John200973
Senior Member
All of the supposed reasons aside, the biggest one remains----it is new. Six months from now it will just be another camera with the latest on the horizon.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What makes the D3 so appealing to everyone?
- Thread starter Zeppelin
- Start date
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I was at a local camera store this past Saturday that had all the factory reps in with their latest product. Out of curiosity and because of all the hype with the D3 and D300 I did spend about a half hour talking to the Nikon rep. No one else was at his table so I did not feel too bad about taking his time and I also told him up front I shoot Canon. A few impressions FWIW.
The new Nikons seem very solid as do the 24~70 and 14~24. I was very impressed with the "feel" of the 24~70 but the 14~24 had a rough feel to the focus ring as if something was mechanically wrong (grinding). I was suprised they would use this particular sample as a demo unless that's just the way the lens is designed. The 24~70 seems small compared to Canon's (a plus) but that may just be because of the smaller diameter mount.
I played more with the D300 as I have no real interest in a heavy pro body for my needs and I'm more familiar with Canon's xxD and 5D cameras. I did play with the scene recognition feature which seems like a dream come true for sports and any action photography. I did not have a subject to track but could set the focus square on people or other stationary objects and slowly pan the camera. I was somewhat surprised at how sluggish the focus point was at holding on the subject. There is probably an adjustment for this in-camera but we did not get to that depth of discussion. Not a valid test by any means but it did not leave me with a "gee, this is so cool" first impression either.
The LCD is very nice and noticeably sharper than Canon's current offerings. Zooming all the way in on a shot does still seem to show some limitations of the JPEG file as do Canon's although the menus are very crisp and contrasty. I would think the next Canon body release will have this screen.
I also asked the rep about 14 bit vs 12 bit and if this was that big a deal. His response was that it was "huge", very worthwhile and makes available another 2 million colors. He somewhat painted himself into a corner as I then asked about the frame rate which he stated at 6 FPS, 8 with the grip. I then asked about the 14 bit at 6 or 8 FPS and he had to back peddle a bit.
The thing that stands out the most to me with the Nikons is the complexity of the controls compared to Canon. I know it's mostly what one is used to and most comfortable with but I have a problem with all the buttons and switches on these bodies. They just don't feel intuitive to me and that's obviously because I'm not familiar with them. I would think this has to have implications for weather sealing too as that many additional points of entry leaves that much more to chance.
Near the end of our discussion he started to make some claims that I thought were a bit over the top about pro sports shooters lining up to switch. In response I mentioned that Canon had their hands full with the 1D3 issues and he responded by saying "Canon is a good company and will sort this out". He also said Nikon can't say anything about it because they've also had their mistakes and embarrasments and stuff always comes back to bite you. He also mentioned that was why there was such a delay in delivery after announcement on the D3 and D300. He said the 1D3 issue made Nikon slow down to be as certain as possible the bugs were out of these cameras.
I know the OP asked about the D3 but as a Canon shooter I could see nothing compelling in the D300 that would make me dump my system and change. The 40D does everything I need for it to do and much more so the added capabilities of the D300 are not enticing to me. IQ that would be substantially better than my 40D would be a different story but IMO we're at the point of diminishing returns until some new break though technology in sensor design is announced.
I'm certain the D3 and D300 will be great additions to the Nikon line with IQ very close to Canon (we won't know until these cameras are tested side by side) but I see no compelling reason for change and having to take the financial loss and learn a new system. Maybe if I were a pro sports shooter I'd see it differently but then the FF of the D3 would seem to be a negative compared to the 1.3 of the 1D2/3. The tests will tell but I see it as Nikon has probably caught up to Canon in the area of IQ now that they've finally abandoned the CCD and intro'd their first FF but there is still no clear cut decisive winner when you consider the overall systems.
Still it's an exciting time and the competition (better late than never) from Nikon will only improve things for Canon shooters down the line. This alone would make me stay put as changing systems each time one company intros their latest body would become very expensive and time consuming. But if you're one that just has to have the latest and greatest.....
