What makes the D3 so appealing to everyone?

"What, you paid $8000 for that,...with no lens." It's all relative,...a Chevy can take one the grocery store just as a Benz,....or BMW. Many of us have our own shooting style, so we're more incline to purchase the tool that fits our needs versus wants. If I only shot sports and sports alone, I may very well consider nothing more that a 1D Mk IIn,...1D Mk III, or D2Hs. The fact that I shoot much more,...I want to cover the basis and have an arsenal of tools that fit any requirement. All the gear that I purchase must carry its own weight,....no dead beats allowed.

JMD
...D2X x2 - WT-2A capable
...ITP 2.0 Pro embedded
...5D x1
...Nikon and Canon forever~

After having a few Sigmas become unsupported after 10 years (Sigma's policy - meaning, the company no longer makes the effort to ensure compatibility with new SLRs), turning them into expensive paper weights, I'm loathe to invest in third-party lenses unless the offer something I can't get from OEM lenses. Of course, compatibility isn't such a problem with the manual lenses used via adapter, so those are always viable options, but they are also full frame.

Anyhoo, thanks for the suggestion.

misha said:

Kabe Luna said:

Also a bit
of a bummer that EF-S lenses can't be mounted (without modifications)
on 1.3x and FF cameras. Yeah, I know about the vignetting issues, but
it's a creative decision that Nikon allows me to make.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

FretNoMore said:

MaDProFF said:

Not that I intend to change, from canon to nikon, due to lenses I
have, but the D3 would be the one I would go for, it is an on paper
an excellent all rounder, being damm close to FF, it is a 5D, and
then using the lenses for sports it is a 1.5 crop with speed and
great AF etc, add the 200-400 F4 it has great potential, the only
down side is the cost on nikon lenses, But the way I see it, they
have truly bought out a body that is a jack of all trades
--
Canon bit and bobs
http://www.madproff.co.uk

Click to expand...

...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 *

Click to expand...

What new lenses are you talking about? Seems your speaking ill about a camera you know nothing about. You don't need to by new lenses to use High Speed Crop (HSC) which is a 1.5x crop which will get you upto 11 fps. You can use both Film (standard) lenses and the DX 1.5 crop lenses on the D3. The difference is that when you have a standard lens you can have both FF and HSC mode and when you have a DX lens the camera automatical switch and stays in HSC mode.

Even at 5.4 MP its still a great 11pfs camera, the number of megapixels are not nearly as important as the skills of the photographer.
http://nickmjr.smugmug.com/
Nick M

T3 said:

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."

Click to expand...

I did not infer anything. You made inferences. The obvious "virtue/hindrance" is related to focal length utilization and DOF characteristics of FF and DX.

T3 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I never said the D3 is "different" than previous bodies. Your inference. Not my implication or direct statement. I only compared the general Nikon interface to Canon's historical approach on the 1-series. The ease of use is probably more valuable than FF for most shooters.

T3 said:

Could it be...hmmm...the 12mp? No, because the D2X also had
12mp. Could it be...the FF sensor?

Click to expand...

The fact of full frame is "exciting" to the Nikon camp. It is largely not material in a photographic sense in that the majority of images taken are not sensitive to the size of the sensor (FF or DX). As I said before, the only aspect of FF that is important to many folk is the general relationship of bigger pixels implying lower noise - low noise at DX format would be every bit as good as low noise on FF. Some of the Nikon folks, of course, want full frame for photographic reasons - but these are in the minority.

T3 said:

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 judgment (ie, it being "immaterial" or "of no substantial
consequence") even though one substantial consequence is, apparently,
the very interest that it generates!

Click to expand...

A tangential "material" item, as far as Nikon is concerned, is the hype of FF in a "consumer wants it" sense. Photographically, mostly "immaterial".

T3 said:

I'm just pointing out that FF is one BIG aspect of why there is
considerable interest surrounding the D3. Care to say otherwise?

Click to expand...

I never stated that there is not considerable interest in the D3 partly because of the FF. You made an invalid inference - again common.

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The photographic ability of the D2x is every bit as good as the D3 other than the nature high ISO performance (and probably dynamic range of the new technology). YOU adjust my words again - I never said it was "just ergonomic" - high ISO is the principle advantage. Nikon has always had ISO 6400 on the H-series cameras and the D100. These proved useful but the D3 has now elevated the the to 25600 and made these viable tools.

