« Hat to the Max | Main | 'Content-Aware Image Resizing' »

Thursday, 23 August 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e54ee31ab28834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nikon D3 and D300:

Comments

Mike, Thanks for the brief and concise summary! I'm getting dizzy trying to read the long winded press releases and product descriptions on several of the well known photo review sites.

I wonder whether you get the "real-time lateral chromatic aberration correction" with RAW? Still Bayer (yuck) but the D300 looks like a no-brainer. No new lenses I'd consider buying ... sigh. Nikon will clean-up with these, pumped out of some sweatshop in Asia. Hey, I might even buy one.

> most probably the "high speed" camera meant to compete with Canon's 1D series rather than with the 1Ds

Mike, I doubt there will be two separate X/H models for the D3. It will deliver up to 11 fps in cropped DX format (5.1 mp) and 9 fps in full frame FX format. It's nice that one can use DX lenses on the D3.

This is about the most exciting day on the web for me, in a very long time!

The D3 literally fulfills EVERYTHING I was wanting in a Nikon camera... I cannot think of one thing it's missing... Until I use it... hah. But it definitely fits the bill, for me... The $5k is the part that's hard to choke, but at least it's not $8k. ;)

When you can get such a great FX Nikon for the relatively reasonable price of $5K, it begins to seem silly to invest in any more DX bodies or lenses. It makes me glad I've waited this long to buy a second DSLR (my last was a Canon D60 in 2002 -- for which I paid $4000 CDN with lens). And sky-high ISOs make VR seem less of an issue. My how the choices proliferate. Of course weight and size are also significant factors, but I'm tempted to regard this new D3 as the Nikon F of DSLRs. Finally, a camera that does everything that needs doing at a reasonable price. I bought my Nikon F in '71 and used it for 30 years. In fact I still have it and it works fine. I understand Nikon also has some new lenses soon to be introduced.

My pocketbook is quaking. I didn't expect them to release everything I wanted in one camera -- I thought the first 35mm Nikon would be a needless megapixel monster -- but they did, and more.

What a game of leapfrog! I cancelled my 40D order placed on Tuesday and ordered a D300 in it’s stead. Given the release date of the 40D I will still be able to change my mind after I “hands-on” it. Nikon has really out-done themselves with this release. Combined with the 18-200mm VR, what more do you need?

When Digital Lloyd switched from Nikon to Canon a few months ago, I said this was like someone waiting and waiting and then finally selling their stocks at the market bottom right before it starts to recover.

Great timing Lloyd!

:~)

My earlier insightful comment seems to have been lost , oh well...

The D3 looks great, but I'm not sure it's enough of an upgrade over the D2x to convince many D2x'rs to make the switch. Sure, it has some useful improvements such as better high-ISO quality, dual card slots, and 14-bit processing, etc. but, in general, it's not going to render the D2x obsolete.

I'm hoping, though, for an announcement in the near future of a D3x with stats more in line with the 1DsMk3. Now THAT would worth switching to. Fingers crossed! C'mon Nikon.

Chuck

It seems to me that, perhaps, the D3 is supposed to compete with both the 1D and 1Ds series... as if it's like they gave us the D3x and then built in a D3h in the high speed DX-crop mode. Rather than releasing two pro cameras, they've just made one with the potential to meet everyone's needs. Sure, the Canon 1Ds mk.III has a resolution edge, but it's probably lens-limited by this point so I'm not expecting to see much real-world difference in image quality between the two.

Chuck,

The D3 handles a couple things that people like me have been begging for that the D2X can't begin to compete with... full frame, high ISO performance and better AF (though the D2X is no slouch).

As for rendering the D2X obsolete, I believe the D300 does that all by itself. Just as good resolution (real world image quality awaits for testing). Better ISO performance (it has to be), better AF system, etc. The D300 may not be quite the professional build or excess features the D2X has such as high speed crop, but it outperforms the D2X in speed too... so the D300, in my mind, puts the D2X to rest.

The D3 is a whole 'nother entry being full frame that addresses a LOT of issues. Including taking the D2H to a new level... I see no reason for the D2X to even be thought of as an option with the release of both the D3 and the D300.

The amount of folks who could afford a 1DsMKIII or Nikon equivalent (in megapixels) is few. Personally, I'd take a D3 over a 1DsMKIII every single day of the week. For me, the megapixel difference is irrelevant.

For those who still want to get to that high high end performance for pure landscape, or upscale studio work, they're probably still better off in the medium format realm. I'm not sure how much the current Canon lenses can keep up with the 1DsMkIII.. time will tell though... The 16-35mm II might be able to do it... I haven't had a chance to see one. ;)

To repeat myself though, on paper, the D3 and D300 easily replace the D2Hs, D2Xs and D200, no questions asked, in my mind. :)

Where are there now the Nikon followers who claimed FF was not needed or even desirable?

Klifton,

There's no question the D3 looks to be an improvement over the D2x. However, it's not the quantum leap forward that will entice many D2x users to spend the money.

Consider that resale prices for used D2x's are only about $2500 (US). That means another $2500 is needed to replace a D2x with a D3. Are those incremental improvements worth that much money? Considering the D300 is only costs about $1800 total, I'm not so sure.

Of course, for someone already looking to replace an older D2x, or looking to enter the professional camera category, the D3 seems to be a better choice, no question.

> It seems to me that, perhaps, the D3 is supposed to compete with both the 1D and 1Ds series..

The 1Ds mk3 competes more with cheaper medium format systems like Mamiya ZD. At least that's how I see it. Canon feeds at the bottom of the medium format dSLR market.

Great - now used D2Hs bodies should drop to a price I can justify!

I am tired of these big heavy built do-all-those-freaky-tricks kind of cameras. With my small palms these never feel right. Even the D80 feels oversized on my palms.

When will we have a nifty little DSLR that takes manual lenses and at the same time offers the basic features? Something like the FM3A of Digital.

Dreaming...

Arvind

I wish I could get excited about these or any other new cameras. I really do. But the only ones that really get my pulse racing are the old ones.

14bit/CMOS/unbelievably high pixel count on the LCD - great.

So comparing the D300 with the D200, the button to activate playback is now up at the top where the bracket button was; the menu button is where the playback button was ; the image-lock button is where the magnify button was; there seems to be a new dedicted magnify button, and now the 'enter' button says 'OK'

And on the top dial we have BKT/FLASH/L (whatever 'L' is) instead of WB/QUAL/ISO.

I am so glad the makers saw fit to incorporate a visual IQ test into the new design.

Arvind, the Pentax K100D, reviewed by Our Host on this blog, comes close to what you want, including the manual lenses part.

Man that camera looks awesome. Not just the ISO performance but some of the hot new features as well. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

The comments to this entry are closed.