FWIW.
Bob
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
The new Nikons seem very solid as do the 24~70 and 14~24. I was very impressed with the "feel" of the 24~70 but the 14~24 had a rough feel to the focus ring as if something was mechanically wrong (grinding). I was suprised they would use this particular sample as a demo unless that's just the way the lens is designed. The 24~70 seems small compared to Canon's (a plus) but that may just be because of the smaller diameter mount.
I played more with the D300 as I have no real interest in a heavy pro body for my needs and I'm more familiar with Canon's xxD and 5D cameras. I did play with the scene recognition feature which seems like a dream come true for sports and any action photography. I did not have a subject to track but could set the focus square on people or other stationary objects and slowly pan the camera. I was somewhat surprised at how sluggish the focus point was at holding on the subject. There is probably an adjustment for this in-camera but we did not get to that depth of discussion. Not a valid test by any means but it did not leave me with a "gee, this is so cool" first impression either.
The LCD is very nice and noticeably sharper than Canon's current offerings. Zooming all the way in on a shot does still seem to show some limitations of the JPEG file as do Canon's although the menus are very crisp and contrasty. I would think the next Canon body release will have this screen.
I also asked the rep about 14 bit vs 12 bit and if this was that big a deal. His response was that it was "huge", very worthwhile and makes available another 2 million colors. He somewhat painted himself into a corner as I then asked about the frame rate which he stated at 6 FPS, 8 with the grip. I then asked about the 14 bit at 6 or 8 FPS and he had to back peddle a bit.
The thing that stands out the most to me with the Nikons is the complexity of the controls compared to Canon. I know it's mostly what one is used to and most comfortable with but I have a problem with all the buttons and switches on these bodies. They just don't feel intuitive to me and that's obviously because I'm not familiar with them. I would think this has to have implications for weather sealing too as that many additional points of entry leaves that much more to chance.
Near the end of our discussion he started to make some claims that I thought were a bit over the top about pro sports shooters lining up to switch. In response I mentioned that Canon had their hands full with the 1D3 issues and he responded by saying "Canon is a good company and will sort this out". He also said Nikon can't say anything about it because they've also had their mistakes and embarrasments and stuff always comes back to bite you. He also mentioned that was why there was such a delay in delivery after announcement on the D3 and D300. He said the 1D3 issue made Nikon slow down to be as certain as possible the bugs were out of these cameras.
I know the OP asked about the D3 but as a Canon shooter I could see nothing compelling in the D300 that would make me dump my system and change. The 40D does everything I need for it to do and much more so the added capabilities of the D300 are not enticing to me. IQ that would be substantially better than my 40D would be a different story but IMO we're at the point of diminishing returns until some new break though technology in sensor design is announced.
I'm certain the D3 and D300 will be great additions to the Nikon line with IQ very close to Canon (we won't know until these cameras are tested side by side) but I see no compelling reason for change and having to take the financial loss and learn a new system. Maybe if I were a pro sports shooter I'd see it differently but then the FF of the D3 would seem to be a negative compared to the 1.3 of the 1D2/3. The tests will tell but I see it as Nikon has probably caught up to Canon in the area of IQ now that they've finally abandoned the CCD and intro'd their first FF but there is still no clear cut decisive winner when you consider the overall systems.
Still it's an exciting time and the competition (better late than never) from Nikon will only improve things for Canon shooters down the line. This alone would make me stay put as changing systems each time one company intros their latest body would become very expensive and time consuming. But if you're one that just has to have the latest and greatest.....
