Nikon user take at new announcements

[Mark D Segal]

Not quite correct, Mark. There's roughly a 25% increase in pixel count which represents at best a 12% increase in resolution with a perfect lens (square root of 1.25). Considering that we don't have perfect lenses and that final resolution is always a compromise between sensor resolution and lens resolution, in practice the increase in resolution will be less than 12% with a good lens and probably only in the central part of the image.
Perhaps I shouldn't be answering for John Camp. He can speak for himself. But the upgrade from the 1Ds to 1Ds2 was more substantial. Whilst still only a modest increase in resolution (about 20%) there was a very significant increase in high ISO performance. I'd expect the the 14 bit DIGIC III processor in the 1Ds3 will provide some improvement in shadow noise which might translate to marginally cleaner high ISO images, but I doubt there'll be any significant leap in performance here.

Seems to me the 1Ds3 is an ideal upgrade for owners of the 1D2 who resisted upgrading to the 1D3. They'll gain the most. Nevertheless, those who want the best that 35mm has to offer and who can afford it will find enough reason to buy the 1Ds3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray - thaks for correcting my resolution numbers - you are right. Somehow I had in my head the change from the 1Ds to the 1DsII, where the number of MP changing from the II to the III is about the same but the denominator for the 1Ds to IDsII change was much smaller! My slip.

That said, resolution strictly defined in terms of MP/inch is not affected by lenses. Of course the clarity of what one sees IS.

The upgrade to the 1DsIII will also make sense to those who didn't up-grade from the 1Ds, as well as to people going high-end digital for the first time and want the highest resolution a DSLR can offer today. I also expect quite a few 1DsII users will up-grade eventhough the change in resolution is less than it was between the 1Ds and the 1DsII, because they get another resolution increment along with a number of other very useful features. The net cost to a professional user paying company income tax is not that high - by the time they sell-off their 1DsII and take the tax write-down for the new equipment an 8000 dollar camera could become something in the range of a 3000 dollar camera, varying of course depending on resale value of the 1DsII and the tax laws - but you get the idea.

[BJL]

... Nikon has launched a full frame camera with equivalent specifications as a reduced frame camera (1DIII) for marginally more cost. Either the cost of producing full frame sensors is dropping so fast that the cost differential with cropped sensors is becoming insignificant or Nikon is taking a chunk out of the margins to launch the camera at its current price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My guess is that the second is part of it: Nikon is trying to break into a market long dominated by Canon, so aggressive pricing is to be expected.

But economies of scale probably play a part too: Nikon plans to make 12,000/mo of the D3, compared to figures I have seen of 2,000/mo for the 1Ds models, 4,000/mo for the 1D and 8,000/mo for the 5D. That sounds very ambitious, but if the high frame rate and lower price gives the D3 far higher volume that the 1DsMkIII, it could be a coup for high end 24x36 format price reduction.

Maybe in hindsight Canon should have had just the one new high end model that many had predicted: something like the 1DsMkIII but with a 10fps, 10MP 1.3x crop mode, that could sell in greater volume that its current two new high end models combined if priced at about $5,000.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk, if you want to throw the past around, let me join you; I spent my photographic apprenticeship years working in industrial photography (Rolls-Royce Aero Engine Division) and I think I know a litle bit about different formats too. .......

No problem. My actual point is that the simple practicality of greater DOF with smaller formats is getting lost in the depth of this discussion.

[rinderart]

I would hope that the makers of these toys made better 12MP sensors than more of them. Why would anyone buy a uber 20MP canon or nikon when they can get the Mamiya 22 Now for $10K, better glass than both companies [used by Nasa]and a much larger sensor. Seems silly to me. Other than having a fortune in canon or nikon glass , I see no point. If you want image quality Go get a used 4X5 or 5x7 a few lense's and a great scanner all for under $2000.00  that will give ya about 400 MP at 6400Dpi. One drawback is ya have to know photography and exposure. Always something HUH?

[Rob C]

No problem. My actual point is that the simple practicality of greater DOF with smaller formats is getting lost in the depth of this discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No argument with that!

Rob C

[Morgan_Moore]

Dear all,

Since I am one of the few Nikon users on this forum, I though I would just share some reactions about the new Nikon announcements.

-[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My two pennies worth - I have bee nikon since 1989

Nikon has been an absolute pain since the inception of digital with the D1

Every camera has some sort of major flaw to me be it file size (D1), Raw Write Speed (D100) or sensor size innacurate AF dark viewing experience (all of them)

I have been hobbling along on the much mailgned KodakSLRN for years now as my primary retainer for my nikkors

The SLRn is a great camera walks over cameras like the D200 when used in non challenging environments

(I also have an H1/sinar and D1/D100/D70/80/200)

'FX' is for me the saviour of the Nikon system

Firstly the screen will be bright enough and the DOF thin enough to gain critial focus using MF (and the optimisable AF might make AF work - which is never has done for me)

Lenses will do what they were designed to do again - I never even owned a zoom before the D1

Decent frame rate, acceptable flash synch and decent ISO will make this camera usable for what nikons are supposed to be used for - fast photography at an adequate quality

Judging by the SLRn I think 12/13mp can produce a fantastic file

My only concern is slow ISOs and flash synch combo on bright days

It is not often I pay full wack for a nikon - I had F100 not an F5 (well I actually had both), D100 not D1X etc

The D3 is one of the occasions where I feel the difference will be worth it

SMM

ps not sure why this thread is here !

[Rob C]

Sam, I´ve never owned a Nikkor zoom either; I have had many lenses from 24 to 500 mirror - all manual - and I´m not sure why you restrict Nikon´s role to that of ´fast photography at adequate quality´ when I was perfectly able to use all bodies from F to F4 (and thence back to F3) with those lenses for very high-quality shoots. In respect of that statement, I must add that there were generally two types of work: that which fits your criteria above and also tripod-bound stuff which could not be done any other way.

Of course, if you meant to compare 35mm formats with medium, then I understand your point and agree.

I have only owned one digital body - the D200 - and I find that it works quite well for me, the matrix meter in particular being able to replace my former Minolta Flashmeter in all but flash situations. The built-in grid, for example, is very valuable to me and I do not find the viewfinder as a whole too small, either.

I would love to have a Nikon FF camera, but my pro days have gone now and I have to look at the bank balance with a non-rich amateur´s eye! I would much rather have had the luxury of looking at it with a rich amateur´s eye, but that´s life!

Rob C

[Morgan_Moore]

Of course, if you meant to compare 35mm formats with medium, then I understand your point and agree.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly. on film I was Nikon and Mamiya  so used nikon for 'fast photography at adequate quality´- a 645 chrome is a lovely thing

Although the concept of a 20mp APS size sensor would do stuff that would not be possible with 645

graeat DOF for landscape in a neat package that would be horrible to compose - but then there is now live view too

interesting times

Im am not theaoreticlly aginst APS size but really fast lenses are needed like a 14 1.4  or 30 1.0 to replicate a film look in any way

I generally shoot at F2 with my 50 on the SLRn - you cant get that look with any nikon APS system

S