File :-(, x, )
Nikon to announce D3 and D300 DSLRs tomorrow? Anonymous
Ears to the ground over Japan way have it that Nikon's loosing two new DSLRs tomorrow, its new highest-end D3 (presumably replacing the D2Xs) and lower-upper-end D300 (presumably replacing the D200; found specs below). Supposedly this is all going down tomorrow at 1PM JST in Tokyo.

D3
* Full frame (FX) 12 megapixel Nikon CMOS
* Live view LCD
* 9fps in FF mode, 11fps in HSC mode (at 1.5 crop factor / DX size)
* ISO 200 - 6400 with LO (ISO 100 equivalent), H1 and H2 (ISO 12800 / 25600, respectively)
* 51 point autofocus system (15 cross sensor)

D300
* DX format 12 megapixel CMOS (supposedly possibly the same as the D2X)
* Live view LCD
* 6fps, up to 8fps with power grip (no HSC mode)
* ISO 200 - 3200 with LO (ISO 100 equivalent), H1 (ISO 6400)
* 51 point autofocus system (15 cross sensor)
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>70639
I don't get it..
>> .1 !!DCC/HkjLVqg
The fuck you need 6400 ISO for?
Also, it looks like a squashed brick. Like>>70639except less functional.

Think I'll stick with my D40, then maybe get a steal on the pricing of the D200 or a D2 or some shit like that.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
?
>> Anonymous
>>70642
http://masterchong.com/v2/dslr/nikon-d3-announced-2.html

Best mockery of Canon vs. Nikon fanboys I've read in a while.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This thread is now about fakes.
>> Anonymous
>>70649
I LOL'd, that was awesome!
>> Anonymous
>>70647
Nikon Digital SRL Camera D300?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>70656
Single Rens Leflex.

The Japanese don't really get the difference between R and L since they're the same phoneme in their language, you see.
>> Anonymous
>>70659
A Japanese man went into a used camera store, and asked for a "Leica late."
>> Anonymous
>>70656
Rurz
>> Anonymous
Nikon needs to go on a diet. Looks like a fucking furby.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>70832
i agree, i really hope it doesn't look like that, and is just an artiest impression (a really fucked up one too)
>> Anonymous
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp
>> Vincent
Mmmm Iso 25600, now thats something I wouldn't mind having! Might look like crap, but then again It is a much larger sensor than the usual 1/5x crop, so it might be possible!

I'm glad they stuck with the lower MP rating (though 12 even seems like overkill to me, my D200 10 MP is more than enough for 12x18" prints)
>> Anonymous
>>70832

I bet it purrs if you stroke it too, it looks quite happy from the pic shown.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
D3 is same weight as my F5, thats not a good thing :|
>> Anonymous
>>70837
Better start mowing lawns and saving my lunch money.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>70837
Holy fucking salted crunchy cuntcakes, Batman!

This. Is. Amazing. As a Nikon user, I feel a sense of... what to call it... vindication? These cameras are beautiful in every way. I came.
>> Anonymous
http://www1.nikonusa.com/announcement/index.html
>> Anonymous
Hahaha oh wow, ISO 25600 on the D3?
Now I finally can shoot those niggers stealing my coal at night.
>> ????????(???)??????!!!!! Anonymous
O.M.G! I came! Literally. Still have goose bumps all over my skin, just from reading the announcement..
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
FUCK YEAH
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
OH MY FUCKIN GOD!!!

I can't believe this is actually real... after all the bullshit rmuours... FINALLY!!!