FWIW.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
it's a nice camera, about time nikon shooters have something in the FF range.
however, a D3 kit would also require me to get a sherpa to carry my gear while backpacking, sooooo getting a D3 + renting a sherpa is out of my budget. Not to mention the incredible loss of money in the switch, since most of the canon gear costs less than the equiv nikon..if there is equivalance.
there's just no nikon equivalant to the flexibility of canon's options in lenses and bodies that I desire to have. a great camera is useless if I'm too tired after hiking to shoot it.
however, a D3 kit would also require me to get a sherpa to carry my gear while backpacking, sooooo getting a D3 + renting a sherpa is out of my budget. Not to mention the incredible loss of money in the switch, since most of the canon gear costs less than the equiv nikon..if there is equivalance.
there's just no nikon equivalant to the flexibility of canon's options in lenses and bodies that I desire to have. a great camera is useless if I'm too tired after hiking to shoot it.
Rootbeer
Senior Member
Full Frame, 9 fps, a manageable file size, a large buffer, a well thought out AF sensor array clean high iso speeds.. with great detail too.. & the price of only 5 grand, making it affordable and well featured..
& that nifty new 14-24mm f2.8 zoom lens is an added bonus too..
I've been waiting for this camera for a long long time from Canon.. & Nikon beat them to it!! :-(
JP
--
I'm no 'John Holmes', but I do have a rather 'Large' lens..
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer
& that nifty new 14-24mm f2.8 zoom lens is an added bonus too..
I've been waiting for this camera for a long long time from Canon.. & Nikon beat them to it!! :-(
JP
--
I'm no 'John Holmes', but I do have a rather 'Large' lens..
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer
JohnK
Veteran Member
Not everyone wants to go back to a crop sensor that has smaller pixels with less light gathering capability and so on, just sayin'.
JohnK
Take a picture, it'll last longer.
--
JohnK
Take a picture, it'll last longer.
Exactly.
tony field
Forum Pro
In summary, the only point you make is Canon's reduced noise high ISO over Nikon.
FF, for the most part, is largely immaterial and is often an hindrance rather than an advantage. IMO, Nikon ergonomics prove more useful than FF - however the 1D-III is the first Canon 1-series that works as well or better than the Nikon system for operational ease.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
FF, for the most part, is largely immaterial and is often an hindrance rather than an advantage. IMO, Nikon ergonomics prove more useful than FF - however the 1D-III is the first Canon 1-series that works as well or better than the Nikon system for operational ease.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
Yeah, and saying that Canon has been producing FFs for half a 'decade' sounds like a century.
FretNoMore
Veteran Member
...is only 5.4 Mpixels, which doesn't sound too tempting. The crop mode is maybe on paper good for those who have bought a lot of crop lenses but in the long run would anyone be happy with that file size when they have bought an FF camera? People will have to buy new lenses, adding to the cost of an already expensive camera.
- Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *
The D3 isn't appealing to "everyone". Some are looking foirward to it, some really don't care.
Cameras like the D3 only appeal to a very small percentage of photographers, and virtually no percentage of most of the people on earth. Some think of it as the best thing since sliced bread, while most other people would say "What's a D3?" or "You spent $5,000.00 on THAT, without any lenses???"
It hasn't even been released to the public and it may or may noit live up to its' specs. If it does live up to its' specs and all the hype, it should be a good camera, but then it should be for 5 grand, with no lens.
I've seen the same kind of hype and insane frenzy over a $150.00 point and shoot. The same frenzy also applies to cars, video consoles and games, cell phones, music devices like Ipods, Teddy Ruxpin stuffed racoons, Cabbage Patch Dolls, Beanie Babies, Tickle Me Elmos, and tons of other "toys".
In the end it's just another camera. A year or two from now, and probably sooner, it will be outdated, antiquated, and no big deal.
Photographs have been shot for over 150 years. Somehow, all the people that have ever shot a photo have managed to do so without a D3. There are many great cameras available right now and also many that have been for a long time. In the right hands, many cameras will produce wonderful images. We live in a time where everything is getting easier and easier. Even if the camera is only average, a computer can fix up most images to look great. What happened to skill?
Many of the functions in cameras these days are unnecessary and are better done with a computer (if necessary). I have never used every function a digital camera has and likely never will. My favorite SLR of all time was a Pentax MX fully manual 35mm. It was SMALL, light and tough as they come.
