D300 or D3

[petrana_batik]

So basically, you claim you need a D300/D3 to compensate for you lack of experience.

 

Tell me, if were a new driver, would you buy a Mercedes AMG 6.3L to compensate for your lack of driving experience?

[f stop]

I seriously doubt you're going to read through all of these but, here it goes anyway:

My 2 Cents:

 

I say, If you've got the money and want to treat yourself, heck yeah! go for the D300. As

others have mentioned, the difference between the D300 and the the D3 features is more

professionally oriented. If I were you I would splurge on the D300 and then when I got it ,

I'd buy one of John Hedgecoe's books on intro photography. They have lots of pictures :-

). Then I'd read through the manual- there's no point in buying a camera like that unless

you're going to read the manual and understand how it works otherwise you might as well

be using a point and shoot on automatic.

 

Joseph

[Landrum Kelly]

Don't buy the D3 unless you are willing to buy the lenses for it. A very few decent lenses are going to cost more than the body. You are quickly going to be in for upwards of $10,000 if you buy the D3 and some good lenses.

 

If you buy the D300, buy lenses that could also be used for full-frame.

 

In other words, buy the best lenses you can. They will hold their price better than the cameras will, and you will be delighted at the results that they give on either body.

 

--Lannie

[cecelia_spitznas]

Everyone except Petrana, thanks for the encouragement. I've read quite a few

photography books actually as well as my D70 manual and of course would read the

D300 or D3 manual. I will do more lens research and appreciate the suggestions.

 

I do think I've outgrown the D70. There is a marked difference between the quality of

pictures my husband has taken with the D70 and the D300 at dog shows. Nothing

changed about his abilities between the day he had the D70 and the day he got the

D300 but they look alot better with the D300. The only reason I was contemplating

the D3 was for indoor events where flash was not allowed.

 

Nolan you may be right. We are usually our own worst critics. Dogs are very social

creatures. Retrievers generally come around to the front of a person to give him/her

a retrieved item. They actually know that the eyes are in the front of the person and

the face is what they should be communicating with. Unfortunately they also think if

you're eyes are covered you can't see them! Makes it a challenge to photograph my

astute Jack Russells who think they don't have to stay when I have the black box

up to my face. The Donald Duck voice does help though.

 

Joseph thanks for your perspective. Not sure if I'll do much agility photography

because my husband's been there and done that and doesn't want to spend every

single weekend at dog events. But the 70-200 mm is helpful for a large group ring.

Its nice to talk with someone who can appreciate the challenges of dog show

photography. There's poor indoor lighting, variable outdoor lighting that changes

direction throughout the day, shade under the tent and dogs going in and out of sun

and shade or rain and shade. Where the judge decides to stand, the presence of

tent poles and rope other exhibitors and dogs of all different colors absorbing and

reflecting the sun differently can make show photography a challenge. We do flyball

too and I know photographing that is a lost cause without uber-fast glass. Still I

really love the pretty dogs and people at shows (some even not so pretty) and have

a fantasy of someday of producing a picture that could grace the AKC Gazette

cover. We'll see.

 

Petrana, Thanks for your incorrect summation and sarcastic rhetorical missive.

 

Tell me, if you were a new forum member would you feel welcomed or rebuffed by

your reply? And do you proof your posts before you cast them into cyberspace?

[dmitry_kiyatkin]

D300 sounds better for you. I went from D70 to D300 and they are hard to compare.

D300 is just much much better. It will not make you a better photographer, but the

pictures do look a lot nicer.

 

I considered a D3, but the size for me was a huge negative. I think soon Nikon with

make a "baby D3" and then that will be a good option for many people. I think there

is demand for that.

 

I would consider getting full frame lenses even if you go the D300 route.

[correct_exposure]

Maybe it's me, but the ability to shoot at iso 25,600 seems pretty darn AWESOME (you can always clean it up in post). Plus, live view is great for your flower pics. D3 is the way I would go.

[diane_madura]

Hi Cecelia. If you think the 70-200 is a big honkin' lens, wait 'til you pick up the D3 for the first time. I looked at one at B and H the other day (not considering buying one, just wanted to see what it felt like to hold it). I couldn't believe how heavy it was. And it didn't have a large lens attached. Could you imagine the D3 with the 70-200 attached?

[petrana_batik]

"Petrana, Thanks for your incorrect summation and sarcastic rhetorical missive.

 

Tell me, if you were a new forum member would you feel welcomed or rebuffed by your reply? And do you proof your posts before you cast them into cyberspace?"

 

Unfortunately, I don't spell check everything I post, and that is a shame, given the fact that English is only my third language.

 

I can dig deep and explain myself, but if you feel that you've outgrown your D70, nothing and nobody could convince you otherwise. You could spend money and convince yourself you're doing this to improve. I would suggest minimizing your levels of freedom and concentrating on what you feel limited with.

 

The D300 offers nice short cuts, but upgrading this way will be a first step in a neverending question to nothing. Unfortunately, you'll have to pay for the treat. All I'm trying to suggest is to take an unorthodox approach (most forum members here would upgrade instead of self developing their own skills).

 

If you wish to improve pick a flaw. Take your D70 and buy the 50/1.8 AFD. Now eliminate your limitations one by one. There are very few things that the D300 does better (it's a big marketing ploy, don't let your head spin because of that).