... I might just bejumping on the FF wagon

OOOH YEAH
>> Anonymous
I find it interesting that D300 has dust reduction, but D3 apparently doesn't..? I wonder if it's any good or just marketing gimmick like on every other camera.
>> Anonymous
Did you see that D300 has 51 AF points and up to 8 FPS!!1
>> Anonymous
>>70840
> Iso 25600 .. Might look like crap, but then again It is a much larger sensor than the usual 1/5x crop, so it might be possible!
I think it will look a lot better than 1600 on my D70! I mean, those photosites are HUGE, 12MP on FF sensor! Cant wait for reviews!
>> Anonymous
What's the price on that AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED?
>> Anonymous
>>70881
>>70884
>>70885
>>70888
ITT circlejerk
>> Anonymous
>>70891
TBA
>> Anonymous
>>70892
Bitter Canon fanboy.
>> Anonymous
>>70891
$1800 according to DCResource. Not bad
>> annoyingmouse
Ok then.
The D3 is WAY out of my price range, and I suppose it is the same for most of you guys.
But the D300 - wow!
expected price of 1800$ is manageable, and what you get is just - well WOW! this is a dream camera.
i was speculating about how it would stand against the new Canon 40D - and I was afraid that live preview on the Canon will be a deal breaker. And then Nikon come out of nowhere with this perfect screen AND live preview...
All the other specs go without saying. One thing that worries me is the weather seals on the D200 - I wonder if the D300 has the same? I cant find info anywhere.
So now just the question of how cheap the D200 will get (right now the difference is about 400$ but expected to change of course). Anyone has any ideas about that? or about availability of the D300`?
>> Anonymous
>>70903
The D300 looks almost the same, so I expect it to have inherited all the seals from the D200.
>> Anonymous
>>70903
yea, i was wondering about that too. i can't wait to see the closeout deals on the d200, and the used value of the d200 drop.
>> Anonymous
I lol'd at a bunch of Nikonfags at one of the local forums simultaneously offering their D200's for sale today (reason: UPGRADING TO D300)
>> des
>>70908
>>70908
>>70908
This is the real reason to be excited about the announcement :D
>> Anonymous
>>70892

Faggot Canon Cunt.
>> Anonymous
>>70903
The D300 is going to be around $1800? Ouch. Now, I'll say that it certainly looks like it has better specs than the 40D. However, not that much better. Down at the low end, you have the D80 and XTi in competition, and I think that most people dropping close to a grand on a camera aren't going to mind paying (or saving) $100 for a few features. However, the 40D seems pretty comparible to the D300, but the D300 is going to be almost 50% more expensive. When it comes up to several hundred dollars, I think a lot of people are going to go with the 40D. However, it should give Nikon users a feeling of superiority to own the more-expensive camera.

It seems like Nikon and Canon are splitting into a staggered market segment. The 1D, is at the top, followed by the D3, and the flip-flop seems to go all the way down. I'd put the 5D next, followed by the D300, the 40D, the D80, the XTi, and finally the D40. Interesting pattern.
>> Anonymous
>>70979
Well, D300 is professional camera.. makes sense that it's more expensive than 40D.

Anyway, any comparison till we see tests is pure speculation. D3 and D300 has new and never before seen sensor, rumor is that it blows away any competition, we'll see soon enough..
>> Anonymous
i recently put off buying D200 as i knew it was only a matter of time till nikon fired out the d300. i wont believe rumors till its a certian but i would love to get one and will probably end up buying one on the drip.

i thought the canon 40D was only similarly specked to the d200?

is that d300 pic fake ?
>> Anonymous
i'm just glad that they went with a more traditional F6 styling, rather than that bizarre H.R. Giger mockup in the OP's post.
>> Anonymous
>>70979
Most of the camera makers are trying to avoid too direct competition. Current Fuji, Pentax and Olympus cameras don't have direct counterparts too.
>> Anonymous
>>70993
Here's the real D300 pics. Pretty much exactly like D200.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page4.asp
>> Anonymous
your lineup of cameras is all wrong and misses some important models. for your infomation dpreview prefers the D200 over the Canon 5D, so I am pretty sure I know where they will position the D300.
>> Anonymous
>>71043
troll moar
>> Anonymous
>>71003

all of the test shots from mostly every dslr look identical on dpreview. OH look its the london eye..oh look an old motorbike ...OK LOOK AN OLD PLANE. HAR HAR. there is no real IRL testing.

but yeah anyway
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
D3

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 45Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:17 05:11:26ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height1200
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
D300

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 45Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:17 09:29:48ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height1200
>> Anonymous
>>71043
You are, of course, welcome to disagree. However, unless you can come up with something better, you just sound like a fanboy.

Hey, the D200 may have a better bang for the buck than the 5D. But you may want to get the 5D for features it has that the D200 doesn't. Cameras, at least DSLRs, don't really fall into categories of "better" or "worse." (Well, maybe by age, but I think the point is clear.) The question is what is the best tool for the job.