A particular camera isn't going to elevate anyone to a higher status when it comes to producing great images. The tools only do so much. If you don't have the skill, you're wasting your money on a D3 or any other spendy camera. If you have to machine gun to get keepers, you might as well do video. It's just as popular, if not more so, and just as affordable, if not more so.
Art is produced with your mind's eye, and many cameras are more than good enough to meet most people's needs.
Cameras like the D3 only appeal to a very small percentage of photographers, and virtually no percentage of most of the people on earth. Some think of it as the best thing since sliced bread, while most other people would say "What's a D3?" or "You spent $5,000.00 on THAT, without any lenses???"
It hasn't even been released to the public and it may or may noit live up to its' specs. If it does live up to its' specs and all the hype, it should be a good camera, but then it should be for 5 grand, with no lens.
I've seen the same kind of hype and insane frenzy over a $150.00 point and shoot. The same frenzy also applies to cars, video consoles and games, cell phones, music devices like Ipods, Teddy Ruxpin stuffed racoons, Cabbage Patch Dolls, Beanie Babies, Tickle Me Elmos, and tons of other "toys".
In the end it's just another camera. A year or two from now, and probably sooner, it will be outdated, antiquated, and no big deal.
Photographs have been shot for over 150 years. Somehow, all the people that have ever shot a photo have managed to do so without a D3. There are many great cameras available right now and also many that have been for a long time. In the right hands, many cameras will produce wonderful images. We live in a time where everything is getting easier and easier. Even if the camera is only average, a computer can fix up most images to look great. What happened to skill?
Many of the functions in cameras these days are unnecessary and are better done with a computer (if necessary). I have never used every function a digital camera has and likely never will. My favorite SLR of all time was a Pentax MX fully manual 35mm. It was SMALL, light and tough as they come.
A particular camera isn't going to elevate anyone to a higher status when it comes to producing great images. The tools only do so much. If you don't have the skill, you're wasting your money on a D3 or any other spendy camera. If you have to machine gun to get keepers, you might as well do video. It's just as popular, if not more so, and just as affordable, if not more so.
Art is produced with your mind's eye, and many cameras are more than good enough to meet most people's needs.
Robert Whiteman
Veteran Member
because of what Canon will do in reply. Perhaps the 1D series has seen it's last cropped design? Pehaps the viewfinder on the next 5D upgrade will be 100%?
The only reason there IS a D3 is because Nikon had to respond, and respond they did.
There are no losers in this free enterprise system and I think we're near the limit with the current technology. Not an expert, but the advancements are in smaller incriments and the IQ from 6 MP to 12 MP isn't that huge and higher MP aren't going to gain much more in the FF format. Even in MF digital the differences from the 22 MP backs and the newer 33 and 39 MP backs isn't all that much without pixel peeping.
Unless there's a fundamental breakthrough in Sensor design and capabilities, the biggest advancements will be features and functions of the camera bodies in question. Nikons noise performance seems more of a software/firmware development than a hardware issue. I could be wrong as I'm not an expert. It's just an observation from what those who know more than me are saying.
Yes, the D3 is a good event for everyone who wants a better product from whatever brand they favor.
The best is yet to come.
Robert
The only reason there IS a D3 is because Nikon had to respond, and respond they did.
There are no losers in this free enterprise system and I think we're near the limit with the current technology. Not an expert, but the advancements are in smaller incriments and the IQ from 6 MP to 12 MP isn't that huge and higher MP aren't going to gain much more in the FF format. Even in MF digital the differences from the 22 MP backs and the newer 33 and 39 MP backs isn't all that much without pixel peeping.
Unless there's a fundamental breakthrough in Sensor design and capabilities, the biggest advancements will be features and functions of the camera bodies in question. Nikons noise performance seems more of a software/firmware development than a hardware issue. I could be wrong as I'm not an expert. It's just an observation from what those who know more than me are saying.
