mvtol Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvtol Posted August 23, 2007 Author Share Posted August 23, 2007 I mean D3 full frame and D300 12mp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_276104 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Not too many images to dig up for a new camera announcement...I'm not a "Nikon give me what I want or I'm switching to Canon" kind of person, but some images of the new stuff would be nice... ...not that I can remotely afford to go 24x36mm with digital after buying a D2x and Nikkor 12-24G to equal my 35mm lenses. At this point I'm happy to sit back and enjoy both the film and digital gear that I have and watch what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_hess2 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 It's fun reading the frenzied responses on dpreview, as if suddenly their D2xs and D200s stopped working. My initial thought was, 'good for Nikon', but then thoughts turned back to photography...with my current gear, which works just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeroen dommisse Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 If this means the D200 will drop in price... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff_portas Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 More confusion. Who's got a bag full of Nikon DX digital lenses that won't work properly (ie won't cover the full frame) on Nikons most expensive digital camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddcwilson Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Trying to be jack of all trades master of none. Kidding aside, they did pretty good in their offering, with the DX cropped mode for existing DX lenses, that was thinking on their part to not completely alienate a segment of the customer base. Personally I never took to the DX format and liked the old glass myself, but that's just me. The genius in design, in my opinion, is the dual CF card facility. Instant back-up or alternating shot/card storage, brilliant. That coupled with high ISO performance I see a lot of happy event shooters out their. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Geoff: two things on that DX glass. First off, there's only two lenses people are going to care about. The 17-55 and the 12-24. The other DX glass is either specialist (10.5mm FE) or consumer glass. You aren't going to be shooting an 18-70 on a $5000 body. Second off is the D3 offers DX crop mode. It's only 5MP or so, but since most working pros are going to already have most of the glass they need for FF use as all but 2 pro-level Nikkors are FF. The only guys buying a lot of new glass are those who were running the 12-24/17-55/70-200 minimalist kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captjack Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 the link for the review on the D300 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_fernando Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 >>You aren't going to be shooting an 18-70 on a $5000 body.<< Yes, but how long before FF no longer costs $5000 - i.e. is in range of the DX lens customer base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 To place this in price perspective some of us spent 1k on 16megs of ram for our Photoshop dream machines; when the average goof had 1meg or 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anson_ko Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 technically D3 is not FF. FF size should be 36x24mm. D3 sensor is 36x23.9mm, Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Anson, I don't know about you, but it is close enough for me. I mean, if you buy a 50mm lens and measure its focal length in a lab, the actual focal length can easily be 48mm or 51mm. This is merely my observation: based on what you have posted in the last day or so, it seems to annoy you that Nikon now also has a full 35mm-frame DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anson_ko Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 NO, not at all, more competition, price goes down. I am the end user and I am more than happy to see prices drop. What I am saying is why missed that 0.1mm on the sensor? Just funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janvanlaethem Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 "Technically D3 is not FF. FF size should be 36x24mm. D3 sensor is 36x23.9mm, Is that right?" Anson, Strictly technically speaking you are of course right, but this is only a 0.1 mm difference. Back in the film days, when you mounted a slide in a slide mount, you would reduce the physical size of your image by approximately 0.5 mm on either side and end up with something like 35.5 x 23.5 mm. 6x6cm exposed film is closer to 5,9 x 5,9cm if you measure the exposed slide with a ruler. Shun is correct when he states the true focal length of a 50mm lens may not be exactly 50mm. A 1/125th second shutter speed may be slightly off, true apertures may differ, etc. These issues have little or no influence on the final picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Full frame size depends on the camera. The original Leica exposed over the sprocket holes. Since it predated Nikon and Canon, we could take it as a yardstick and claim that none of the current cameras are truly full frame. This is silly, however, for obvious reasons. Camera masks vary and when printing you tend to lose a bit of the edges anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_margolis Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 "It's fun reading the frenzied responses on dpreview, as if suddenly their D2xs and D200s stopped working." Charles, my feelings exactly but I am happy to see Nikon addressing their pro market. Maybe they will even get some photogs back from Canon. But I like to drool like everyone else. The D3 with the new 14-24 and 24-70 lenses would be a mighty appealing package, the ultimate lenses for landscape/events. Unfortunately I can't help thinking which would arrive at my door first...... the $10,000 credit card charge or my wife's divorce attorney's bill. :-) Back to reality, I enjoy the gear I have. Oh, and enjoy my wife, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dzeanah Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 > More confusion. Who's got a bag full of Nikon DX digital <br>> lenses that won't work properly (ie won't cover the full<br>> frame) on Nikons most expensive digital camera?