Have been playing the a D3 and D300.

[bristolpete]

Hi,

Got to use a Nikon D3 and a D300 last night and this morning.

First of all, the D3. A nice machine. Slightly bigger than the D2X/s, I have to say that the high ISO is amazing, and to me as good as the Mark III that I own - though Nikon claim it is two stops better, the proof will be in a real world test under poor flood lights. The back screen in very nice, nearing 1 million pixels, it is razor sharp. As before, the two dials effect a button push such as ISO etc. Personally, I find Nikon menus to cumbersome but having always shot Canon its a moot point and would be easy to get used to it. It automatically recognises DX lenses and sets the camera up in crop mode, which can be turned off.

Has some new unique features, such as picture sets, which is fully customisable. For instance if you like a style/way someone shoots you can down load that set and load it to your machine, perhaps to mimic a style that a pro landscaper may use. Nikon expects 'picture sets' to retail on individual sites whilst other users may simply give them away? Who knows?
It also has something called scene recognition where the camera can automatically detect skin tone hues of all colours and prioritise the 'human' subject. We asked if this was based on the demigraphic/location and Nikon advised that in test, they found very little difference in the skin tones and hues of all races. Interesting. I do hope that DSLR's are not ebbing toward the naff features found on compacts though.

Overall, the D3 is superb camera but at £3.5K I am not sure if I could or would pay that for it.

Oddly, the old wireless transmitters have been rendered useless with the D3 as they are not backward compatible. I was talking with many pro's and Nikon this morning and the general feeling among the pro scene is 'gutted', more expense. Whats odd is that the new wi-fi unit now sits in your pocket tethered to the camera via usb which in my mind is not true wi-fi - that said, the laptop can sit in the bag like before. Strange decision though.

I found the D300 to be much of a muchness. The high ISO is not in the same league as the D3, which stands to reason given the sensor size. However, 1600 ISO was very noisy to me eyes, although I only viewed on the back screen. To me, the D300 did not feel like a big step up from the D300 though Nikon state it is in ISO and focusing, though there is no way I would drop £1400.00 on a body at the moment. Having tested a Sony 700 earlier in the week, I would go for this over the 300 every time.

In summary, the Nikon babies are nice, but I will stay with Canon - not via brand loyalty, just that I love the way my Canons feel and operate. I think I pilot them quite well. If I could take one thing across it would be the double delete rather than delete and dial, but thats hardly new is it.

Sorry for the brief review, never been much of a pixel peeper - I prefer taking pictures!!!!

UK street date is 21 November 2007 - small quantities.

Pete.

[Jon_Doh]

Thanks for your comments and opinions. A lot of people have been wondering how the specs on paper would translate in the real world. One thing I want to correct you on is Nikon's back screen, it is not close to a million pixels. It has 900,000 dots, not pixels. It takes about three dots to make up a pixel roughly, so the pixel count is 307,000 pixels, which is still more than Canon's 230,000 pixels for the same size screen. And the extra pixels do account for a sharper screen, no doubt.

I also agree with you wholeheartedly about Nikon's controls. While they are capable and sturdy cameras the controls drive me crazy - too many buttons, knobs and bobs. I know it's a matter of personal taste, but I much prefer Canon's setup on the 5/20/30/40 D series.

[RedHot]

Has some new unique features, such as picture sets, which is fully customisable. For instance if you like a style/way someone shoots you can down load that set and load it to your machine, perhaps to mimic a style that a pro landscaper may use. Nikon expects 'picture sets' to retail on individual sites whilst other users may simply give them away? Who knows?

Canon is now including a Picture Style Editor as part of DPP starting with the 40D and all new cameras. Make your own custom picture styles and upload them to your camera or just use durnig RAW development of your images. Canon includes this software for free unlike nikon. :lol:

[Sprout Crumble]

One thing I want to correct you on is Nikon's back screen, it is not close to a million pixels. It has 900,000 dots, not pixels. It takes about three dots to make up a pixel roughly, so the pixel count is 307,000 pixels, which is still more than Canon's 230,000 pixels for the same size screen. And the extra pixels do account for a sharper screen, no doubt.


Canons screen also has 230,000 'dots'. It has QVGA resolution (320x240). The Nikons is VGA (640x480) so whichever way you measure it, the difference is fourfold.