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I never said nor implied this! YOUR inference only. The excitement (i.e. interest) is partially due to the FF ability.

T3 said:

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?

Click to expand...

See above.

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You make a wrong inference about previous comments about the Nikonian statements regarding FF. The majority were saying that FF is not a necessity for a great image capture and possibly the attributes of a crop sensor were more valuable to a large number of shooters than the good attributes of FF. A small religious few were more bellicose - as many folks traditionally are on this Canon forum.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

NickMJr said:

What new lenses are you talking about? Seems your speaking ill about
a camera you know nothing about. You don't need to by new lenses to
use High Speed Crop (HSC) which is a 1.5x crop which will get you
upto 11 fps. You can use both Film (standard) lenses and the DX 1.5
crop lenses on the D3. The difference is that when you have a
standard lens you can have both FF and HSC mode and when you have a
DX lens the camera automatical switch and stays in HSC mode.

Click to expand...

I'm not "speaking ill" about anything, just pointing out a fact. I don't believe the crop mode is a good selling point and those who have believed in the impression, right or wrong and regardless of who started it, that Nikon was committed to crop sensors only will have to buy and sell some lenses. I don't see a problem is with that fact. It's the same for Canon users moving from crop to full frame, only with Canon it was easier to plan ahead and possibly avoid EF-S lenses since you already knew Canon also did FF.

NickMJr said:

Even at 5.4 MP its still a great 11pfs camera,

Click to expand...

So, you can get very many small-ish images quickly. Who wants and who will use that crop mode? I'm sure there are some, it would be interesting to learn about some real life scenarios where this is indeed being used. I just think that for those buying a D3 the crop mode is mostly uninteresting.

NickMJr said:

the number of megapixels are not nearly as important as the skills of the
photographer.

Click to expand...

That's true but beside the point. If you take that argument to the extreme no-one needs a D3 or 1Ds in the first place. You would have to assume that someone buying this type of camera has skills and plans to use the whole sensor to get the highest possible quality too. It's not either skills or megapixels, it's both.

Anyway, this was just a minor point - personally I don't believe the DX crop mode is a great feature, that's what started this sub-thread.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

Of course FF and cropped cameras are slightly different and have their pros and cons but for the most part it's not really an important difference - immaterial as you say. I believe that the majority of photographers probably are better served by the characteristics of a cropped sensor as opposed to full frame. It's only for highest image quality and possibly ultra shallow DOF where FF is better and comparatively few need or use that. The wide angle advantage is pretty much covered by the newest ultra-wide zooms. Take two "normal" (your average cat, landscape, portrait, kids, etc) pictures taken using FF and cropped sensors and most people, including most photographers, wouldn't know the difference.

Remember that people hanging out at dpreview discussing the finer details of DOF, bokeh and ISO noise characteristics are not really representative of the average camera buyer.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

FretNoMore said:

I'm not "speaking ill" about anything, just pointing out a fact. I
don't believe the crop mode is a good selling point and those who
have believed in the impression, right or wrong and regardless of who
started it, that Nikon was committed to crop sensors only will have
to buy and sell some lenses. I don't see a problem is with that fact.
It's the same for Canon users moving from crop to full frame, only
with Canon it was easier to plan ahead and possibly avoid EF-S lenses
since you already knew Canon also did FF.

Click to expand...

In fact, it must've been VERY easy to plan this -- since EF-S lenses is unusable on Canon's FF bodies. And that's partly the point, isn't it? Why not provide a feature that'll please some users, instead of "crippling" the camera?

FretNoMore said:

So, you can get very many small-ish images quickly. Who wants and who
will use that crop mode? I'm sure there are some, it would be
interesting to learn about some real life scenarios where this is
indeed being used. I just think that for those buying a D3 the crop
mode is mostly uninteresting.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, because we all know how utterly impossible it was to get a good picture with the D1x flagship (same MP as D3 crop mode), just a few years ago. Remember who the primary target group for this camera is, it's not exactly meant to shoot high-res landscapes...

