D300 - $1700.00
D3 - $5000.00
great focus, great flash, great ISO.
1dsmkIII - $7000.00
I don't know - that 21 megapixels is something special in a DSLR. I wonder how much a Nikon version at that level will cost? I kind of saw the D3 as a replacement for the D2H, so more comparable to the 1DMkIII which I think it bests in most areas.
I certainly wouldn't mind a 1DsMkIII in my bag - if I didn't have to pay for it!
As for Dell computers (how did we get there?) I personally have to include my time and frustration when I add up the cost of building a computer. When that is added in, I think the Dell (or HP that I ended up buying recently) is more competitive. With my new HP (2.5GHz Core2Quad, 4Gb RAM, 2 500Gb SATA hard drives, 512Mb NVidia GeForce 8800 GT video card, Blu-ray / HD-DVD / DVD burner combo drive, 64 bit Windows Vista Home Premium) I just unpacked it, entered a little bit of data, and away I went. It works great, and except for startup time (which is very long) it is a very fast machine. I would like to have gotten the MacPro, but at twice the price I just wasn't ready to pop for that - even though I did seriously consider it. In any case, the HP was comparible to a homebuilt, all things considered. I was just tired of spending so much time building computers, as every other desktop I have I either built or rebuilt. The only thing I have done to the HP is add the media drives (pricey, but a nice setup) and memory (who can live with 4Gb of RAM these days? ) The only downside is that my Apple 20" monitor isn't compatible with Blu-ray or HD-DVD disks. Well, I always did want the 30" Mac monitor!
I guess everyone has different needs and preferences. I personally would find it difficult to sell the D300 at this time, but I've never had the pleasure of using a D3 or anything like it so I might be a bit less informed on this. Imagine what will be here in a few years that will make the D300 seem dated and in need of an upgrade. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
eaglewolf wrote:
I don't know - that 21 megapixels is something special in a DSLR. I wonder how much a Nikon version at that level will cost?
We should be finding out soon.
Personally, with all the advantages of the D3, what really sold me on it was the fact that it was ONLY 12 megapixels. Had it been 16 or more, I would have gone for the D300 straight away. To be sure, there are good arguments for having all those pixels, but none of them really apply to my own photography right now.
Todd Adamson wrote:
We should be finding out soon.
Personally, with all the advantages of the D3, what really sold me on it was the fact that it was ONLY 12 megapixels. Had it been 16 or more, I would have gone for the D300 straight away. To be sure, there are good arguments for having all those pixels, but none of them really apply to my own photography right now.
True enough. The D300 is a phenomenal camera which I am quite happy to own. The D3 was more than I could justify at the time, and may be something I strive for in the future (next year, maybe?)
I like the 12Mp files of the D300, albeit a bit on the large size to deal with, but extra resolution is always welcome to me if it is done right. Still, I would love to see what I could do with a 21-24 megapixel camera. It might not be the right tool for every job, but with reasonably low noise it could be a lot of fun to work with.
Now justifying that kind of purchase for a non-pro - that's another story! I suspect it will be just as pricey as the Canon 1DMkIII, or close enough that it won't matter. I'll really have to be nice to my better half if I ever want to consider something like that!
I just came over from Canon after being with them for 5 years. A long time nikon user, i was feed up with the offerings years ago and caught up in the competition. My last Canon was the 1dMKIII.... i had focus issues with it, and could never get a perfect night with the flash...
I never seemed to have that problem in the past with even my older manual focus cameras such as the F3, F4, F5 etc... The D100 was a great camera and then the D1 and D1x.... then, my friends i got bit by the canon bug...
But i'm back with a D300 & D3 and i'm not looking back. 12mp is good enought for what i do and the rock solid focusing system and flash on nikon is a winner in my book.
It wasn't easy to make the switch back, as i had a lot of glass (canon).... but i'm happy with the choice.
Tom Conte wrote:
...ok that's too strong, but it got your attention!
I've owned *every* Canon DSLR save the mkIII series, and also a D1X, D200 and D2X, and the D300 is by far the best camera I've ever had!
What?!? What about the 1DsMkII?? Great camera, heavy as crap, painful ergos, missed shots because of it.
What about the 5D?? Great image quality, but pretty much a 30D with a big sensor and no pop up flash. Canon has a very cynical view of anyone who is not a true pro shooter, thinking we'll fawn over features that are only implemented in a half-hearted way (cf, for example, the "weather sealing" on the 40D!).
Bu.. bu.. but there's the D3, dude! Yep, there sure is. But unless they figure out how to make it smaller, as they did when they did a D2X->D300 it won't be a "go anywhere camera" for me. It's great, but I can pull the grip off of my D300 and go indigenous without being noticed.
Ok, nuff said. Tom is very surprised he is this happy with a camera. Last time that happened was... a very long time ago!
) The only downside is that my Apple 20" monitor isn't compatible with Blu-ray or HD-DVD disks. Well, I always did want the 30" Mac monitor!