Yes, the D3 is a good event for everyone who wants a better product from whatever brand they favor.
The best is yet to come.
Robert
But I will say that the D3 is the first Nikon that's held any interest to me since the F4, and I would say that it's exactly the sort of camera that professional level DSLRs should have always been. But that being said, I see no reason to get rid of any Canon gear for what would honestly be a lateral move; however, if I was a Nikon user I'd dump everything else I had to get one.
Anyway, so far I haven't seen anything out of the D3 that totally blows me away; really, it's about what I'd expect out of a top end, full frame 12MP camera at the end of 2007, which is to say really nice. And it, along with the new cameras already in people's hands from Canon, gives me great hopes for what the next 5D might be like (here's hoping for a real digital EOS 3).
But yes, the D3 is a landmark camera for Nikon, and it's nice to see them back as an legitimate option in the professional market.
Anyway, so far I haven't seen anything out of the D3 that totally blows me away; really, it's about what I'd expect out of a top end, full frame 12MP camera at the end of 2007, which is to say really nice. And it, along with the new cameras already in people's hands from Canon, gives me great hopes for what the next 5D might be like (here's hoping for a real digital EOS 3).
But yes, the D3 is a landmark camera for Nikon, and it's nice to see them back as an legitimate option in the professional market.
You can deny it all you want, and call it "largely immaterial", but many people ARE excited that the D3 is full frame! I'm quite positive that, had the D3 been just another new APS body, many people would not nearly be as excited as they are for a FF D3. Maybe YOU may not be interested in FF, but I don't think YOU can speak for everyone. Furthermore, one has to wonder if the 12mp D3 would have good high ISO performance if those 12mp were crammed onto an APS sensor.
LOL. Half a decade is not a century. A decade is 10 years. Half a decade is 5 years. Canon introduced their first FF DSLR, the 1Ds, in 2002. That was 5 years ago.
I think you're being a bit overly sensitive. Otherwise, you wouldn't have over-reacted to the use of the word "decade". After all, do you react in the same way when one says a "foot" instead of "12 inches", or "meter" instead of "100 cm". Probably not, because this has no relation to Nikon and/or the time that has elapsed since Canon first introduced a FF DSLR. The fact that a "decade", used in this context, feels like a "century" to YOU, or causes you to think "century", probably only points to your own feeling that it seems like a a long time ago that Canon introduced their first FF DSLR. It's just your own perception regarding this matter that is causing you to think "century".
BobHo
Veteran Member
A 16MP 5DMkII won't make me replace/supplement my 5D, especially if it still only does 3FPS.
--
Bob
--
Bob
FretNoMore
Veteran Member
tony field
Forum Pro
I cannot figure out what I "deny" - that is your mistaken inference from my words. Yes, some folks are excited that it is full frame. None the less, it is largely immaterial - "excitement" is one thing, "material" is another. Of the few dozen pros and many amateurs I shoot with (PJ, sports, wild life, portraits, performing arts) only one or two need full frame - those that do shoot a lot with wide angle (wider than equivalent 35mm on full frame) or need high pixel count. The others that do not "need" wide angle extensively have chosen lenses that provide sufficient out-of-focus control. In these general senses, FF is "largely immaterial".
The benefits/problems of FF (other than pixel count availability) can be easily dealt with by suitable lens choices. The advantages/disadvantages of a crop sensor can also be accommodated by proper lens selection. In other words, "largely immaterial" apples in general.
YOU seem to jump to the conclusion that I am not interested in FF. YOU seem jump to the conclusion that I attempt to speak for all people. Rather a silly interpretation of my words. I made no such statement - you twist my comments dramatically - but that is expected.
I have FF but find it not material for portraiture, sports, pj, majority of scenic, performing arts, and street photography - as do the the majority of photographers I know. In fact, the pixel count was the single reason I chose FF (in spite of the very poor body surrounding the sensor).
