Reading mode: Light Dark

D3. newest FF camera also has lowest mp count in forever

Go to last post
JaguarsLogic said:
and nikon is selling it for $5k, in 2007. wow. lets see

D3 - 2007 -12.1 mpx $5000
eos 1ds mk iii -2007 -21 mpx -$8000 -
canon 5 d -2005 -12.8 mpx -$3000
kodak 14n -2002 - 14 mpx -$5000 -

so, the only full frame that I can recall that has fewer megapixels
than the d3, was the original 1ds, which was released way back in
2002, and had ALMOST as many megapixels as 2007s d3- 11.4 vs 12.1

wow, nikon, you did us a big favor by releasing this amazing camera
at this amazing price... not

Im gonna wait for, and its gonna happen, a full frame d300 ff. when
canon starts selling their 5d for $1800 (maybe after releasing a
5dii) I'll see if nikon isnt forced to act and make a more budget
conscious full frame camera.

also, I'll be curious to see how the 12.1 mpix compares to the
original 11.4 mpix canon. should be interesting.
Click to expand...
-------

I agree totally with what u say.

I'm a full time photographer, and i use (amongst) other cameras the Kodak SLRpro 14mp.(nikon fit)
Its a fantastic camera with no AA filter (great)

And in my opinion, there is nothing to beat it for sharpness, and picture quality.(yet).

But times have changed, and what the new ff cameras have is amazing new spec's built into the body , like live LCD 3" preview etc etc which the Kodak doesnt.

So if i decided to go for a D3 then it would not be for the 12MB sensor, but it would be for the body spec's which seem a mile long .
Or i might wait for the 21mb rumors (lol)to come out and save myself some money.

Or i might get the D3 and get a camera surgeon to take out the AA filter for me, (giving me a sharper camera).

regards

GR
 
My areas are American law, ancient history, and current research in psychology. I am also interested in much that's discussed in this forum, even though my other interests take precedence over the fine points of digital imaging technology.

I'm sure I'm not the only participant in this forum whose other interests consume time and attention that some participants prefer to devote to learning the fine points of photographic equipment.

I never assume that someone who makes an intelligent comment about Erie v. Tompkins, or about the damnatio memoriae visited upon Septimius Severus' son Geta knows as much as I know about Shelley v. Kramer or Romulus Augustulus. And if someone knows less than I do about the things I care about, I don't think the less of them for it. They surely know more than I about any of a hundred different things.
--
Ian Gilbert
 
IanGilbert said:
My areas are American law, ancient history, and current research in
psychology. I am also interested in much that's discussed in this
forum, even though my other interests take precedence over the fine
points of digital imaging technology.

I'm sure I'm not the only participant in this forum whose other
interests consume time and attention that some participants prefer to
devote to learning the fine points of photographic equipment.

I never assume that someone who makes an intelligent comment about
Erie v. Tompkins, or about the damnatio memoriae visited upon
Septimius Severus' son Geta knows as much as I know about Shelley v.
Kramer or Romulus Augustulus. And if someone knows less than I do
about the things I care about, I don't think the less of them for it.
They surely know more than I about any of a hundred different things.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

--
John Walker
http://jhwalker.smugmug.com/
 
fudgebrown said:
JaguarsLogic said:
and nikon is selling it for $5k, in 2007. wow. lets see

D3 - 2007 -12.1 mpx $5000
eos 1ds mk iii -2007 -21 mpx -$8000 -
canon 5 d -2005 -12.8 mpx -$3000
kodak 14n -2002 - 14 mpx -$5000 -

so, the only full frame that I can recall that has fewer megapixels
than the d3, was the original 1ds, which was released way back in
2002, and had ALMOST as many megapixels as 2007s d3- 11.4 vs 12.1

wow, nikon, you did us a big favor by releasing this amazing camera
at this amazing price... not

Im gonna wait for, and its gonna happen, a full frame d300 ff. when
canon starts selling their 5d for $1800 (maybe after releasing a
5dii) I'll see if nikon isnt forced to act and make a more budget
conscious full frame camera.

also, I'll be curious to see how the 12.1 mpix compares to the
original 11.4 mpix canon. should be interesting.
Click to expand...
--
'Procrastinate now, don't put it off.'

Click to expand...
--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)
 
I take your point, but some of us like slooooooooow and have no interest in 5 figure ISOs. I'd go for higher MP count any day and will wait for the 'D3x' to use with those divine Zeiss optics.
 
This is supposed to mean, if you dont understand the discussion, it probably is not important to you.
--
-Yyrkoon

'Thinking ones self to be superior is often the case of a delusional mind.'
  • LT. Commander Data
 
The D3 is 70% of what most pro commercial photographers need. (wedding, event, publicity, portraiture, sports...)

Pros with specific needs fit the remaining 30%. You know who who you are and I won't go into what you use...(architecture, Art, Fine Art Portraiture, etc.)

Other, high income commercial photographers still use film. Film is still amazing when you get past 6x7!!!!!

I'd put film up against the Phase One P45 (that I've used!) any day. It just depends on the look you want...and I like the look!

High end pros also use Hasselblad or Mamiya with a high MP digital backs like Phase One.
 
Some statements I've been hearing over the last years:

· Full Frame is no longer necesary. APS-C format does it everything and has some other advantages (less bulky and longer reach for a given lens).
-> Ouch: D3

· CCD is, by far, superior to CMOS
-> Ouch: D3 & D300

· Smaller photosites deliver more resolving power
-> Ouch: D3. Now what's REALLY important is the signal to noise ratio.