[Collin85]

Nice, thanks for the comments Pete.

[oic929]

It automatically recognises DX lenses and sets the camera up in crop mode, which can be turned off.


What do you mean by this? That you can force the camera to shoot in full frame mode with a DX lens attatched?

[Collin85]

What do you mean by this? That you can force the camera to shoot in full frame mode with a DX lens attatched?

Seems like it. You'll get some pretty severe vignetting, which is why the camera automatically resorts to crop mode.

[AdamLewis]

Seems like it. You'll get some pretty severe vignetting, which is why the camera automatically resorts to crop mode.
I think youll actually get total black...

[kumicho]

Canons screen also has 230,000 'dots'. It has QVGA resolution (320x240). The Nikons is VGA (640x480) so whichever way you measure it, the difference is fourfold.

that's interesting, b/c on Canon's website for the 40d it states:
Pixels Approx. 230,000 pixels

whereas Nikons website says:
LCD Monitor: 3-in., approx. 920,000-dot (VGA)

:?:

[CyberDyneSystems]

that's interesting, b/c on Canon's website for the 40d it states:
Pixels Approx. 230,000 pixels

whereas Nikons website says:
LCD Monitor: 3-in., approx. 920,000-dot (VGA)

:?:

Right , multiply 230,000 x 4 = 920,000 ... isn't that what he said?

**Edit** never mind, I missed the part where you guys were discussing whether a dot and a pixel were different or the same though.
Pretty sure its the same.

[Kamik636]

here, i searched google and found this article that explains the whole pixel vs dot thing. searching is your friend :) http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4555/mcnamara-report-confusion-over-dots-vs-pixels.html

[Tee Why]

Thanks for the quick review.
Sounds like the IQ of the D3 is a winner, not surprising that the other 12MP FF CMOS sensor has a nice IQ as well. This may be a nice pixel pitch/sensor size combo, but who knows.

As for cramming more than 8MP's on a APS-C sized sensor, I'm not sure. The 10 and the 12MP versions seem to have too much noise. I saw a quick preview of the Sony's version on cameralab.com, and found it to be too noisy.

I wish Canon would take Nikons lead and introduce another body for the serious amateur and a pro body back up. What do you think about this?
A 5D sensor in an updated 1DMIIN body. Sure throw in a 3inch LCD, but keep the AF the same, maybe throw in a digic III. Skip the live view and all that wireless doo hicky stuff and what you'd get is a FF sensor with 12MP in a prograde sealed body wtih about 5fps for about $2800 or so?
It would be a nice back up for a 1DsMII/III owner or even a PJ now with a 1DMIII who don't want to fork out another 8 or 4.5 grand for a second body but want a more durable body than a 40D/5D.
Imaging what it would do to the 3D's sales when you can get about the same IQ and build quality without a few electrical stuff for about $2000 less?
Even if it only has a 230K LCD, I'd be happy at this feature/price point.

Canon, are you listening??? If so, you have to send me one for thinking this body up as a consulting fee.

[Glenn NK]

Thanks for the quick review.
Sounds like the IQ of the D3 is a winner, not surprising that the other 12MP FF CMOS sensor has a nice IQ as well. This may be a nice pixel pitch/sensor size combo, but who knows.

As for cramming more than 8MP's on a APS-C sized sensor, I'm not sure. The 10 and the 12MP versions seem to have too much noise. I saw a quick preview of the Sony's version on cameralab.com, and found it to be too noisy.

I wish Canon would take Nikons lead and introduce another body for the serious amateur and a pro body back up. What do you think about this?
A 5D sensor in an updated 1DMIIN body. Sure throw in a 3inch LCD, but keep the AF the same, maybe throw in a digic III. Skip the live view and all that wireless doo hicky stuff and what you'd get is a FF sensor with 12MP in a prograde sealed body wtih about 5fps for about $2800 or so?
It would be a nice back up for a 1DsMII/III owner or even a PJ now with a 1DMIII who don't want to fork out another 8 or 4.5 grand for a second body but want a more durable body than a 40D/5D.
Imaging what it would do to the 3D's sales when you can get about the same IQ and build quality without a few electrical stuff for about $2000 less?
Even if it only has a 230K LCD, I'd be happy at this feature/price point.