I'd say Canon overall has the better suited lineup. But I'd trade in my XT for a D300 in a second.
>> Anonymous
Canon fanboys need to wake up with the 40d d300 debate. Fuck man, one look at what they both have as specs and the winner is clear. As much great glass as there is for Canons Nikon has a trump card that Canon won't follow: Nikon puts the SAME technology from their flagship camera into the affordable model.
>> Anonymous
>>70912
it's
>>70908
here, and fuck yes. market saturation ahoy :D

...now i just need to solve the problem of there being $200 in my bank account :( i might have to sell my 22in NEC crts or something.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>70979

Yeah.. i'm going to disagree with that arbitary line up as well.

You're not even listing the reasons or 'features' why a camera is better than another, you're simply saying This is better than that...

on paper the D3 is looking better than even the up and coming 1Ds Mark III, the press release certainly makes Nikon's Live Preview seem much better than Canon's.

Though Canon still has a huge lead thanks to their great lens line up, even though the D300 and D3 may mean that Nikon closes the gap, I think it'll still be a while till they catch up to Canon...if they ever do.

Most professionals aren't going to abandon their tens of thousands of dollars of Canon gear simply to go nikon, it's not about brand it just about equipment.
>> Anonymous
NO BUT MANAGED TO CREATE CANON AND NIKON SOMEHOW
>> Anonymous
ok, my disagreeing with the lineup needs clarification. I wasn't trolling, just disagreeing. it's not as if the lineup was grounded on anything - it was just as arbitrary as my disagreement.
Anyways, On paper the D3 looks better than the 1D (despite having half the MPs). But as far as I am concerned these are still not real products. It is going to take at least a year before I will be able to play with them, so dpreview is the only place I can go for what I consider non-partial and very thorow review (eventhough it is in laboratory conditions). About the models I do know to a certain extent: why did you take the D200 out of your list? goes head to head with the Canon 40D and better than all the lower models of canon. and if you have the XTi there, then where is the d40x? arguably a better camera. about the D80 - I agree with ken rockwell its just stuck in the middle between D40/XTi and the Nikon D200 and now Canon 40D.
Only reason to pay so much money for a canon 5D in my opinion - is if you REALLY need Canon's superior low-light noise. but for that you got the new D3 which I think will kick ass, seems as if Nikon are trying to take the lead from Canon on noise reduction and redicolously high ISOs
>> Anonymous
The bottom line is that this announcement is grate news for everyone, except Canon incorporated. Consumers like we here only win from grate competition like we see here.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>71128
Grate is not amused by the news

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBELMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFirmware Version?Serial Number1060448202Owner Name?_Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2005:05:29 00:12:35Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/3.5ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardImage Number111-1177
>> Anonymous
>>71056

Are you a fucking retard? They do that on purpose for frame of reference.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Presentation slides.

http://e-photographia.smugmug.com/gallery/3354617

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D2XsCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:23 17:35:23Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating250Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Return DetectedFocal Length26.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width450Image Height595RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Review of D3!

http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d2x-altf.html

Well.. not really, but close enough. Read it!
>> Anonymous
>>71143
This review is at least 278% more awesome than anything Phil Askey ever wrote. Also gets bonus points for loli.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
before the D80 came out…
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
why the fuck do we have to pay 3000, 5000, 8000 bucks for full frame? Seems like the average user really is better off getting a crop digital for day-to-day and sticking with 35mm for austere full-framiness.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71188
>why the fuck do we have to pay 3000, 5000, 8000 bucks for full frame?
Because
>the average user really is better off getting a crop digital for day-to-day and sticking with 35mm for austere full-framiness.
Also, full-frame sensors are expensive-as-fuck to produce.
>> Anonymous
>>71143
hilarious
>> Anonymous
>>71185
I don't get it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/technology/circuits/23camera.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogi
n&adxnnlx=1187975025-Kx/ioCxLiqlbX1HvbpA5mA
>The new Nikon D3 is the first camera from the company with a full-size sensor. Well, almost full-size. One side of the frame is 0.1 millimeter short. The sensor has 12.7 megapixels, which is not exceptional. Its light sensitivity, however, is another matter. The camera’s maximum ISO setting is 25,600, about 64 times what was commonly regarded as high-speed film.
Pfft. I'll stick with my Canon. High-end Canons have *real* full frame sensors.
>> Anonymous
>>71136