<p> Well, I don't have a bag full, as I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible. A 17-55mm + a fast prime or two isn't as simple as a Leica M 17/35/50/90 kit, but it's reasonably close.<p> I shoot portraits and weddings and was looking forward to this announcement as I'm looking for a more modern camera to replace my current backup kit (a Fuji S2); I'm currently using an S5 as my main camera, and the 16x20's I've printed from it look great (again, portraits and weddings folks, not pseudo Ansel Adams stuff). I'm, well, not sure that this is terribly appealing to me.<p> On the one hand, I'd love to be able to mount an 85/1.4 on a D3 for portraits as I really love the look that this lens produces wide open, and it'll be the "right size" again on a D3. On the other hand I like being able to shoot at 20mm on a reception dance floor and get the same angle of view (but better depth of field) as I would with a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. <p> I'd be tempted to say "I'll carry one of each and use them where appropriate," but that's getting away from the simplicity I've tried to build, as I'd need a 24-70mm to match the 17-55mm on my S5, and I just *know* I'll end up purchasing another 85mm lens (I've successfully avoided that so far, telling myself my 50/1.4 is a decent replacement), and so on. Trying to work an S5/D200/D300 in tandem with a D3 doesn't seem as nice logistically as I'd like. I mean, I could use FX lenses instead of my DX lenses, but then I'm really losing out on the wide end when I switch to the DX kit.<p> I don't know. The 6 megapixels I'm getting out of my Fuji is sufficient for what I'm doing, though I'd like more (hell, I wanted more resolution when I was shooting 6x7, so I'll always want "more"). I *really* like the dynamic range I'm seeing with my current camera, but it seems like Nikon have thrown some tricks into the newest cameras to try and squeeze more dynamic range out of them so maybe this feature isn't as valuable in comparison.<p> Right now though, it seems like the proper pairing for my S5 is a D300 or a D2X(s); I'm hoping the price of the latter falls through the floor soon now that it's no longer the best performing Nikon in good light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janvanlaethem Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 I've just finished reading the specifications on the D3 and D300 and must say I'm impressed. Of course, the D3 has a price tag to match that impressive spec sheet. But pro quality will always cost money. I'd like to look at it this way: we finally have a FF sensor on a Nikon DSLR and this is obviously going to level the path for more FF Nikon cameras in the (hopefully not too distant) future. I'd like to see a Canon 5D equivalent, based on the same sensor, but in a less expensive package. Not everyone is going to need 51 AF points or 9 frames per second. It would be interesting to see how the Nikkor wide angle lenses perform on the 24x36mm sensor, especially the Nikkor primes which gave excellent results on film cameras and less than impressive results on DSLRs, due to the light rays not reaching the sensor plane in optimal conditions at the edges. Performance tests on a production model will tell us more. The D300 retains the DX factor and that was what most of us expected. We will probably see a considerable price drop on the D200. I'd like to see a comparitive test of the D200, D300 and Fuji S5 on the sole issue of picture quality (including high ISO performance). If prices for the D200 should drop further, will the D300 picture quality be far superior to justify the price difference? The Fuji S5 was already a niche product, costing more than the D200 upon which it is based. At approximately the same price point as the new D300, I think the Fuji S5 is going to have a hard time keeping up as an alternative body on the sole virtues of its sensor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 "technically D3 is not FF. FF size should be 36x24mm. D3 sensor is 36x23.9mm, Is that right?"<p>This is "full-frame" ;-)<p><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5959922-lg.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 is it possible to turn off the crop with DX lenses on the D3? I had great success with the Nikon 12-24 on film, at 18mm and up. Would be interesting to see how it rates on FF digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_tedder Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 It matters not the equipment. all the work happens behind the camera. give it up..... they'll always pitch a better deal. there are alot of photographers out there on high dollar equipment (16mp), (and i've seen bad hasselblads-20/30+mp) showing up with the worst prints. its always the guys with the time and patients siting around with 4x5 and 8x10 bellows, playing around in darkrooms, sniffing chems, that always come out with the best work, darkest blacks, beautiful highlights, wonderful transitions...... artistically. how much could you possibly need. get over it. go large format, take your time, think. the content and composition matters, I'm currently looking at photo's in my shop done in the 20's for penn museum on 4x6 cameras blown up to 30X40 est. that would blow your mind. you know where im going with this.... its all eye candy. save your money, donate it, do something other than throw it at the next two megapixs. buy buy buy event photogs. do you really need larger that 5mg to print 8X10? James laidley. gallery/picture frame owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now