· Pixel count is nonesense, pixel quality is the real deal: most people, even professionals, don't need more than ¡¡¡¡4!!!! Mpix (we all heard that)
-> Ouch: why, then, 6, 8, 10, ¡¡¡12!!! Mpix?. Sounds nonsense 12 MPix.

And, by the way, Nikonians do not crop?

My point is that every tecnology has its compromises and what really is nonesense is sticking to the features "your" brand gives you ...even if they change over the time.

Above all, who says the 21Mpix of the 1DsIII are poor quality ones?

Dena Flows
 
I don’t know if it’s true or not but many are talking about a D3x which is rumored to have 16 or more pixels. And, that it is coming out soon.
 
Dena Flows said:
My point is that every tecnology has its compromises and what really
is nonesense is sticking to the features "your" brand gives you
...even if they change over the time.
Click to expand...
all that was discussed and will be discussed many times. right now D3 has less resolution then D300 (especially when you need reach and are focal length limited), and through many exchanges I know many consider getting both cameras. sticking to the features has a lot to do with sticking to the lens mount and existing lenses, as well as with familiar ergonomics. I won't blame Canon shooters for not switching to Nikon even if D3 is better then 1D MkIII or 5D. they can wait a little and Canon will come up with a leapfrog model. (btw QC makes buying a new lens a pain, let alone switching brands.) you always live under some limitations, even if you are the most powerful person in the World.

what I'm missing is D300 features in D2-class body (D2-class viewfinder first of all).

--
Julia
 
JaguarsLogic said:
so, the only full frame that I can recall that has fewer megapixels
than the d3, was the original 1ds, which was released way back in
2002, and had ALMOST as many megapixels as 2007s d3- 11.4 vs 12.1
Click to expand...
Contax N Digital Had 6 Megapixels and was Full Frame as I recall.
 
To go beyond perfect 12mpx from a FF camera with 2007 technology means having 100% perfect lenses and more than 20mpx.

You double the megapixels and you quadruple the difficulties.
 
  • if you are open minded. At the press launch Nikon have said it is intended to be the best PJ and sports camera there is.
If you expect it to do other things (like be a D3x) its niche performance will be compromised.

In case you missed the message first time round it is meant to be a sports and PJ camera to replace the D2h - not something else.
On that basis - hopefully amen.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Whilst the camera and lens can be important the photographers skill and imagination are much more important in achieving good pictures.
 
The workflow capabilities of NX, and the ability to share adjustments, metadata and other features with Photoshop compared to Lightroom makes NX look a bit primitive. Lightroom simply outshines NX in so many ways it's not funny. And with Nikon's attitude towards openness (against it) forcing people to use NX to get their "take" on what a photo should look like only hurts photographers' choices.
Yyrkoon said:
Although you reccomend Lightroom, and I have little doubt it is a top
notch application, I personally would Preffer CaptureNX to compliment
CS3 extended.

--
-Yyrkoon

'Thinking ones self to be superior is often the case of a delusional
mind.'
  • LT. Commander Data
Click to expand...
--
Eric

'The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the
men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.' H.L.
Mencken
 
complain about noise. get low noise, complain about too few pixels. Nikon can't win...but their cameras are winners!

--

 
BRJR said:
1. For, the other than Nikon Fans (that already seem to know how to
read and think), those in this Thread should know that the D3 is
mainly Nikon's Sports/Photojournalism FF, built for especially for
speed, light-weight and use of high ISO, when needed.
Click to expand...
I agree with your post, except for the part about "light-weight." It weighs in at

Approx. 2.7 lb. (1,240 g) without battery, memory card, body cap or accessory shoe cover

per the Nikon web site. Now, I don't know about you, but I seem to think that I would need a battery and a memory card to use this camera. Plus a lens of course. You're up to 4-5-6 pound, depending on the lens.
BRJR said:
2. Nikon, has already said that a Hi Res FF D3, will be their high
MP FF.
Click to expand...
Did I miss that announcement? Where/when?

--
LongTimeNikonUser
 
jwalker019 said:
JaguarsLogic said:
and nikon is selling it for $5k, in 2007. wow. lets see

D3 - 2007 -12.1 mpx $5000
eos 1ds mk iii -2007 -21 mpx -$8000 -
canon 5 d -2005 -12.8 mpx -$3000
kodak 14n -2002 - 14 mpx -$5000 -
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...
jhwalker said:
It's the combination of FF + speed that makes the D3 unique - none of
the others you mentioned come close to 9fps.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=24637079

In terms of megapixel throughput, the D3 is only 4% faster than the 1DMK3. That lead is less than 1/3rd of the lead the 1DMK2 had over the D2X (13%).

And to be fair, neither the Canon 5D nor the Kodak 14n are "current generation" DSLRs, although I strongly doubt the successor to the Canon 5D will do more than 5fps.

I also believe that the next, higher resolution D3, will have significantly less FPS than the D3 due to the limit in megapixel throughput of the Camera being roughly the same - 100MP/s.
 
5 MPixels is perfect in DX mode. Nikon concentrated on bigger pixels. We'll be taking 5 or 12 noise-free megapixels while the rest of the world will be delivering denoised images with much lower actual resolution.
 
Yeah, the MP count of the D3 is a total rip off.

12million pixels for five grand. Cost per pixel: $0.00042 each.

Canon 21.2 MP camera: Cost per pixel: $0.00038 each.

Every time you shoot a picture, you are being short-changed by $0.00004 on every pixel.

But...

If fps were your measure, that $8 grand canon was charging you $1,600 per each frame per second.

While the Nikon D3 would set you back only $555.56 per frame per second. A 3:1 bonus over the DsM3. Every time you shot the Canon, you would be ripped off $1,044 per frame.

Sort of.

-iNova

--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top