Tokyo report: D3 and D300

The D3 cannot is not a D2Xs replacement since it has lower pixel density. For telephoto shooting in good light the D2Xs might give better results.

Hi Ilkka, I think the D300 will do that for ya :) it's the D2x's replacement.

No, I am keeping the D200 for tele shooting. I don't see a need to upgrade to D300.

Shun wrote: "In a way this thread is the result of Nikon marketing. [snip]

In turn, the likes of Bjorn, Ellis, etc. help spread the words here, and we all benefit. Of course, when you buy your next Nikon, you'll pay for your share of the cost. :-)"

 

That is indeed the brilliant analysis of what is happening right here in this threat! And maybe even the whole Nikon-forum. Faults in Nikon products or service get punished severely by a world-wide audience. But the new&exciting get an incredible boost because of this!

 

Nevertheless: Bjorn and Ellis, thanks for reporting back to us!

The following link has more information from that product announcement. Can you spot Ellis and Bjorn in the picture? :-)

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1187901361.html

 

Incidentally, there seems to be separate FX and DX versions of the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module. I am trying to get additional information on that.

I suppose there are optics for the FX autofocus module to spread the sensors over a larger area of the frame.

 

It is very commendable from Nikon to put high-end autofocus on a midrange body. Clearly they mean business. I was most impressed with the multi-cam 2000 in the D2X and F6 when I tried them - they make the screwdriver AF lenses work miraculously well compared to previous AF systems. I would expect the new module is even better.

 

The new long glass seem awfully expensive compared to the established Canon IS telephotos. I suppose the price will go down once Nikon's market share increases in this area.

I just received confirmation from Nikon USA.

 

While there are indeed two different versions: Multi-CAM 3500 FX (for the D3) and Multi-CAM 3500 DX (for the D300), the locations for the 51 AF points are the same on the two. Therefore, on the D3, the 51 AF points would appear more concentrated in the center of the frame because the frame is larger, and that is the problem I have with the F6.

 

Please keep in mind that FX means the full 35mm film sensor area, 23.9x36mm while DX means the small sensor 16x24mm.

Shun, you appear to be correct - sorry! I just measured (from brochures) the span of the F6 and D2X AF sensors vs. frame size and to measurement precision the sensors seem to have identical coverage in absolute dimensions, not relative to frame size. My information about the optics covering the F6 sensor enlarging its span came from a camera store salesman and seems to be incorrect.

 

I am starting to believe that if a salesman at a camera store says something it is always suspect ;-)

Ilkka, I APPEAR to be correct? I am always correct! :-)

 

Seriously, I was hopeing that the AF points on the Multi-CAM 3500 FX would be more spread out to match the larger frame area, but unfortunately that is not the case.

 

Actually DPReview has diagrams for that. On the D300, the 51 AF points are nicely layout. However, they appear to be more concentrated in the center on the D3, thus IMO having the same problem as the 45 AF points on Canon FF cameras.

 

D300: 3rd image from the bottom on the right column:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page4.asp

 

D3: 4th from the bottom, right column:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond3/page4.asp

Arthur,

 

I wish...

 

Shun: no spouses were on the trip just mostly a bunch of middle aged guys. Ihave no idea

about the cost but suspect you are wildly underestimating it per person. There were about

100 technology journalists (if I can be so grand) from around the world: I met editors fro

mHungary and South Africa, several Brits, one or two Norwegians besides Bjorn. This was

the firsttime Nikon has ever done an event like this. Canon has done several and Sony is

doing the same thing in Maine next week. But I doubtthe cost risesto the level of say

Canon's previous sponsorship of the Audi American Le Mans Series race cars or what the

NFL is charging Canon to have their logo on the required red photographers vests for this

season alone.

 

We went to the Sendai plant yesterday (Friday in Tokyo). Nikon is already making 400 D3's

per day and will be ramping up to 12,000 per month by September / October

12000/month - wow! Mmmm.

Ellis, any word on an AF-S 50mm, 35mm, or 85mm prime?

<em>

> Nikon is already making 400 D3's per day and will be ramping up to<br>

> 12,000 per month by September / October<br>

</em>

 

But 400 per day *is* 12000 per month already! Great job on the reporting... but get some sleep, guys. ;-)

I'm guessing that for a 400 per day output it works out to about 8500+ per month given the average workweek.

 

For more details on the production see:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9087

From the article:

 

"D3 bodies are currently being made at a rate of about 400 per day in Sendai, but this will grow to about 600 per day in September for a planned ongoing production of 12,000 units per month. Assembly of the D300, which takes place at Nikon's factory in Thailand, will also be in full swing in September, at which time 60,000 units of the midrange digital SLR will emerge each month.

 

Nikon's Sendai factory opened in 1971 and employs over 1100 full-time and temporary workers. In addition to the D3, Sendai has produced the D2Xs, D2X, D2Hs, D2H, D100, D1X, D1H and D1. Except at the busiest times, Sendai runs a single eight-hour shift per day; Thailand, which handles the production of the D40, D40X, D80, D200 and now the D300 (plus certain lower-priced lenses), operates round the clock in three eight-hour shifts and employs about 15,000 people.

 

The Nikon D3 and D300 are slated to ship in November 2007."

Brian,

 

It's possible that Nikon was talking about 400 cameras per work day, which would be about 8800 per month.

 

This news is very exciting, but those of us who prefer lighter cameras (Olympus OM refugees, etc.) are a bit left out. Was there any discussion of of a D300-derived smaller camera, in the same way that the D80 has many of the features of the D200?

 

Thank you to Ellis and Bjorn. I hope you're enjoying the trip. Sounds like it.

I'd been planning to sell my humble little D80 and step up to a D200.

 

:-)

 

Man, am I glad I held back. D300, I'll see yah in November!