Yes, noise is certainly one area in which currently available sensor technology benefits from full frame with larger pixel sizes for a given pixel count than available on smaller sensors.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
M
misha
Guest
You can mount all third party "digital" lenses though, like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina which are quite close to what Canon offers in EF-S, except IS (and now Sigma has the 18-200 OS).
--
Misha
This isn't a discussion of the pros and cons of FF. This is a discussion over the interest surrounding the D3. And most will agree that the interest surrounding the D3 pertains to the fact that it is 12mp on a FF sensor, which appears to allow Nikon to achieve considerably lower noise than Nikon's previous 12mp on an APS sensor. So are you SURE you don't want to reconsider your previous statement that FF is "immaterial"? Would there be as much interest if the D3 were not FF? Would the noise be as low if it were not FF? Are all these related factors simply "immaterial"? I think not.
So, are Nikon's ergnomics on the D3 anything different than what they have been on previous Nikon bodies? Is that something new? Is that the basis for the interest surrounding the D3? No, it's not any different from previous Nikon bodies. So what is new? Gee, I wonder? Could it be...hmmm...the 12mp? No, because the D2X also had 12mp. Could it be...the FF sensor? No, because Nikon has had FF sensors before. Oh, wait a minute...Nikon HAS NOT had a FF sensor before! This is Nikon's FIRST FF sensor! Could THAT have anything to do with the interest surrounding the D3? Yes, it does. And people have good reason for the interest. Even though you DENY that that interest is valid, by saying that it is "immaterial", which is defined as being "of no substantial consequence." Again, this is YOUR judgement (ie, it being "immaterial" or "of no substantial consequence") even though one substantial consequence is, apparently, the very interest that it generates! Not to mention all the other arguments surrounding why one would want FF. But, as I mentioned, this isn't a conversation regarding the pros and cons of FF. I'm just pointing out that FF is one BIG aspect of why there is considerable interest surrounding the D3. Care to say otherwise?
Take away the "material" aspect of the D3 being FF (as well as the characteristics and aspects related to it) and ask yourself if there would be as much interest in it. After all, if it were just 12mp on an APS sensor, Nikon has done it before. It was called the D2X. If it were just ergonomic preferences, Nikon has done it before. So, again, to imply that the FF "material" aspect of the D3 has nothing to do with the interest surrounding the D3 is, or is "immaterial" to the interest surrounding the D3 is, indeed, "denying" things.
I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that FF is certainly a "material" aspect of the interest surrounding the D3. Why should that be something so difficult or unsavory to admit? Now, I do understand that many Nikonians have had a long-standing campaign against FF, but I think it's time to put that to rest. FF is here. It was inevitable. And it's not going away. To keep arguing on and on about FF being "immaterial" and so on and so forth is just pointless. The cat's already out of the bag. Nikon didn't have FF, and now they do. And many are finally cheering. No need to argue otherwise.
Okay, so please tell us what you were inferring when you stated "FF, for the most part, is largely immaterial and is often an hindrance rather than an advantage. IMO, Nikon ergonomics prove more useful than FF - however the 1D-III is the first Canon 1-series that works as well or better than the Nikon system for operational ease."
So, are Nikon's ergnomics on the D3 anything different than what they have been on previous Nikon bodies? Is that something new? Is that the basis for the interest surrounding the D3? No, it's not any different from previous Nikon bodies. So what is new? Gee, I wonder? Could it be...hmmm...the 12mp? No, because the D2X also had 12mp. Could it be...the FF sensor? No, because Nikon has had FF sensors before. Oh, wait a minute...Nikon HAS NOT had a FF sensor before! This is Nikon's FIRST FF sensor! Could THAT have anything to do with the interest surrounding the D3? Yes, it does. And people have good reason for the interest. Even though you DENY that that interest is valid, by saying that it is "immaterial", which is defined as being "of no substantial consequence." Again, this is YOUR judgement (ie, it being "immaterial" or "of no substantial consequence") even though one substantial consequence is, apparently, the very interest that it generates! Not to mention all the other arguments surrounding why one would want FF. But, as I mentioned, this isn't a conversation regarding the pros and cons of FF. I'm just pointing out that FF is one BIG aspect of why there is considerable interest surrounding the D3. Care to say otherwise?
