark part of the shop, and the details were excellent, noise was clearly present (like 1600 or 3200 on D200, somewhere in between) but I had a lot of blue pixels when I looked at pixel level (I mean really a lot, just too many) This could be one of the things they still have to improve in their firmware. On the other hand, when reasonably zoomed (factor 2 on the 1MP screen, the picture seemed almost as clean as a 800 ISO pic on the D200)
- according to the Nikon representative, there will be an option to "align colors", in other words, select the camera you want the D3 to look like (from a color space perspective). You select the D2x and you shoot with both cameras, all your pictures will look the "same" (color temp, color gamut....)
- a pity they didn't add the OK in the middle of the pad on the D300, it is still the crazy clicking mechanism prone to errors when entering text (this gets me crazy on the D200)
- another small UI difference (I find those details a bit annoying for people who will be using a D3 and a D300 as a backup) moving the pad in any direction on the D300 results in the corresponding action. On the D3, you have to push until you feel a click in that direction. My remark might sound silly but I don't understand why they didn't standardize on those UI implementation details.
Final conclusion: two amazing cameras, worth their respective price. I am really very impressed. The cameras will sell incredibly easily. Difficult not to be convinced.
p.1 #3 · and now something completely different...
gugs wrote:
guess what...
a new D3/D300 thread
first of all (already posted in another thread)
my new cameras
a few comments:
- the D3 in incredibly heavy (I tested with the 28-70 2.8) That combo was heavier than my F5 with the 35-70 2.8
- I find AF a bit unclear, you only see one sensor in the viewfinder among the 51, you can select with the thumbwheel and I didn't find a simple way to reset the sensor to the center. I found the system less intuitive than the D200 (I didn't understand what the camera was doing) According to the sales guy, the system was performing much better than even the CAM2000, less hunting, faster processor, tracking, just better in all aspects
- I saw a problem in the High ISO pictures on the D3 (only @25600 in a very dark picture) I took a picture of a number of Nikkor lenses in a very dark part of the shop, and the details were excellent, noise was clearly present (like 1600 or 3200 on D200, somewhere in between) but I had a lot of blue pixels when I looked at pixel level (I mean really a lot, just too many) This could be one of the things they still have to improve in their firmware. On the other hand, when reasonably zoomed (factor 2 on the 1MP screen, the picture seemed almost as clean as a 800 ISO pic on the D200)
- according to the Nikon representative, there will be an option to "align colors", in other words, select the camera you want the D3 to look like (from a color space perspective). You select the D2x and you shoot with both cameras, all your pictures will look the "same" (color temp, color gamut....)
Compared to my D2x it is not that heavy. in fact i felt no difference... maybe slightly? The D300 is much lighter. Bothe camera's feel different. But IMO the D3 and D300 feels like the D2x and the D200.
I did not notice that blue pixel thing. There was plenty of noise, but looking on a computer (laptop) those files looked fine. My D2x also gives blue (and yellow) blotches. we'll have to see how the production models will perform . and hey? what are we talking about? 25600? sheesh i'd better get a few ND filters.
That AF system annoyed me. I had a hard time working with that tiny single af point. and switching through the 51 points seems not very intuitive, just like you said. The new AF tracking system worked flawlessly tho. I guess it's a thing to get used to. I wonder how i will like both systems tho. since i will keep my d2x too and as soon as a have another wedding i'll use both at the same time (d2x with a nice WA dx lens i have and the new body with my 28-70...)
That alignment feature sounds nice. they did not tell me that. It's good to hear i'll get the same blotchy noise i have from my D2x with my new body. That way i can just run a simple action in lightroom on all files at once HAHA just kidding I wonder how it works, it sounds cool!
They still not had the new lenses right? did they have the new grip for the D300? i have not seen that yet.
So question: what will you get? you've already pre ordered a D300 right? aren't you tempted by that D3? Maybe it's just me, but i felt great, almost the same body as my current D2x. I think its great to have that D3 next to it. Good thing is my wedding agenda is already filling up for next year . That way i can earn the investment back a bit sooner.
p.1 #7 · and now something completely different...
i played with them yesterday, really nice cameras .. i asked if i could use a card but No, they are samples .. so no card
- High iso 1600-3200 looked better than my d200 judged by the screen
- Liveview was a bit tricky to find out in the start, but i think you learn it
- Mb-d10 grip for the d300 is way better that the mb-d200 ..so better build
- Af seemed fast on both, but they had mounted a 20mm f2.8 and 24-120mm, didn't test AF with Af-s lens
peter
Sep 20, 2007 at 06:06 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · and now something completely different...