 

I drive a Civic.

[torben.palm]

The newer Nikon models offer a lot of improvement, over the older models. It�s not as Petrana said � upgrading is not the first step in a never ending quest to nothing. It�s a good and simple way to make you a better Photographer.

 

 

There are miles apart the D70 and the D300. I upgraded from D200 to D300 and found the performance and results to be in a completely other category. Owning both cameras for some time, gave me the opportunity to make direct comparisons (se file).

 

Standard ISO on the D300 is 200, which gives you one full stop to start with. And noise performance in high ISO�s is very good up to ISO 1600 and even acceptable at 3200. Read, much better than the older cameras.

 

Also D300 offers much more response. 3D AF tracking is truly fast and reliable � a feature I think you will love, when shooting at dog shows. You can also fire up to 8 RAW frames pr second � enabling you to catch the right moment.

 

 

The Nikon NX software for free in the bundle (in Europe � don�t know if that�s the case in US?). I think you will find the software very easy and productive, when you need to make corrections and improvement.

 

If money is not an object, I would bye the D3 � but instead I�ll spend the saved money on good full frame lenses.

 

 

Good luck with the tuff choice!

 

 

Best Regards

Torben Palm - Denmark<div></div>

[wentbackward]

<p>I moved from Film to a D300 and the worst mistake I made was listening to

other peoples advice too much. Steal your hubby's D300 when he's not around, go

out and play. I hope the noise problems you have today is not because you followed

kenrockwell's advice on setting your camera up.

</p><p>

The great thing is that either a D300 or D3 are so capable, you'll never be left

wondering "if it was the equipment" :)

</p><p>

The D300 can be frustrating to learn, quite a technical camera that does precisely

what you ask it to do! The D3 no different. They do have extremely powerful

features that can virtually remove any post processing. For instance I have created

my own Hi Contrast mode. Learning the equipment is very different to learning

photography, only you know your technical aptitude.

</p><p>

 

Scott Warn's analysis was very accurate. It concur with his findings.

</p><p>

 

I was also afraid of the weight. The D300 is a good compromise, even though still

heavy. What surprised me more, was I also got the MBD10 battery grip, making the

whole thing much bigger, harder to carry in bag, but this gained me almost two whole

stops when taking pics with a big 2.8 lens like the 80-200. It spreads the weight to

the ball of my hand and makes me more stable. You may find the D70 being too

small as a source of getting tired with a big lens.

</p><p>

 

The other reason I didn't go for the D3 (apart from expense and DW's thoughts on

that) was that I also got an SB800 and you can take it off the camera and use the

on camera flash to control wirelessly. This is awesome! The D3 can do it, but it's an

extra piece of kit in your bag)

</p><p>

 

A great book on composition is <strong>Micheal Freeman - The photographers

eye</strong>

</p>

[kyle_mahaney]

Maybe your grip is the problem here.

If a D70 with 70-200 attached it too heavy, I would suggest a D60 as it's pretty light. Also, if you're cropping that much, work on your composition.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello all

 

I'm new to this interesting forum.

 

After years without an SLR camera (using film small format rangefinders and film MF SLR combination), I'm going to work again with an SLR, but this time a digital one.

 

With the D300 and D3 on the market, my choice as an old "Nikonian" when I used to be a PJ (Nikkormat Ftn, Nikon F2, FM, FE, FE 2 and finally F4S - all these bodies with their motor) will obviously be a Nikon.

 

As to chose between the D3 and the D300, both splendid cameras, my budget doesn't allow me to chose the D3... But it is the only reason why I'll finally get a D300 soon.

 

Why ?

 

Because I don't believe in the future of cropped sensor DSLR's on so-called "Expert" or Professional bodies and if in our present digital times bodies become obsolescent fast, the lenses to mount on them are far more potentially durable.

 

Let's face the facts: the last generation of Nikon DSLR bodies will be a milestone in small format DSLR history, both of them but for quite opposed reasons. The D300 will probably be the last of its line and the D3 the first to open so much new perspectives in available light photography.

 

What are the indications :

 

1 - Specific to Nikon

 

See the package of new lenses destined to FX format which was issued with the D3 and compare with the unique DX zoom introduced with the D300...

 

Compare the DX lens range to the existing lens range covering the DX format :

In DX range there are only two prime lenses of a very specialized nature : a Fisheye and a 60mm macro-lens. And if I don't err, the only really professional zoom available is a 18-55 f/2,8 (constant) one (the only one which, like any pro lens should do has both a constant max. aperture throughout the zoom range and the required IQ) ... No wide aperture primes, nor any other constant aperture zooms... And even the last lens issued to go with the D300 doesn't conform to the definition of a true pro lens (variable aperture and a not so wide one).

 

Clearly, Nikon with the newly introduced FX format has no intention to develop a lot the DX range, at least with a professional or semi-professional customer panel in view.

 

It won't be clever for Nikon to develop two competing lens range with the associated R&D and production costs.

 

Professionals and advanced amateurs are not stupid. If you were able to extract the same results with a cropped sensor camera and an equivalent lens range (in terms of availability, aperture and choice of equivalent field of vew) nobody would pay twice more for an FX camera ! ...

 

Instead, using the present broad range of FX compatible lenses and improving it with revised designs will cost less. to concentrate on this production will cut the production costs and ultimately allow for more moderate retail price with the associated scale economy.

 

2 - Because of these general considerations:

 

It is clear the sensor improvements based on increasing the potential sensitivity and dynamic of contrast of smaller pixels to cram even more pixels on the same surface on which the progress of DSLR's was based during their past history, if not finding its physical limits, is becoming slower these days. Significant progresses would probaly need more time, more costly R&D and perhaps an entirely new technology to regain momentum.

 

On the contrary, the cost of full format sensors is steadily declining. These will probably remain more costly than cropped sensors (at least for a while) but they are now reaching a certain level of "affordability" for the customers they are likely to interest. And they are far less in need of difficult improvements regarding their sensitivity without extra noise and dynamic range due to the pixel size which can be used (as examplified by the D3 performances).

 

Canon with the EOS 5D has already demonstrated a full format DSLR can be sold at an affordable (if not cheap) price. Nikon can do the same and probably much better.

 

But back to the comparative between the two new bodies.

 

My main concern is I don't want to have to change my lenses for others and lose money in an almost certain future switch to FX format. Thanks Nikon to allow the use of DX lenses on a cropped part of the FX sensor, this is Nikon customer's respect at its best, but 5Mpex only and the fact I have no DX lens today precludes the choice of a DX lens on my future D300.

 

Hence, my choice is to afford FX compatible lenses only... Even at the expense of some wide angle capabilities.

 

Although this is not an easy choice. A reason why I would have chosen a D3 over a D300 should my buget had permitted.

 

Another reason would have been the D3 allows, being an FX format camera, the use of "old" Ai, Ais and Ai'ed Nikon wide angle lenses at their nominal field of view.

 

Under 35mm - perhaps because I'm an old hand in photography - I don't feel complied either to have a zoom (or find it more practical in the field) or even AF ! ... I do prefer MANUAL primes with a full DOF scale engraved on the barrel (who needs an AF with 14mm even at f/2.8 ?). Buying a set of lens such as these second hand is a large saving from buying the new 14-24 f/2,8 AF-G zoom, even if it is a better lens optically speaking (better than already formidable lenses at the expense of practicability might be simply a waste of money).

 

Unfortunately this choice is not open to a cropped sensor camera owner (unless you find a cheap 18mm Nikkor f/3.5 Ais, which is ever rare and expensive second hand and is only equivalent to a 27mm in terms of field of view on a DX camera).

 

As a casual macro-lens a 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor Ais (and even an old f/4 Ai'ed) seems to me a cheaper and better alternative in the field than to afford a relativeley costly 105mm AF-VR lens which is not optically superior and might well be no more practical to use with AF "on" in macro photo use. This is also true for a D300 owner but the 105mm becomes the equivalent of a 152.5mm.

 

Now, dear friends and fellow Nikonians, I'm surprised how 'sissy" the average photographer has become...

 

Did you ever try to carry a shoulder bag with a Nikon F2, motor, an FM motor and an FE motor with six to eight primes, a flashgun and accessories on assignment ?

 

I did, and more than once ! At that ime there was no alternative...

 

Reading complaints on the D3 (which has by the way an almost faultless ergonomy for average people both for horizontal or vertical shots, something the D300 only has with its costly additional handle) because of weight and volume really makes me laugh...

 

With a D3 in your bag, you will almost never need a flash gun (a simple "cobra" will do for the eventual fill-ins), can use high IQ pro zooms (no more than two or three will do for ordinary work) and a spare battery and if needed some CF cards.

 

If you want something really compact put pressure on Nikon to issue a full format digital rangefinder with D3 performances and using M mount lenses and forget about reflex.

 

Finally, without direspect for anybody here, or for the all true qualities of the D300, the only good reasons I see to prefer a D300 to a D3 are limited to:

 

- people who generally need to extract more (apparent) power from tele-lenses for the focal length (wildlife, sports...)

 

- people - like me (unfortunately) - who can't afford the D3 at once

 

François P. WEILL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tholte]

F. Weill, most of what you said is true but pretty irrelevant to most people here. How long do you think it will take Nikon to narrow the current $3000 spread between a full-frame D3 and a top notch DX camera like the D300? I am sure it will take 2-3 years at least and in the mean time people need something to shoot with. I actually feel very "fortunate" to have been able to scrounge together enough cash to get a D300 and I am sure it will last me long enough to get my moneys worth, I milked my D70 for four years.

[cecelia_spitznas]

Here's an example of what kind of cropping I'm speaking of

http://gallery.mac.com/cspitznas#100002/amstaff&bgcolor=black

 

In this case the owner could be cloned out or just cropped. This was taken under a

tent without flash with the D70 in the middle of a massive downpour using DH's

105mm AF-VR lens on ISO 400 f 2.8 ss 1/100. Nothing's been done to it except

saving as JPG by Lightroom and whatever mac gallery has done. I'd want to get rid

of the owner's skirt and jacket. I switched to my 50 mm shortly thereafter but the

groovy low light capacity of that lens still doesn't give me what I'm looking for. Wide

open their dog noses aren't in focus if their eyes are. Slightly out of focus noses

don't bother me but the longer the dog's face is the more out of focus the nose is

and it can get downright weird looking with a super blurry nose and sharp eyes.

Also, as soon as you approach a dog owner with a long lens they start all sorts of

gyrations trying to make the dog pose and frequently they get in the picture. Its not

fair to the dogs who are getting ready to go in the show ring and who might be

traumatized by flash to use flash. Its fine to say "work on composition" but

sometimes you can't get closer (would you want to get close to this gal?) or get a

different angle and can't really get stuff out of the picture so you take what you can

get. It seems likely this photo would have been better with a D300 and even better

with a D3 unless the sharpness was compromised by me to being unable to hold

them steady.

 

Paul I think you may be correct about the little D70 body being unbalanced by the

comparatively huge 70-200 mm. Not only do my hands get tired but I get tired with it

around my neck. And DH has a 300mm with a teleconverter which I've never even

tried because it doesn't seem physically possible to attach that much weight or

length to the front of a poor little D70. But a heavier camera balancing out the longer

lens might be an improvement oddly enough.

 

Yes Diane how heavy are they and are they a manageable weight because of the

ergonomics or is either one it just too freaking heavy? Those are the main

questions. If the average photographer has turned into a sissy as Mr Weil suggests

it may be in part because more women are becoming involved in photography or

more people doing this as a hobby rather than a job. Photography can be very

expensive and previous generations of women did not have the disposable income

or time that some women today have. I'm over 40 have no children or debt and work

my #%! off make reasonable money and have a husband that does the same. I don't

have much free time and I have no manpower, only woman power...I just want to

make the most of what I've got. Since I'm trying to enjoy myself, not make a living

and since this often comes along with me on travel or to a dog show with 2 dogs,

crates, a grooming table, tack box etc...I don't want to shlep extra weight.

 

Petrana the only lens I've bought in 4 years is the 50mm f/1.4. And I drive an

Element because I can fit more dogs in it than in a civic. This is a similar discussion

as far as I can tell. I want more real estate. In some cases it is to compensate for

my skills and allow cropping if I mess up, but in some cases its to compensate for

conditions and people who are unavoidable and also because I want bigger images

to work from. I could be frugal and stick with Mr D70 until he drops dead but that

seems a little masochistic and the way the stock market's going its not certain

whether having the money invested or buying something that will be obsolete but

still very functional in a year owould be more of a losing proposition.

 

It seems like the learning curve for both the D300 and the D3 would be about the

same. D300 has a crop factor which might be helpful for dog shows (and may be

better for DH's wildlife photos-God help the bank account if he buys the D3 and then

wants even bigger glass for it than what he's bought so far!!! That does sound like

Petrana's never ending quest to nothing with nothing being what's in the bank

account).

 

The D300 allows wireless off camera flash using its own flash as a slave but since

for alot of what I like photographing the flash can't or shouldn't be used, that's not

much of an advantage. The low light capability of the D3 is very appealing but if I

understand the discussion the same shot with the bigger sensor of the D3 really

would appear further away than with the D300 since the pixel count overall is similar

and there's no crop factor with the D3 (do I have that correct?).

 

So possibly the thing to do is let DH get his D3 and then offer to take it off his hands

and give him my SB800 and a better beamer for his birdies when he decides he

wants his D300 back which he may very well. Or I can wait on this D90 to see

what's inside... Does anyone really know when that's coming down the pike. I

thought Nikon gave advanced warning of things but it seems like they're silent so

far. Does that mean Fall at the earliest???

 

Paul; I tried that and he was on to me instantly! The only Rockwell setting I tend to

use is White Balance=Shade. I don't think that's my problem.

[Davide Baroni]

Cecelia,

I see you are an experienced enough photographer in your field, particularly dogs shows. But I still feel perplexed at one thing you say... I own a D70s (and yes, I'm looking for a D300 or a 2nd hand D2x/xs, I just can't afford a D3), and I use it A LOT with my 80-200 2.8 AF-D, and even with the 300 f/4.0. And I just can't feel that unbalancement you talk about. So here I am with the stupidest question, because sometimes it's the stupidest thing that is overlooked... When you use the 70-200 VR (which I have used too), how do you hold the camera-plus-lens block? I got the strange feeling you keep holding the camera, instead of placing your left hand where the tripod collar is... which would make you feel "balanced" again. :-)

This said... If money isn't an issue, I'd just go D3. It's heavy, but, like the D2xs, its balance is such that I can use it all day long and just don't feel it but for the better, firmer weight distribution in my own hands. As Paul Gresham, I can "gain" about two whole stops just because of the better balanced weight. And it's quite A LOT. :-) But I concede it's heavy on the neck... if you let it weigh on it. I spend most of my time with the camera in my hands, so likely we just have different styles.

 

F. Weill, talking of constant aperture DX lenses, don't you forget the excellent 12-24 f/4.0, which I own and use really a lot... It's not a f/2.8, but who needs it on such a wide angle lens? :-)

Ciao,

Davide

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello Tim

 

>> F. Weill, most of what you said is true but pretty irrelevant to most people here. How long do you think it will take Nikon to narrow the current $3000 spread between a full-frame D3 and a top notch DX camera like the D300? I am sure it will take 2-3 years at least and in the mean time people need something to shoot with. <<

 

I have no crystal ball to tell when Tim... But considering there is such a financial gap between the D300 and the D3, I would be surprised if Nikon has not something in reserve for the next Photokina for example...

 

May be a D "something" which will be the natural competitor of the yet to come long delayed successor of the Canon 5D... Probably with slower fps than the D300 (and of course the D3) but may be with the same FX sensor already used on the D3... It seems to me more probable than the alleged D4 with slower fframe rate too, but a high pixel density (a la Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII, which is deemed to be a commercial failure IMHO) priced almost as high as a medium format digital back and with a very limited high sensitivity performance.

 

Whatsoever, it seems you misunderstand me. For someone having the budget to get a D3 and who hesitates to buy it or a D300, I just say the D3 is for many reasons a better long(er) term investment and allows you to buy lenses with a long to very long potential of use (and for some of them at very cheap cost).

 

Regretfully, this choice is beyond my budget and I will buy a D300. I will only try to avoid buying DX lenses with it to protect my lens investment in the future.

 

>> ... to scrounge together enough cash to get a D300 and I am sure it will last me long enough to get my moneys worth, I milked my D70 for four years. <<

 

It all depends on what you expect to get from your DSLR. I was not satisfied with what a DSLR could offer until more or less the generation preceeding the current one. So I kept shooting with film... My son bought a Canon 30D two years ago and I had the occasion to appreciate both its capabilities and its limits.

 

My life took also a new turn and I'm partly back in the field for PJ work though part time only. So my film gear is now for sale... I intend to offer my clients the highest possible quality. But my budget is limited and I don't anticipate to obtain large new revenues from this activity. I don't want to spoil my budget on things which I will have to sell at loss within a few years when I will go FX... Lenses are most of the time keepers for a long time. So they should be FX compatible even if I'm forced to go DX for the body.

 

The pace of improvements in digital photography is so fast, the body will certainly not last for a comparable period of time. I won't change the D300 for the next generation, But I will certainly change it for the generation after... If FX becomes an option for my budget. I would probably have decided to keep the D3 longer.

 

Davide :

 

>> F. Weill, talking of constant aperture DX lenses, don't you forget the excellent 12-24 f/4.0, which I own and use really a lot... It's not a f/2.8, but who needs it on such a wide angle lens? <<

 

I agree with you Davide, at least on some points : I forgot entirely this wide angle zoom, I agree nobody really needs f/2;8 on such wide angles except perhaps at 24 for a DX which is more or less the equivalent of a 35mm in FX (without regard to the comfort of the eye to compose in the viewfinder). But I have to disagree with you as it is a wide angle zoom (so without a complete DOF scale for each focal length it covers) it is an AF lens and who needs AF on such wide angles but perhaps for 24mm (on a DX) and it is a DX lens so mostly incompatible with a high definition image on an FX format camera so a "sure to re-sale lens" when you go FX...

 

Francois P. WEILL

[jose_angel]

<i>For someone having the budget to get a D3 and who hesitates to buy it or a D300, I just say the D3 is for many reasons a better long(er) term investment and allows you to buy lenses with a long to very long potential of use (and for some of them at very cheap cost). </i><p>

I`m hearing this since the arrival of the first DX lens. Now, eight? years later, they still canﾴt use their FF lenses on an affordable FX camera, but when this happens, they surely will run to buy current FX "G" lenses. I`d not call this a "good investment". Just a thought...<p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Dear Jose,

 

"Just a thought" versus facts...

 

Eight years ago, no Nikon full format digital camera was in production at any cost...

 

Eight years ago, quite a sizeable part of the professional world was not equipped with digital cameras either.

 

Eight years ago, image IQ of any digital camera was below acceptable standard for a lot of photographers and only people working for publications requiring immediate transmission of the pics for publication printed on low quality paper (like daylies) would have had any interest in buying extremely expensive for the poor quality of their output DSLR's.

 

Fortunately the very concept of digital photography was sound and technology has greatly progressed since this date. Nowadays, the IQ of classic silver halide photography is almost equaled when it goes to using very slow high definition small format films and when the sensitivity goes higher, particularly where the new D300 and D3 excels, the film is beaten.

 

For people like me who waited some years before relinquishing the film for digital, the choice is far more interesting and the ratio between cost and quality is far better now and FX format does exist, it is no more a speculative evolution.

 

I doubt the photographers who are "now" going digital and doing this so "late" are really sensitive to the last fashionable, up to date, gadgetery without some prior studies.

 

I used Nikkor manual lenses for years, obtaining from them splendid images. I still know the importance of a true control of the DOF particularly with wide angles, something which will be impossible to do with the fashionable AF wide angle zooms (DX or FX). Though I appreciate greatly a performing AF from 35mm on when it goes to use maximum aperture and its vital advantage on tele-lens.

 

I'm still wondering though why Nikon (but Canon too) imposes the customers a very limited choice, confined to the 24-70mm range in their trans-standard zoom range. It seems to me a bad compromise between the needs of DX format (which is better covered this way indeed as it is the equivalent in field of view of a 36-105mm zoom in full format) and those of a full format camera where - unfortunately - the wide part of the zoom range is almost too wide to require AF and zoom capabilities and the 70mm position clearly too short for a true portrait lens. Whatever you might think, I'm almost sure when the demise of DX format will be effective in the Expert-Pro body world (probably sooner than you may think) this will be rectified. One of the main advantage of a zoom being not to have to change the lenses at critical moments. To have to change a zoom for another one (70-200mm in this case) while taking a small group of people as a whole and detailing each person through a true portrait, a very common occurence, is a liability.

 

Sorry to contradict you, but the DX lenses will certainly lose a lot of their re-sale value in the near future and most of them have characteristics which make them totally unprofessional by nature.

 

May be I'm a dinosaur, but to have a zoom which at the field equivalent of a 50mm will have an effective max. aperture of say f/4.5 when I was used to see the lower end 50mm have a maximum aperture of f/2 (or even 1.8) makes me laugh, moreover with the viewfinder of DX camera which is smaller and less luminous than any of the late 35mm SLR's. And makes me laugh too when I think of my then current use of the beautiful 180mm f/2.8 I owned when seeing the 200mm of the "all in one wonder" 18-200mm DX doesn't offer at 200mm a better aperture than f/5.6... Take into account the rule the sweet spot begins almost ever two clicks more closed than the maximum aperture and you end up with a 200mm which is at its best at f/11 !

 

Those lenses, despite a commendable IQ are clearly more oriented toward the needs of average amateurs than the needs of professionals or high end amateurs.

 

Nikon has no real interest, now, with a professional FX camera on the market to issue really professional standard designs for their DX range. Facts have confirmed what were mere speculations eight years ago. And it makes all the difference.

 

FPW

[Davide Baroni]

FPW, if your point is that sooner or later DX format will be totally replaced bt FX, I'd agree... to a certain point. Let's say that at least at the "entry level" and "intermediate level" (currently, D40-60-80 and the next D90, at least) DX will keep going for long. FX sensors will ALWAYS cost much more than DX sensors, and I mean much more than double, because of technological issues with the silicon wafers. And I'd bet all of those "entry and intermediate level" people will be quite happy to have a 12-24 DX to buy at half the price of the outstanding 14-24 f/2.8 FX... carrying half the weight and at half the size. :-)

Ditto for the huge telephoto lenses used by all the naturalistic photographers, who are taking advantage of the "crop factor" of the DX format and will start a riot if Nikon were to abolish DX format for their "pro" and "prosumer" lines... and ditto for sport photographers. Right yesterday I was looking at MotoGP, F.1 Gran Prix, and at BOTH events, photographers were shown by TV... well, MANY of them had D300... I'd swear almost all Nikonians, anyway. Crop factor strikes again? :-)

And one more observation... You do NOT buy digital photo equipment as an investment. You buy it for the purpose of taking photos. In these many years (eight years are a heck of a lot, in digital world) you shot many, many photos that you would have NOT shot if you'd waited for that forecast and speculations to become true. Also, the VAST majority of "the market" is made by people who won't have the money for a FX and the FX huge lenses for a long, long while... No, I don't think DX will die anytime soon. :-)

I currently have a D70s, which I'm quite happy with. I'm looking for a D300 or a D2x-xs only because I want a better viewfinder, and I'll likely keep that new camera forever. It'll produce beautiful files even when the D5 will be archaeology. :-D

Davide

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello Davide

 

You wrote :

 

>> Let's say that at least at the "entry level" and "intermediate level" (currently, D40-60-80 and the next D90, at least) DX will keep going for long... <<

 

I do agree... At least for a relatively long period related to digital era "relative" time (say more or less 10 years, may be less)...

 

But will the DX lens range continue to evolve meantime ? I doubt that, what is already in production is largely good and suited enough for the average customers of entry - intermediate level bodies... And most of this range is on some characteristics below prosumers - advanced amateurs standards.

 

>> FX sensors will ALWAYS cost much more than DX sensors, and I mean much more than double, because of technological issues with the silicon wafers <<

 

What is the actual influence of the sensor cost in the global price of a body today ?

 

Don't you think "affordability" for the potential panel of customers targeted for a specific body is far more important than the price level itself ?

 

The fact is the rejection ratio of full format sensors has certainly constantly dwindled during the recent period even if the sllicon wafer problems is still present, otherwise, prices would have stood at the same level as before.

 

IMHO, when the retail prices of both pro and expert bodies with an FX format sensor will drop to the level their film counterparts, such DSLR's will certainly have about the same customer panel the latter once had.

 

In the old time, prior to the massive introduction of electronics in camera bodies, Nikon had an almost inflexible rule : there were only two levels of camera bodies available :

 

The F series (F and then F2) and the Nikkormats... One was for the pros (and advanced amateurs) the other was aimed to intermediate level amateurs (the lower part of the market was not considered a potential buyer of a reflex camera). Nonetheless, in identical condition, provided the Nikkormat Cds TTL meter was not rendered inoperable by an insufficient light level, you were able to take exactly the same image with both cameras whe using the same lens and the same film.

 

With the next generation was introduced an intermediate level body, which was more capable than the Nikkormats, might be equipped with a motor, like its big stablemate and, but for some secondary advantages was almost the equal of the "big gun" F3... But from the late Nikkormats to the F3 and through the intermediate level FM and FE, what was true about the image in the earlier generation was still true of the newer one : same lens, same subject, same film, same image quality.

 

It was not before the introduction of another new generation full of electronics, AF capable (hmm... capable mostly on the paper, I remember the F4S) Nikon, probably under the influence of a competitor whose brand name begin with a C and end with an N, tackled a broader market. Including the issue of truly amateur lenses (after a first aborted attempt with the "E" series) and issued entry level reflex cameras... Not a single pro or serious amateur at this time ever contemplated to buy these models.

 

So the separation between entry level consumers and pro-expert customer panels existed in Nikon range long before digital era began.

 

But there is now one more difference coming : you can't expect the same image quality from a cropped sensor camera, in the present sate of the art, what you can expect from a full format sensor and if the improvements on films were useable in older camera designs, in the digital era, the body itself conditions the performance.

 

So bodies are more "expandable" than they used to be in the film era. Part of the cost of photography was tranferred from film and film treatment costs to body periodic renewal, and re-sale value of a digital body drops much faster than the one of a film body in film era.

 

What may be kept as long as it was the case in the film era are the lenses...

 

At least, provided these lenses will be truly adaptable to the next generation of bodies which you will decide to acquire...

 

Unfortunately, with the DX-FX dichotomy and the perspective DX will fade away from expert-pro level camera range in a far shorter time than the 8 years quoted by our friend Jose and the very composition of the DX range which, I maintain, is overwhemingly amateur oriented and will stay so, it is IMHO far better to secure FX compatible lenses than to go the DX way. In so doing, you are liable to lose far less money. What I mean by "protecting your investment".

 

>> Ditto for the huge telephoto lenses used by all the naturalistic photographers, who are taking advantage of the "crop factor" of the DX format and will start a riot if Nikon were to abolish DX format for their "pro" and "prosumer" lines... and ditto for sport photographers. <<

 

They won't... they are too few or professionals who amortized their cameras in less time than the models change. By the way, putting aside the crop factor, most of the long lenses they use are FX lenses used on DX bodies. So they'll simply keep their pro and prosumers DX bodies until these cameras will be dead... Remember Japanese brands only guarantee parts will be available for repair during ten years after the model is out of production... And nobody will have a part stock to relay the manufacturer as it is still the case for mechanical bodies (F-F2) because these are electronic integrated circuits which are not likely to be produced beyond the appearance of the next generation.

 

This will probably give them all the time to consider the necessary savings to buy a 300mm instead of a 200mm and it is probable that the cost of the 300mm will somewhat diminish considering Nikon will not have to maintain two 'up to date" lens ranges even if they are still priducing the then old DX series.

 

>> You do NOT buy digital photo equipment as an investment... and I'll likely keep that new camera forever. It'll produce beautiful files even when the D5 will be archaeology <<

 

Strictly speaking you are entirely right about the word "investment"...

 

But you have to throw a large amount of money to proceed so when you aim at prosumer-pro camera level and - even more important these days - the lenses to go with it.

 

Whatever you intend to do with your camera body, its life won't exceed certain limits (it all depends on the quantity of pictures you take annually). And it is unlikely in a purely amateur way to see the things you will exceed this limit before the body will be impossible to repair for lack of spares. Even if you reach the limit in time, considering the average price in each category of DSLR is constantly dropping despite constant progress, it is also unlikely the cost of changing the shutter (for example) will be low enough to justifiy it versus replacing the body with a more up to date and performing one... The equivalent of a D300 at that time will almost cetainly be FX. Another reason not to go too far with DX lenses.

 

Your D300 is unlikely to be still serviceable or to be repaired economically when the D5 will be archeology... the quality of images you produce with it notwithstanding... On the contrary, as examplified by the old Ai'ed, Ai, Ais lenses a Nikkor lens produced even as far bock as 1959, provided it has been Ai'ed, is still something you can use on your D300... and fully on a D3.

 

As a last remark, I'm producing a certain number of pics to be used on offset printed posters. The rule with these posters which are seldom bigger than an A2+ format (so likely to be seen in details from a less distant point of view than the diagonal of the format) is to be provided with a 300dpi definition at actual printing format.

 

The printer said to me he has constantly to complain for the lack of definition of the files his customers give to him for the dimensions they order. He added it has become a major problem since digital photography became widespread.

 

May be the output of a D 70 is enough for you and the D300 main quality is the better viewfinder, but for many people - like me - the better definition is an appreciable advantage. Unfortunately on a cropped sensor, it means less dynamic range and lesser performance at high ISO when compared to a full format with the same pixel count. A problem even a lowly old Nikkormat won't have had when compared to an F4S... because they were able to use the same emulsion.

 

Each medal has a reverse and this is the reverse of the digital medal.

 

It'll push forward relentlessly the succession of digital body generations and it'll push them fast until complete superiority will be achieved versus film (on the verge to be done) and forward again until the gain between generations won't be visible to a critical eye under any circumstances.

 

Digital bodies prioduced today will be obsolescent tomorrow and dead the day after... We are no more living in Leica M or Nikon F days anymore.

 

Best regards.

 

FPW

[jose_angel]

I have been waiting to have some free minutes to write an answer for Francois, but Davide has saved me some time... with a much better english. Thanks.<p>

 

Since the D1 were released eight years ago, specially for pro use, DX high quality lenses (specially wides) has been something on high demand. Most of us were highly dissapointed with that DX format and wait for a FF DSLR. I`m thinking on all that people who spent money on film lenses (also on pro zooms) waiting for an affordable FX camera. Eight years later, they still cannot use their lenses on a FX camera. You`re still advicing to buy expensive FX lenses, I think you`re propossing a somewhat risky bet. <p>

 

I cannot agree more with Davide. I`ve been one of that film lens users, highly reluctant to buy DX lenses. Well, I finally bought an 17-55 and I started to enjoy. My advice for DX camera users is to buy lenses designed for this format. I want to mean "camera users", not "camera gear investors". If you have a great camera like the D300 why to "invest" on lenses designed for a future` replacement? Isn`t the D300 good enough for you, do you really need to be waiting for a new model? Don`t wait, take the best of your camera <i>right now!</i><p>

 

About DSLR cameras cost, I believe you get used to that prices, and you finally assimilate the amount. A $1800+ digital camera is not what I`d call a popular price but, as you say, "the ratio between cost and quality is far better now... ", that`s true on a D300 not on a D3; I wonder about the acquiring capacity of most users in the next future. Many people considered prohibitive two or three years ago even an under $1000 camera. Now, this looks to be almost bargain priced cameras.<p>

 

About the re-sale capacity of DX lenses, what DX lenses? Do you really think that a, e.g. 24-85 AFS FF film lens will have a higher value for D3 or D4 FX users? For D300 DX users? For future D400 users (again, what if DX)? I think this lenses could be interesting <i>only</i> for low end consumer cameras, and I`m afraid it`ll not be FX for the time being...<p>

 

I`d agree with you about the Nikon interest on DX... You look to be sure that there will be an affordable FX soon (God willing... ) but, what if you`re wrong? What if the next D4 is a high pixel account FX camera ($$$$) and the D400 an improved DX? Perhaps you handle information we don`t have...

[Davide Baroni]

FPW,

you're conceptually right, of course. But I'm a practical, pragmatic guy. :-)

The only DX lenses that are worth a thought are wide-angle zooms. I own the 12-24 f/4.0 only because there wasn't a FX lens at the time covering that range for the same price (only the beautiful but expensive 14mm prime). Today, I agree I'd go for the 14-24 2.8 FX... which, BTW, on a FX sensor is quite "extreme". But unless you shoot thousands of photos per month, and even so, you'd still be able to use your D300 DX along the next 10 years, and "convert" your lenses to FX meanwhile. When your D300 dies, you get the best body you can afford then... :-D Personally, I shoot south of 2.000 shots per YEAR.

About prints: I had some 30x45 cm prints from my D70 which I and the people who own them are pretty happy. Nonetheless, I understand your point... but you can use Genuine Fractals or other software of the like to solve your problem. The results could amaze you. :-)

And I've seen an AD campaign poster, 70x100cm, printed from a D100 file... schocking quality. It was on photographic printing, meaning no inkjet whatsoever...

And yes, you're right the long telephoto lenses the pro and the naturalistic photographers use these days are FX lenses... but when they'll have to buy a 300 2.8 to do what they currently do with a much lighter and less expensive 200 2.8, they'll NOT be happy. :-D

 

<<What is the actual influence of the sensor cost in the global price of a body today ?

 

Don't you think "affordability" for the potential panel of customers targeted for a specific body is far more important than the price level itself ?

 

The fact is the rejection ratio of full format sensors has certainly constantly dwindled during the recent period even if the sllicon wafer problems is still present, otherwise, prices would have stood at the same level as before. >>

 

Well, I'm not 100% sure, but it should be quite high... about 50+%.

"Affordability" is a good criterion. But the issue here is "what will the 'panel of customers' be?"... In my experience, Pro customers work also as a sort of "advertisement" for the bulk of customers. And the very bulk of the customers panel, those who make the balance sheet look so gracious, are in the lower layers...

And now, what if we let this thread to its original purpose, e.g. help Cecelia to make her decision, and (if you want) open a different thread to discuss the future of digital equipments? :-)

Thanks

Davide

[jose_angel]

Whooops, I`m sorry I cannot manage such long posts (I throw in the towel).<p>

 

Anyway It looks you`re unsatisfied with the D300 performance... <i>"... Unfortunately on a cropped sensor, it means less dynamic range... when compared to a full format with the same pixel count... </i>. I don`t know what your needs are, but as a D3&D300 owner I had been I think it is only on the papers for <i>most users</i>, and you must use both cameras to be aware (if so) of it.<p>

 

About the high ISO performance, I find it useful for sport pro-shooting and a nice costly feature ($3000) for the rest...

[diane_madura]

"Not only do my hands get tired but I get tired with it around my neck."

 

Cecilia, I now wear a harness instead of a shoulder strap. If I wore the camera strap on my shoulder, I knocked my camera into something too many times. Around the neck is too much weight for me. Hence the harness. It also keeps the camera closer to my body when I'm not using the camera.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"....Not only do my hands get tired but I get tired with it around my neck...."</b>

<p>

Use the following:

<p>

<a href=http://www.blackrapid.com/><b>Black Rapid Strap</b></a>

<p>

I can shoot an all day wedding with my D3, a wide variety of lenses, and SB800 on with no neck problems at all. With the neck strap I used to be sore for two to three days after every wedding.