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

Jorgen E said:

FretNoMore said:

I'm not "speaking ill" about anything, just pointing out a fact. I
don't believe the crop mode is a good selling point and those who
have believed in the impression, right or wrong and regardless of who
started it, that Nikon was committed to crop sensors only will have
to buy and sell some lenses. I don't see a problem is with that fact.
It's the same for Canon users moving from crop to full frame, only
with Canon it was easier to plan ahead and possibly avoid EF-S lenses
since you already knew Canon also did FF.

Click to expand...

In fact, it must've been VERY easy to plan this -- since EF-S lenses
is unusable on Canon's FF bodies. And that's partly the point, isn't
it? Why not provide a feature that'll please some users, instead of
"crippling" the camera?

Click to expand...

Read "crop lenses" instead of EF-S then. But I agree, I never liked that EF-S is basically a new lens mount.

I think the DX crop mode is just about as useless as Canon's sRAW format, and will be used by just as few.

Jorgen E said:

Jorgen E said:

So, you can get very many small-ish images quickly. Who wants and who
will use that crop mode? I'm sure there are some, it would be
interesting to learn about some real life scenarios where this is
indeed being used. I just think that for those buying a D3 the crop
mode is mostly uninteresting.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, because we all know how utterly impossible it was to
get a good picture with the D1x flagship (same MP as D3 crop mode),
just a few years ago. Remember who the primary target group for this
camera is, it's not exactly meant to shoot high-res landscapes...

Click to expand...

Kind iof silly resoning, are you saying Nikon users don't need or want the added pixels? Why did Nikon make the D3 in that case? It's that old pinhole camera argument all over again.

Demands and expectations grow, what was the norm a few years ago is no longer acceptable.

But if you have examples of people actually using the crop mode, please tell me, I'm interested.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

Ed Betz said it has great DR.

The two go together, sensitivity of the sensor and good DR.

If it can even try to do ISO 25600 ... that's sensitivity, so good DR would seem logical .

But I'm just about 99% sure I won't be buying a D3.

I'll just wait on the sidelines another 3 years with my 1D Mark II ... a fine DSLR.

I agree completely that people could (and many would) say the same thing about the Canon.

In my opinion, the prices for some cameras/lenses are way too high.

JMD-70 said:

"What, you paid $8000 for that,...with no lens." It's all
relative,...a Chevy can take one the grocery store just as a
Benz,....or BMW. Many of us have our own shooting style, so we're
more incline to purchase the tool that fits our needs versus wants.
If I only shot sports and sports alone, I may very well consider
nothing more that a 1D Mk IIn,...1D Mk III, or D2Hs. The fact that I
shoot much more,...I want to cover the basis and have an arsenal of
tools that fit any requirement. All the gear that I purchase must
carry its own weight,....no dead beats allowed.

JMD
...D2X x2 - WT-2A capable
...ITP 2.0 Pro embedded
...5D x1
...Nikon and Canon forever~

Click to expand...

FretNoMore said:

Jorgen E said:

Of course it is, because we all know how utterly impossible it was to
get a good picture with the D1x flagship (same MP as D3 crop mode),
just a few years ago. Remember who the primary target group for this
camera is, it's not exactly meant to shoot high-res landscapes...

Click to expand...

Kind iof silly resoning, are you saying Nikon users don't need or
want the added pixels? Why did Nikon make the D3 in that case? It's
that old pinhole camera argument all over again.

Demands and expectations grow, what was the norm a few years ago is
no longer acceptable.

But if you have examples of people actually using the crop mode,
please tell me, I'm interested.

Click to expand...

Quick example, then: every time you're "focal length limited", e.g. bird or sport photography, there's absolutely no need to fill the memorycards with gigabytes of blue sky pixels you're just gonna crop in pp anyway. Especially if fewer saved pixels means higer frame rate and/or deeper buffer.

Why is it that it's always "either or", instead of "both"? Why is it so hard to accept that some people sometimes will appreciate the presence of a crop mode on the D3? Granted, the D3 crop mode is slightly short on pixels, but at the end of the day the need for a crop mode on the D3 doesn't differ from the fact that some photographers will still prefer the 1.5 crop of the D300 over the FF D3.

And really, what do you mean by "what was the norm a few years ago is no longer acceptable"? Are you actually saying that 5.5MP, with D3 IQ, isn't acceptable? H*ll, the 4MP of the D2H get most of the jobs done that I get paid for. Again: who is the target group for the D3?