 

Thanks for the info, folks.

Ade,

 

Same boat as you. I'm glad I waited. Heck, if all the D300 had was the cross sensors on the AF system I would've gone for it. This is the first time I've ever pre-ordered a camera.

 

I will likely pick up a D200 as a backup at weddings. What a time.

 

allan

It so nice to get the opinion of two respected photographers, I enjoyed them sharing their experience in Tokyo I cannot wait for the release date. They got me so keyed up I signed up as a member!

 

Salem (newcomer)

Thanks for the accurate information all. I am looking forward to you all getting your D3s and D300s and getting rid of your D2xS AND D200s. Unless of course, I have a great amateur season here with weddings. Honestly, I look forward to the reports of how both cameras perform for weddings, portraits and other standards.

Bj�rn - did they have a Q&A session afterwards? Were you able to ask them about UV and IR characteristics of the new sensors? :)

"...look for a 6'5"/195cm American guy who carries a Canon camera in the Nikon press conference"

 

Lol. Very amusing. Good job on the match, Shun.

 

But I thought the norwegians were supposed to be the tall ones! ;) (just kidding Bjorn, I am a shortie myself).

 

Great to see the both of you covering and sharing your experience and insights with us all. Thank you for that...

 

I just don't know why Eric is in such a bad mood :) He should see all tech advance as a good thing, even if he prefers Canons. Remember that if it weren't for the competition, Canon would be making 2mp cameras and selling then at 10.000usd :)

 

No need to diss Nikon.... ;)

Yes, I have gotten info on UV/IR response and even had the Nikon

exec drawing the transmission curve with and without filter on the blackboard, which to my knowledge is the first time ever Nikon discloses anything at all about these matters.

 

I specifically asked for the D3, but it's reasonable to think the data applies to the D300 sensor as well, since both have the same LBCAST foundation. According to the curve, D3 will start to transmit UV in the 370 nm region, which is fairly close to the visible range thus making the camera impractical for UV. The IR response was shown to be flat out beyond 800 nm. The built-in anti-IR filter however cuts Ir response sharply over 680 nm and the cut-off slope was drawn to indicate it is very steep (and hence effective in combating IR contamination).

 

So the gist of this is thaqt D3 would likely make for a superb IR camera, IF you modify it by removing the internal filter pack.

<I>But 400 per day *is* 12000 per month already! </I><P> That would be true if they were running the plant thirty days a week, but I have to assume they aren't, and they haven't scaled up the production yet. there's a huge amount of hand assembly in the D3 requiring some very precise skills which require some intensive training.

Shun said: "However, for landscape, high-end portraits, fashion, product shots ...., more

pixels such as the 1Ds III still has some advantage. I would like to think that Nikon will

introduce some D3X (X meaning more pixels, such as D1 -> D1X and D40 -> D40X), or

whatever Nikon chooses to name it, in the future. But only time will tell whether that will

materialize."

 

 

**** This is what I was sort of expecting to see THIS time around. As a landscape

photographer exclusively, I am still not ready to give up film quite yet based on these two

new Nikon digital cameras.

 

 

The move to full frame is the single most important aspect for me, as a Nikon user. Major

progress noted! My bread and butter lens is the Nikon 17-35 2.8 AFS. I have never seen its

equal to date. My son bought the D2X last summer and the first thing he had to do was

get a 12-24, which is the same focal range as the 17-35 on his D2X (though several

notches below in terms of overall quality). By finally designing Full frame digital sensor,

Nikon has taken a huge leap forward from my perspective. Though I suspect there will be

a run on those 17-35 lenses. If you have never had one, you are in for a real treat.

 

 

Still, even so, what a 12 meg camera can create, in terms of large prints, is no better than

what I can already capture, in my opinion, with Velvia 50 film and my Nikon F5. And I

actually prefer the slower 50 ASA film for blurring daytime waterfalls, seascapes, the finer

grain it offers etc. Not to mention the vivid blues and greens of a Velvia transparency that

can last many decades. Of course to create digital files as good or better than the Nikon

digital cameras today, I do use a $45,000 scanner, which obviously most people do not

have laying around.

 

If Nikon designs something closer to the new Canon 21 meg magnificent-- sounds too

good to be true--1ds III, then now you are clearly exceeding what I can already do today.

THAT camera makes me want to jump into digital today. Though I do certainly do not like

having to spend $8000 for one camera body alone, and still need to start buying lenses

and other digital necessities from scratch since all I have ever used is Nikon film based

outfits.

 

I do agree that the digital process of no film/developing costs, thousands of images to a

memory card (rather than changing rolls every 36 frames), editing on the computer rather

than squinting on a light-box, instant results and most importantly to me NO SCANNING,

is in fact a better system in many ways than what I have to do today with film. The giving

up of scanning alone is why I am willing and even looking to make the switch from film to

digital. But I am not interested in switching from film if it means giving up the best wide-

angle landscape lens this earth has seen. I am not thrilled with having to lug around a

$5,000 camera body through waterfall hikes or letting it sit on a tripod in the ocean

shoreline for hours. I can purchase a like new F5 today on Ebay for under $700. And my

second camera, the F100 which I attach the 28-70 or 80-200 both 2.8 AFS for even less

than that. I can, and do take greater risks with this film outfit and have peace of mind than

if I carried around $5,000 or even $8,000 camera bodies.

 

Yes Nikon is finally getting somewhere, with the release of the D3, for professional

landscape photography IMO. But it still has some catching up to do, since Canon has really

produced an outstanding flagship camera, two times now. I had read reports that the D3X

would have 18 megapixels and also FF. That would probably do it for me. I have thought

about moving to Canon... but not yet... and hopefully now that Nikon is on the right road, I

will not have to.