Zachs wrote:
ohhhh I hate you THAT much more! lol
In light of your post the other day, this has got to be the funniest post I have seen! Thanks for the good laugh.
Guy, thanks for confirming the AF and ISO performance. Did the lower noise images seem soft or sharp on the D300.
p.1 #9 · and now something completely different...
Thanks Guy, very informative. Doesn't matter really, I'm already committed to a D300, but it's nice to hear that the commitment might pay off in spades!
I'm getting red X's for your photos today though! Anyone else suffering this?
p.1 #10 · and now something completely different...
so this may be a silly question.. but what do you speculate a 5MP file from the D3 in DX mode will be like compared to the 12MP file from the D300? I'm interested in DX mode, since I also shoot sports and like the reach I get with the 80-200+DX sensor. --Lars.
p.1 #11 · and now something completely different...
LarsOJohannes wrote:
so this may be a silly question.. but what do you speculate a 5MP file from the D3 in DX mode will be like compared to the 12MP file from the D300? I'm interested in DX mode, since I also shoot sports and like the reach I get with the 80-200+DX sensor. --Lars.
As I read these threads, I wonder why people think they need to be in DX crop mode when they are shooting sports.. With the D3, you still get a full 9fps in full mode. If its reach you are going after, you can always crop the picture in PP. It sno different than in DX mode, actually gives you more options as to the crop you need. I truly don't understand the reason people think they need to be in crop mode in the D3 to get extra reach. Am I missing something?
p.1 #12 · and now something completely different...
hangman wrote:
As I read these threads, I wonder why people think they need to be in DX crop mode when they are shooting sports.. With the D3, you still get a full 9fps in full mode. If its reach you are going after, you can always crop the picture in PP. It sno different than in DX mode, actually gives you more options as to the crop you need. I truly don't understand the reason people think they need to be in crop mode in the D3 to get extra reach. Am I missing something?
Dillin,
I'll provide one reason; time. If you're an event or PJ shooter that needs to upload images to media or team websites within hours (or less) of the checkered flag, then having to incorporate numerous crops into your workflow is going to be a problem. One mantra is "shoot tight, then crop some more". If you need reach that can't be achieved by using your feet or longer glass, then switch to HSC. It's also easier to compose knowing where your frame boundaries are during capture, not later. Granted, I still do a lot of "composing" post-capture, but the closer you can get it in-camera, the better.
Also, the smaller files are easier to ingest, store, and process. Just a couple of years ago when CF cards were still really expensive, I would go to a day long event with 6-7 GB worth of cards and I would start rationing my shots at around noon because I wanted to make sure I had enough CF storage for the big races that started at 2:00 and 3:00 PM. This is why 300 RAW files to a 1GB card (D2H) is such a treat.
This isn't such a big deal anymore; cards are cheap. I also have a HyperDrive now too. But when folks want nothing larger than an 11x14 print and web licenses for their team sites and such, then D2H and HSC-cropped files from a D2x do the job -- 12MP is usually extreme overkill. This is one reason why I think the D2x(s) still has one big leg up over the D300 and why it may be a better compliment to a D3 if you shoot with two bodies. The D3 replaces the D2H given that it has slightly more resolution in DX crop (plenty in most cases) and 4 stops or more better noise performance.
Then you have the DX and 2X crops in the D2X for flexibility. That's 5MP, 7MP, and 12MP RAW capability with FX, DX, and 2X framing options, plus the 4x5 option which will be great for those who want to compose for 8x10 prints in-camera.
Sep 21, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · and now something completely different...
turnert wrote:
Dillin,
I'll provide one reason; time. If you're an event or PJ shooter that needs to upload images to media or team websites within hours (or less) of the checkered flag, then having to incorporate numerous crops into your workflow is going to be a problem. One mantra is "shoot tight, then crop some more". If you need reach that can't be achieved by using your feet or longer glass, then switch to HSC. It's also easier to compose knowing where your frame boundaries are during capture, not later. Granted, I still do a lot of "composing" post-capture, but the closer you can get it in-camera, the better.