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

5.4MP is really more than enough for a great number of purposes. I have sharp, colorful covers that were shot with my 10D which, cropped to the magazine's proportions, may actually have resulted in fewer than 5.4MP. Nikon's D1x actually had a LOWER pixel count, at 5.1MP, as did Olympus' E-1 (which I used to own) and Canon's original 1D at, I believe, 4MP–and all these cameras have been used in professional applications quite successfully, so the assertion that 5.4MP is useless is without merit. Heck, I enlarged a lovely 2.1MP image she'd made of her daughters playing in a field of dandelions to A2 and nobody who's seen that image can believe it was from only 2.1MP. As a future D3 owner, and being familiar with the quality of images possible with all the aforementioned cameras, I'm looking forward to the DX crop mode (and isn't it nice that Nikon doesn't disallow the use of DX lenses on their full frame camera?) allowing me to, for instance, use an excellent 18-200VR zoom for daytime outdoor events rather than having to swap between two shorter-range, unstabilized, zooms? Certainly 5.4MP is more than enough for sports being used in newspapers. The only knock I can see on the DX mode of the D3 is that, with masking, the finder image will shrink back near the size of the D40/D70, which means it'll be useless for evaluating DOF and confirming focus.

My $0.02.

FretNoMore said:

NickMJr said:

What new lenses are you talking about? Seems your speaking ill about
a camera you know nothing about. You don't need to by new lenses to
use High Speed Crop (HSC) which is a 1.5x crop which will get you
upto 11 fps. You can use both Film (standard) lenses and the DX 1.5
crop lenses on the D3. The difference is that when you have a
standard lens you can have both FF and HSC mode and when you have a
DX lens the camera automatical switch and stays in HSC mode.

Click to expand...

I'm not "speaking ill" about anything, just pointing out a fact. I
don't believe the crop mode is a good selling point and those who
have believed in the impression, right or wrong and regardless of who
started it, that Nikon was committed to crop sensors only will have
to buy and sell some lenses. I don't see a problem is with that fact.
It's the same for Canon users moving from crop to full frame, only
with Canon it was easier to plan ahead and possibly avoid EF-S lenses
since you already knew Canon also did FF.

FretNoMore said:

Even at 5.4 MP its still a great 11pfs camera,

Click to expand...

So, you can get very many small-ish images quickly. Who wants and who
will use that crop mode? I'm sure there are some, it would be
interesting to learn about some real life scenarios where this is
indeed being used. I just think that for those buying a D3 the crop
mode is mostly uninteresting.

FretNoMore said:

the number of megapixels are not nearly as important as the skills of the
photographer.

Click to expand...

That's true but beside the point. If you take that argument to the
extreme no-one needs a D3 or 1Ds in the first place. You would have
to assume that someone buying this type of camera has skills and
plans to use the whole sensor to get the highest possible quality
too. It's not either skills or megapixels, it's both.

Anyway, this was just a minor point - personally I don't believe the
DX crop mode is a great feature, that's what started this sub-thread.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

FretNoMore said:

Remember that people hanging out at dpreview discussing the finer
details of DOF, bokeh and ISO noise characteristics are not really
representative of the average camera buyer.

Click to expand...

Remember that we ARE on dpreview, and the OP's question primary pertains to the interest surrounding the D3 here at dpreview. The "average" camera buyer who has no interest in "the finer details of DOF, bokeh and ISO noise characteristics" most likely has no interest in the D3 either. So what, exactly is your point?

MY point is that, here on dpreview, the interest surrounding the D3 does pertain to the D3's FF sensor, and the subsequent "finer details of DOF, bokeh [okay, maybe not bokeh] and ISO noise characteristics" associated with this new FF sensor.