nah im not talking about the studio set up, those are fine. im talking about the small tourist photos that plague the sample image section of every review. they dont serve any reader to better understand each camera as there are to many variables with each photo.
>> Anonymous
>>71189

right i agree to a point but i understand that other anons point when it comes to price. Different sensors of various sizes and technologies have been developed years ago and are dip fed to us over x period of time. the development on bayer is done . we just have to enjoy the 10 year development cost re-coupe while they feed us the shitty shit.

No technology on this scale is expensive to produce. They charge this because they can.

sorry to be captain obvious.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71207
Actually, no. They really are expensive-as-fuck to produce.

A 24x36mm (I.e., full frame) sensor requires a 24x36mm chunk of silicon. As chip sizes increase, manufacturing complexity increases--it's harder to fit a bunch on one wafer of silicon, and a fault on the wafer will therefore take out a higher percentage of the chips on the wafer (i.e., if you have a wafer that'll fit 10 big chips or 100 little chips, one fault will kill 10% of your yield of big chips but only 1% of your yield of small chips).

A full frame sensor requires an 864 square millimeter hunk of silicon. By contrast, a Pentium IV--widely regarded as a hugely obese, bloated, massive chip--comes in at a lean 146mm^2 in its largest version.
>> Anonymous
I don't really get this debate over sensor size.. I seriously don't care how big that things is, all I'm interested in is what will my 35mm equivalent focal length be and how much noise will I get. I hope that Nikon never puts FF sensors in low end cameras, no matter how cheap they become. I'll take my cheap glass, thank you.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71219
Noise is directly related to sensor size.

For a given technological generation, for a given resolution, a larger sensor size means larger photosites means more light gathering ability means less noise.

Additionally, there is a limit to the resolution a lens can usefully put out, too, so a larger sensor means the lens doesn't have to be quite as good (although the other side of that particular coin is that you're only using the middle of the lens on crop-sensor cameras, and the middle tends to be the best bit).

Finally, some people like shallow DoF. Larger sensor = shallower DoF.
>> Anonymous
>>71210

your kind of missing my point. it may have been expensive in the past but in technological terms we are dealing with an old manufacturing process.

anyhooo, just to stir the shit..

MAMIYA ZD > CANON EOS 1Ds-III
>> Anonymous
>>71227
> For a given technological generation, for a given resolution, a larger sensor size means larger photosites means more light gathering ability means less noise.
Yes, but there obviously are other ways to bring noise down. Bigger sensor is the stupid way, just throw more money at it. I'm rally looking forward to tests between D3 and D300 and D300 VS. D200.

> some people like shallow DoF.
How shallow? For me on APS-C sensor anything below f/2.8 for relatively close subject is already very shallow.

> there is a limit to the resolution a lens can usefully put out, too, so a larger sensor means the lens doesn't have to be quite as good
Haven't thought about this.. makes sense, I guess. But what is cheaper large and not so good lens or smaller but better lens?
>> Anonymous
>>71232
PHASE ONE P 45+ > MAMIYA ZD
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71232
I don't think I am missing your point.

You're saying that the price of full-frame sensors should go down because we've had plenty of time to pay back the research overhead cost and for economy-of-scale to kick in.

I'm saying that there's still a hella large actual, physical per-chip cost associated with making a chip that large, costs that won't go away until someone can figure out a completely new way to make chips that results in vastly higher yield rates.

Your argument is kind of like "Well, cars should cost $5 because we've known how to make cars forever." There's still the honkin'-great cost of physically manufacturing the things to contend with.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71237
>Yes, but there obviously are other ways to bring noise down.
Yep. And that's why the full-frame sensors of today have lower noise than the full-frame sensors in the old Kodak DCS Pro line.

There are other ways to reduce noise, and they work *even better* when coupled with a larger sensor size. Say they figure out a way to get an 8MP 1/1.6" sensor to shoot nice and clear at ISO400 with noise starting to get noticeable only at 1600. That's great, but you can take that same technique to an APS-C sensor and get noiseless ISO6400 with usable ISO25600.

Additionally, there *are* limits to this. Like physical, wavelength-of-light limits. I'm not saying we'll never find a way around them, since betting against technological advancement is all sorts of stupid, but it's going to require either a fundamental shift in our understanding of physics or a fundamental shift in camera design.

>For me on APS-C sensor anything below f/2.8 for relatively close subject is already very shallow.
>For me on APS-C sensor anything below f/2.8
>For me on APS-C sensor
>For me
You are not all photographers.
>> Anonymous
>>71241
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The question is - why stop at so called full frame sensors? Why not make them two or three times bigger? The point I'm trying to make is that APS-C size is good enough for most people. Let big pockets buy those D3 or Phase1 or whatever, but don't butcher DX. Cheap lenses, dude! How can you argue against that?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71243
The reason to stop at full-frame-35mm is because that's the size the systems are designed to use. The lens mount and most of the lenses can accommodate a full-frame sensor, but not anything bigger.

I agree that APS is good enough for most people. You just said (well, I assume it was you, tracing back the thread)
>I seriously don't care how big that things is, all I'm interested in is [...] how much noise will I get.
which is just kind of a silly thing to say. Kind of like "I don't understand why people debate about quality of ingredients in a meal. I just care about how it tastes" or "I don't understand why people don't want to live far away from the city. I don't care about how far my commute is, just how long it takes to get to work". Sensor size has the largest effect on sensor noise of any factor.

I assume (and would prefer) that Nikon and Canon maintain the dichotomy of APS-C for low/middle-end cameras and full-frame for the high end. Kind of like the 35mm vs. medium format dichotomy in film except you can share lenses between the two systems with the small caveat of doing a little math in your head.

Oh, and also, with regards to the Nikon system in particular: the D3 can use your cheap APS-C glass. It just uses the APS-C middle of the sensor and ignores the outside bits. Can't do that with Canon because EF-S lenses won't mount on a full-frame camera, but at least with Nikon, there's no reason other than cost to keep full-frames out of the low-end.
>> Anonymous
>>71247

ac, dont you think that sticking to the 35mm archetype is a limiting factor?
>> Anonymous
ive never seen such a tech whoring thred.

if there is any proof that you guys should ignore all this bullshit, take the camera you have and just shoot its the drivel that comes from some of these responses.

what in gods name are any of you debating with ac for? have any of you actually seen any of his photos? i swear hes blind.

also in b4 I DONT NEED TO BE A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER TO BE A GOOD CRITIC.
>> Anonymous
>>71273

well you can get medium format or even large format, if you feel hc :P
>> Anonymous
how much will the new canon 1d cost?
>> Anonymous
>>71279
> ive never seen such a tech whoring thred.
Well, some of us here apparently enjoy photography gear as much as photography itself, or even more. Do you have a problem with that?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71273
>ac, dont you think that sticking to the 35mm archetype is a limiting factor?
There's a balance to be struck between quality and convenience. For the absolute highest quality, you'll still want to go large-format film. APS-C gives you good enough quality for 99% of what most photographers do with their cameras (i.e., pictures of their cats). Those who really need higher quality will shell out the big bucks for a D3 or a 1Ds/5D. Those who need *much* higher quality will shell out the even bigger bucks for a medium-format digital solution. A lot of people are willing to settle for the quality of a wee tiny P&S camera's sensor in exchange for the ability to stick the camera in their pocket. All I said about the difficulty of making a full-frame sensor goes exponentially for a medium-format sensor.

The 35mm form factor in SLRs has the extremely big advantage of an extensive history backing it up. You can go out and buy glass from before the invention of the microchip and mount it (with an adapter, anyway) on your current digital SLR and it'll work. If you're using glass from the 80s, you won't even need an adapter.

So yeah, staying in 35mm form factors limits the quality, but its advantages in cost, size, and completeness more than make up for it.

>>71279
>have any of you actually seen any of his photos? i swear hes blind.
Also: This guy makes a valid point.
>> Anonymous
ITT: ac (and others) trying to feed some morons common sense and widely known knowledge