Also, the smaller files are easier to ingest, store, and process. Just a couple of years ago when CF cards were still really expensive, I would go to a day long event with 6-7 GB worth of cards and I would start rationing my shots at around noon because I wanted to make sure I had enough CF storage for the big races that started at 2:00 and 3:00 PM. This is why 300 RAW files to a 1GB card (D2H) is such a treat.
This isn't such a big deal anymore; cards are cheap. I also have a HyperDrive now too. But when folks want nothing larger than an 11x14 print and web licenses for their team sites and such, then D2H and HSC-cropped files from a D2x do the job -- 12MP is usually extreme overkill. This is one reason why I think the D2x(s) still has one big leg up over the D300 and why it may be a better compliment to a D3 if you shoot with two bodies. The D3 replaces the D2H given that it has slightly more resolution in DX crop (plenty in most cases) and 4 stops or more better noise performance.
Then you have the DX and 2X crops in the D2X for flexibility. That's 5MP, 7MP, and 12MP RAW capability with FX, DX, and 2X framing options, plus the 4x5 option which will be great for those who want to compose for 8x10 prints in-camera....Show more →
I have to second this. If the D2Hs brings home the bacon, so much more will the D3 even in DX crop mode.
p.1 #15 · and now something completely different...
R. Francois wrote:
I did not notice that blue pixel thing.
I just found a few examples on the net and you can very clearly see what I called abnormal blue pixels (probably they are working on this, because this is not normal noise generated by the sensor)
You can zoom in on the 25600 picture, it is very clear.
p.1 #16 · and now something completely different...
What are we expecting for ISO 25,600?!
After looking at the image comparison (this was useful, by the way), it seems that the D3 is about 2 stops (at the most 2.5, but probably more like 2) better than the D200 in these images.
Well, if the D300 betters the D200 by 1 stop, it would split the difference. That wouldn't be too bad at all.
p.1 #17 · and now something completely different...
gugs wrote:
I just found a few examples on the net and you can very clearly see what I called abnormal blue pixels (probably they are working on this, because this is not normal noise generated by the sensor)
You can zoom in on the 25600 picture, it is very clear.
you're right. hm these blue blotches remind me on the hi-2 mode of my D2x. they are not that clear, but it also generates someugly blue blotches. Since 25600 is also hi-2 it might suffer from the same problems? i can also see some red pixels/blotches. Despite the blue/red pixels i still think the file looks 'OK', considering it is 25600 and a nikon
p.1 #18 · and now something completely different...
LarsOJohannes wrote:
so this may be a silly question.. but what do you speculate a 5MP file from the D3 in DX mode will be like compared to the 12MP file from the D300? I'm interested in DX mode, since I also shoot sports and like the reach I get with the 80-200+DX sensor. --Lars.
p.1 #19 · and now something completely different...
Osai wrote:
What do you mean by the reach you get?
He's referring to the fact that an FX sensor vs the DX mode in the D3 and the D300's DX sensor has less focal "reach". Lenses are the actual length they are designed at... in other words, a 200mm lens on an FX body is 200mm, whereas on a DX body, it's 300mm (1.5x).
For some shooters, that's a definite plus, given the expensive nature of long glass...
p.1 #20 · and now something completely different...
I guess Osai is just in his own polite way trying to remind us about that the reach of e.g. a 200mm lens is actually always the same, despite the size of the sensor.
The smaller DX sensor just crops away the outer ~1/3 area of the image circle and thereby gives us an image with an angle of view similar to a 300mm lens in front of a FX sensor.
Still you might end up with a somewhat better objective/concrete resolution with the cropped sensor concentrating all its many (smaller) megapixels in the central ~2/3 area of the image circle of e.g. the 200mm lens, than what you would have left if you in postprocessing cropped away the outer ~1/3 area of the image circle captured with an FX sensor. I think it is maybe this circumstance (combined with the altered angle of view of course) which is often translated into the expression "more reach" instead of simply: "narrowed angle of view".
But of course this resolution matter also depends of the amount of magapixels on the compared sensors in the first place.
. and hey? what are we talking about? 25600? sheesh i'd better get a few ND filters.
I wonder how it works, it sounds cool!