Like I said earlier, I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that the D3 is a FF sensored camera, with potentially desireable characteristics that set it apart from its APS predecessors. People seem to get so bent out of shape over this! To simply say, "No, no, no, none of that matters to anyone here. We don't care that it's FF. Besides, FF has problems" is simply putting your head in the sand to the fact that there is considerable interest in FF, and certainly for a first-time FF DSLR from Nikon. I think some of us simply have to admit that a part of the interest surrounding the D3 is that it's a FF camera from Nikon. If FF was, truly, as "immaterial" as some people here claim it to be, I don't think Nikon would have bothered making it FF. To go off on a tangent regarding the pros and cons of FF, and expressing one's own apathy or ambivalence towards FF is fine and dandy, but that doesn't necessarily reflect what others may be feeling here at dpreview. Furthermore, to bring in the "average camera buyer" who has no interest in "the finer details of DOF, bokeh and ISO noise characteristics" (and probably no interest in the D3 either) as, somehow, supporting evidence that FF is "immaterial" is pretty weak, too, especially when we ARE talking about individuals here on dpreview who ARE interested in all of the above.

Face it, FF on the D3 is a good thing. It gives people a choice. It seems to have helped in the noise department. It'll allow people to use their 35mm lenses at their nominal focal length. It's something beyond what they've been offered before. And it means Nikon is finally supporting a format that, up until know, has been completely up in the air for them. Furthermore, it'll finally give Canon competition in this department. Hence, FF is a big part of the interest in the D3, among other things.

It's like this. Just imagine if Toyota had never put out a car with a big engine. And many people have been waiting for Toyota to put out a car with a big engine. The competition has had cars with big engines for years. Suddenly, Toyota finally does put out a car with a big engine. Then, someone asks "why are people interested in this car?" And someone responds, "Because Toyota finally put out a car with a big engine!" Then, someone else responds, "No, the big engine is immaterial. Besides, I don't like big engines. And big engines have their cons."

T3 said:

FretNoMore said:

Remember that people hanging out at dpreview discussing the finer
details of DOF, bokeh and ISO noise characteristics are not really
representative of the average camera buyer.

Click to expand...

Remember that we ARE on dpreview, and the OP's question
...

Click to expand...

And I agree with most of what you say. My response was however not to the OP's post but written in the context of tony field's post above mine, which I - rightly or wrongly - interpreted to be a comment on a wider group of camera buyers than just dpreview visitors.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

Jorgen E said:

...
And really, what do you mean by "what was the norm a few years ago is
no longer acceptable"? Are you actually saying that 5.5MP, with D3
IQ, isn't acceptable? H*ll, the 4MP of the D2H get most of the jobs
done that I get paid for. Again: who is the target group for the D3?

Click to expand...

Could that be just because that is more or less the gear that's available until now? Do you seriously think picture editors/buyers will prefer and/or accept your 4-5.5 megapixels for very long if other photographers start delivering similar pictures but at 12MP? I could be wrong of course, I don't sell many pictures to newspapers so what do I know?

As I said, expectations change with technology. I would guess you don't see all that many 1D 4MP cameras on the sidelines anymore.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

--

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

It is mostly the Nikon moniker on the camera. Many people regard Nikon as a prestige brand, perhaps not as prestigious as, say, Leica, but more prestigious than most brands, including Canon.

That is one reason why the Nikon D2X outsold the Canon 5D, even though the D2X is much more expensive and its image quality is far inferior to the 5D.

That said, the Nikon D3 is an attractive offering. It is the same price as the Canon 1DMKIII and shoots at about the same frame rate, but it has a larger sensor than the Canon, making wide angle shots much easier. Right now Canon does not have anything that is like the D3 and it should remedy the situation.

Zeppelin said:

Besides having a lot of extra features and faster FPS, what makes the
D3 more appealing than a 5D?

If Canon makes a 16MP 5D II, wouldn't that take the wind out of
Nikon’s sails and sales?

--
Zeppelin ±

Click to expand...

Anastigmat said:

It is mostly the Nikon moniker on the camera. Many people regard
Nikon as a prestige brand, perhaps not as prestigious as, say, Leica,
but more prestigious than most brands, including Canon.

Click to expand...

I agree and also believe there is a lot of pent-up demand for a rival FF to Canon's offerings. There are many who think Cadillac still makes the finest cars and Harley makes the best bikes. So much of this is perception.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.

actually I never noticed something about the D3 - it would be useless for alot of photography in which I do.

no real ISO 100 setting.

base ISO of 200.

long exposure photography takes a large hit. not to mention studio where running at ISO 100, I'm running my strobes at half to 2/3's power as it is and at F/11.

so basically nikon gimmicked high ISO at the expense of really usable low ISO settings. apparently marketting won out at nikon.