Take away the "material" aspect of the D3 being FF (as well as the characteristics and aspects related to it) and ask yourself if there would be as much interest in it. After all, if it were just 12mp on an APS sensor, Nikon has done it before. It was called the D2X. If it were just ergonomic preferences, Nikon has done it before. So, again, to imply that the FF "material" aspect of the D3 has nothing to do with the interest surrounding the D3 is, or is "immaterial" to the interest surrounding the D3 is, indeed, "denying" things.
I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that FF is certainly a "material" aspect of the interest surrounding the D3. Why should that be something so difficult or unsavory to admit? Now, I do understand that many Nikonians have had a long-standing campaign against FF, but I think it's time to put that to rest. FF is here. It was inevitable. And it's not going away. To keep arguing on and on about FF being "immaterial" and so on and so forth is just pointless. The cat's already out of the bag. Nikon didn't have FF, and now they do. And many are finally cheering. No need to argue otherwise.
Octane
Veteran Member
It's so annoying how people are so consumed with looking at noise and megapixel (although the megapixel race is finally slowing down).
Compare the D3 and 5D:
same megapixel
same full frame format
same brilliant image quality
both do super well in low light
So why the hype? People who get excited about the D3 realize there is so much more that makes a great camera.
Before Canon could always get away with pointing at lower noise. Now that the D3 matches (probably exceeded that) people start to look at the "rest of the camera" and realize, wow there is so much more.
9 fps at full frame (even 11 fps if you use DX)
super short blackout time
super short shutter lag
AF in live view
dual CF slot that supports UDMA (= 3-4 fps directly to the card in RAW mode)
a new AF that recognizes color patterns and follows it
an LCD that lets you really judge the quality of a photo
The D3 offers full frame without compromisng performance, and seems to have the lowest noise of all cameras right now.
Canon keeps it's old split of the top models. A fast crop camera that doesn't allow you to use crop (EF-S) lenses. Or a super high resolution camera that is too slow for many situations, and a resolution only a very small number of people need. But it comes at the cost of double to files size, processing time and storage/transfer time. Did I mention it is $8000?
Nikon's D3 goes a route that, judging by the reactions, is more successful. They keep the resolution reasonable and sufficient for most pros, but get the performance and quality to a new level. It is just the right combination of quality, features and performance that people want.
--
-------David-------
http://flickr.com/photos/childish/
Compare the D3 and 5D:
same megapixel
same full frame format
same brilliant image quality
both do super well in low light
So why the hype? People who get excited about the D3 realize there is so much more that makes a great camera.
Before Canon could always get away with pointing at lower noise. Now that the D3 matches (probably exceeded that) people start to look at the "rest of the camera" and realize, wow there is so much more.
9 fps at full frame (even 11 fps if you use DX)
super short blackout time
super short shutter lag
AF in live view
dual CF slot that supports UDMA (= 3-4 fps directly to the card in RAW mode)
a new AF that recognizes color patterns and follows it
an LCD that lets you really judge the quality of a photo
The D3 offers full frame without compromisng performance, and seems to have the lowest noise of all cameras right now.
Canon keeps it's old split of the top models. A fast crop camera that doesn't allow you to use crop (EF-S) lenses. Or a super high resolution camera that is too slow for many situations, and a resolution only a very small number of people need. But it comes at the cost of double to files size, processing time and storage/transfer time. Did I mention it is $8000?
Nikon's D3 goes a route that, judging by the reactions, is more successful. They keep the resolution reasonable and sufficient for most pros, but get the performance and quality to a new level. It is just the right combination of quality, features and performance that people want.
--
-------David-------
http://flickr.com/photos/childish/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum