Nikon D3 vs. Canon 1Ds Mark III

[Michael Wayne Plant]

Michael,
           A question that I am currious about? What rumors do you know about that make you say that a D3(X) is coming in the early part of 2008, as I have seen a few other rumors to this effect and just want to know where they are coming from. I have a D2X and can only afford to upgrade once in the next year and as much as I like the look of the D3 really need more mega-pixels hence my question what leads you to make the statement, that there is a new camera on its way that is the direct competition for the 1Ds Mk3.
Regards
Michael Wayne Plant

[michael]

I can't really comment without divulging sources.

I also can't say when a D3(?) will be here, only that there is no question that it will.

If I had to guess I'd say well before summer.

Michael

[DonWeston]

What I would like to know is when will a D300FX body be available??? That way I can spend money on more lenses, maybe first, rather than saving my pennies for a D3. ......any comments?

[Marsupilami]

What I would like to know is when will a D300FX body be available??? That way I can spend money on more lenses, maybe first, rather than saving my pennies for a D3. ......any comments?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you cant afford it, you dont need it.

For quality get a Canon 5D with a 17-40 L  and 70-200 4/ Is and you are done.

A cheap Nikon  FX wont happen fast and for cameras like that you need the best lenses, so mainly the new Zooms which are excellent. With old lenses you wont be very happy on such demanding cameras. I dont know what optics you have, but it could easily be that you have to purchase new lenses also for your nikon system if you go for FX. For what nikon lenses can and cannot do look at this site:
[a href=\"http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html]http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html[/url]

Christian

[DonWeston]

If you cant afford it, you dont need it.

For quality get a Canon 5D with a 17-40 L  and 70-200 4/ Is and you are done.

A cheap Nikon  FX wont happen fast and for cameras like that you need the best lenses, so mainly the new Zooms which are excellent. With old lenses you wont be very happy on such demanding cameras. I dont know what optics you have, but it could easily be that you have to purchase new lenses also for your nikon system if you go for FX. For what nikon lenses can and cannot do look at this site:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Christian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Christian- actually I have been there and didn't like it that much. I have owned several Canon cameras over the last 7 yrs from D30 through and including 5D. I have also owned Nikon, Fuji and Leica. While they all have their plusses they also have less then ideal qualities.The 5D was NOT the camera for me, either in operation and the fact that I really gave it a chance, bought and sold three before I got one that at least worked correctly for its design.  That said I am not bitter, just it was NOT the camera or panacea that folk make it out to be. Different shooters have different needs. If it does what you need, GREAT. I am also familiar with Bjorn site and use it often as a great reference, as is Thom Hogan, Photozone etc. Besides travel, which the 5D is good for, it is not a good choice for sports, poor focusing and framing rate left me frustrated. I had just as many keepers with my 20D, albeit with more noise. When you got a good image, it was good, but many misses with the 5D. The one plus was the low noise and that is why I would like to see a D300FX. BTW, do you work for Nikon, do you know their intentions or production schedule for new models? Just kidding, just a rhetorical question, no mas... Just my wishful thinking for a D300FX camera that has the shooting capability in a size package I am comfortable shooting with and a desire for low noise. [I know I could buy a D3 but it is too big to carry and use for all aspects of photography that I want it for...]  
Also, I have a few great old NIkon, Voigtlander MF prime lenses that I used both on the 5D and on the D300 which are very sharp, in direst opposition to the lousy Canon samples I had, like the 2-3 17-40Ls which were OK on the 20D but not on the 5D, and forced me to buy adapters to get a decent wide angle on the 5D, using the Nikkors and Voigtlander. ...e.g. the 40mm Ultron is even sharper then my 35L....fwiw in the corners. Canon had nothing like this or my 28/2 Nikkor AIS.

All in all, I am sorry for the rant, but throwing out a simple answer like go buy a 5D is just so much jive for this early in the a.m.  It is important to find out what one's needs are before another diatribe....now to take my Prozac and caffeine....uhhmmm, make that decaf..:-)....DW

Have a good day with great light, Don

[bjanes]

A cheap Nikon  FX wont happen fast and for cameras like that you need the best lenses, so mainly the new Zooms which are excellent. With old lenses you wont be very happy on such demanding cameras. I dont know what optics you have, but it could easily be that you have to purchase new lenses also for your nikon system if you go for FX. For what nikon lenses can and cannot do look at this site:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Christian
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Full frame digital and film impose some different demands on lenses, especially wide-angle lenses, but in general a lens that performs well with Kodachrome or Velvia should perform well with a D3. The D3 requires less resolution in the central area of the image than does the D2x or D200, whereas edge performance becomes more important with full frame.

People on this forum like to knock Ken Rockwell, but he does make some good points in his essay [a href=\"http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm]the full-frame advantage.[/url] .

Depending on the application, I would expect that many will be satisfied with results from their older high quality Nikkors with the D3, especially under field conditions for sports or event photography with high ISO where ultimate sharpness is not attainable. As the Lieca expert Erwin Putts is fond of saying, it is difficult to get 40 lp/mm on the film under these conditions and 20 lp/mm may be more realistic.

Bill

[GregW]

Indeed Bill.  There are quite a few over at Nikonians falling in love all over again with their manual and AI-S primes.  This is of course anecdotal but over time I'm sure we will see the popular sources updated with in-depth reviews.

[Marsupilami]

Christian- actually I have been there and didn't like it that much. I have owned several Canon cameras over the last 7 yrs from D30 through and including 5D. I have also owned Nikon, Fuji and Leica. While they all have their plusses they also have less then ideal qualities.The 5D was NOT the camera for me, either in operation and the fact that I really gave it a chance, bought and sold three before I got one that at least worked correctly for its design.  That said I am not bitter, just it was NOT the camera or panacea that folk make it out to be. Different shooters have different needs. If it does what you need, GREAT. I am also familiar with Bjorn site and use it often as a great reference, as is Thom Hogan, Photozone etc. Besides travel, which the 5D is good for, it is not a good choice for sports, poor focusing and framing rate left me frustrated. I had just as many keepers with my 20D, albeit with more noise. When you got a good image, it was good, but many misses with the 5D. The one plus was the low noise and that is why I would like to see a D300FX. BTW, do you work for Nikon, do you know their intentions or production schedule for new models? Just kidding, just a rhetorical question, no mas... Just my wishful thinking for a D300FX camera that has the shooting capability in a size package I am comfortable shooting with and a desire for low noise. [I know I could buy a D3 but it is too big to carry and use for all aspects of photography that I want it for...]   
Also, I have a few great old NIkon, Voigtlander MF prime lenses that I used both on the 5D and on the D300 which are very sharp, in direst opposition to the lousy Canon samples I had, like the 2-3 17-40Ls which were OK on the 20D but not on the 5D, and forced me to buy adapters to get a decent wide angle on the 5D, using the Nikkors and Voigtlander. ...e.g. the 40mm Ultron is even sharper then my 35L....fwiw in the corners. Canon had nothing like this or my 28/2 Nikkor AIS.

All in all, I am sorry for the rant, but throwing out a simple answer like go buy a 5D is just so much jive for this early in the a.m.  It is important to find out what one's needs are before another diatribe....now to take my Prozac and caffeine....uhhmmm, make that decaf..:-)....DW

Have a good day with great light, Don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Don !

Hope I sounded not rude, what I wanted to say is that it is too easily to forget about photography when you think about all the options with different systems you have. Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Medium format, what is the best without burning money for quality differences maybe only you will see and in print will be gone. I am the first one to be accused to have gear lust from time to time but try to get away from it as often as possible. I would switch to any other camera if it would bring me better operation, same resolution in a lightweight package. So the D3 is a heavy piece of gear, because it just makes sense with good optics and if you want to go to 600 mm it starts to get almost impossible if you plan to fly. So my 5d with the 40D and lenses like the 17-40 (my first copy was bad too, the second is Ok) 24-70 (good, but also far from perfect) and the 100-400 give me a versatile camera equipment for travelling and also hiking (withe the 70-200/4 instead of the 100-400). This combo do have flaws and I am not very happy about them, but I dont see an option which gives me real advantages. Nikon has damn good new optics (14-24, 24-70) and some others are excellent, but something like the L/4 line with Canon is missing. these optics are not perfect but at least very good and not too heavy. Sadly I think that new gear just might be not the solution to become a better photographer, maybe some corner sharpness is better with lens X, but are people looking in the corners like we do ?
Quality control with Canon lenses is really not perfect, far away from that, but how is it with nikon on a FX sensor - future will tell if their optics can keep up better in Full frame.
And dont forget Canon 5D is on the market for two years now, lets see if there is an update and what that brings and if it is good again for two years.
I hope that Nikon is bringing out cameras in FX, the more, the better. The more competition, the more and better products for us.


Greetings !

Christian

[Bernard Cat]

Hi All,

I haven't yet found a review that describes the quality of the D3 at low ISO compared to the D2X at low ISO. I use my D2X mostly for landscape at 100 ISO, and it would be great to know how much I would benefit from changing it for a D3. The larger viewfinder sounds good, but low noise high ISO is only of interest if it also equates to improved quality at low ISO too.
Anyone seen any info about this?

Andy.

[DonWeston]

Andy - I don't remember where exactly, but I know I have seen something like this online in one of the forums either here, or DPReview etc, in the last day or two. It compared the D2x, D3 and D300 at ISOs of 100 and 200. My take on results were basically, they were all quite close in sharpness and detail. This was kind of expected due to similar Mp ratings. The D2x has a slightly warmer cast to the image compared to the newer cameras, some might argue the D3 had more tonal range, but for my money the D300 seemed to be the equal or better. You cannot judge too much by these jpegs on a monitor for sure, but it was an apples to apples test and given the testing was done by a regular forum member, should be above reproach. THe end result I had no regrets going for the D300 for me, it gives similar image quality or better in a small package. Combined also with the improvements in on board image processing etc, and this was a good thing. Do not know if I would upgrade to a newer camera unless I really needed better high ISO quality. Also for  much of what I do I do not need FF at the moment, also I have been considering the D3 for the other reasons, namely, high ISO and high frame rates for shooting high school basketball, without flash, but my D300 is doing better then any camera I have owned before. ....Keep looking the thread is out there, if I find  it will post the link.....Good luck and good shooting..Don

[Dubuque44]

I very much enjoyed your article. I really do not know why people do not lighten up on comments about camera type. I have a D200 and have on order a D300, I am just an advanced amature but enjoy photography. In the "old days" with a minolta 101/102, then a Nikon FE, I could not have dreamed of the type of photography possible now. Keep up with your opinions, which I do respect and enjoy, but just because individuals do not always agree, does not indicate that one is wrong or correct. Cameras are tools not unlike an artists brush. they have to work, understood, and most of all used.
Enjoy and, hopefully I an not too politically incorrect, Merry Christmas