Canon, are you listening??? If so, you have to send me one for thinking this body up as a consulting fee.


Hmmm, some good points.

I'm not a big fan of continuously adding "doo-hickies" as sales points. I won't get into what I feel are "doo-hickies" or I'll start a good one.:D

[JeffreyG]

I'm a little mixed on all this (and this from a 30D owner).

To me Canon should have made the 1DM3 the 5D sensor coupled with the performance of the rest of the 1D package. This is in a nutshell how I would describe Nikon's new D3....135 format 12MP sensor with fast AF and frame rate.

I'm a little bummed if the D3 high ISO noise performance is not significantly better than the 5D....this suggests we are running into a technological wall.

I note most people say the 40D is no better than the 30D for noise and some say it is a little worse. Maybe we are hitting the best there is.

If this is the case then the cameras will continue to be less and less impressive (stepwise) going forward as regards significant improvements.

OTOH, perhaps a camera like the Nikon D3 (and presumably the 5D successor) are all/more than anyone needs.

I think the D3 does say that the 5D successor should be interesting. If the sensor tech limits are being approached, then where does the 5D go? Just a cheaper 135 format camera than the D3 without the features?

[Riff Raff]

It has 900,000 dots, not pixels. It takes about three dots to make up a pixel roughly, so the pixel count is 307,000 pixels

That's the most ridiculous marketing redefinition I've heard since all the hard drive companies decided to redefine kilobytes, megabytes, and gigabytes as being powers of 1000 instead of 1024.

[Riff Raff]

I'm a little bummed if the D3 high ISO noise performance is not significantly better than the 5D....this suggests we are running into a technological wall.

Mmm... not yet. Though they're some time away from implementing new sensor designs. This was from a rather detailed rumor mill document:
Sensor technology - Canon have mentioned that full frame sensor chips need two stepper passes. Sony now has the technology to do this in one pass and are preparing their own sensors and selling to them Nikon. However, Canon have a new 'one pass' technology too. What's more, it can do even larger than 35mm (36x24mm) in a single pass.

Canon are very excited about a next generation CMOS sensors they are working on. Two full frame versions have 40M and 50M pixels at the -same- noise level as the current 1D series. Low power supply voltages give cooler chips and lower noise even with smaller pixels. Different circuit fabrication techniques also promise to make close to 100% of the sensor area active pixels. This technology won't make any of the upcoming models, but is expected in 2009/10.

ISO sensitivity - Canon see their next generation lower voltage CMOS as easily doing ISO6400, with a boost to 12800.

[Dragos Jianu]

Thanks for your comments and opinions. A lot of people have been wondering how the specs on paper would translate in the real world. One thing I want to correct you on is Nikon's back screen, it is not close to a million pixels. It has 900,000 dots, not pixels. It takes about three dots to make up a pixel roughly, so the pixel count is 307,000 pixels, which is still more than Canon's 230,000 pixels for the same size screen. And the extra pixels do account for a sharper screen, no doubt.

I also agree with you wholeheartedly about Nikon's controls. While they are capable and sturdy cameras the controls drive me crazy - too many buttons, knobs and bobs. I know it's a matter of personal taste, but I much prefer Canon's setup on the 5/20/30/40 D series.

Bummer. :) Nikon is using the exact same marketing bull**** Canon is. The difference IS that HUGE.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page3.asp

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/NikonD300/Images/lcd_d300.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/NikonD300/Images/lcd_40d.jpg

[Croasdail]

I shot a football game sunday with a "real" national pro (not like me who just plays the part) who had the chance to shoot a game with a D3 and 200-400 VR. This is a guy that has shot pro for 15 year and has always been a Canon shooter. He is published regularly nationally, and knows what he is doing. He told me he is trading in his whole kit and going D3, claiming he was getting a full 2 stop better ISO performance then he was with his Mk IIIs. He will be going with 2 D3s, a 200-400, 600 f2.8, 70-200, and what ever their new 2?-7? was. This was the first pro I had run into that had decided to dump the MKIIIs in favor of the Nikons. This is a big deal coming from the this guy because he is the guy who always teased the local AP shorts shooter about her Nikon gear. He is eating humble pie big time. Asking him why, he said it was simple. If he and I were both shooting in Cameron or RBC center, he could be shooting two full stops faster shutter speed then I, and that was well worth the difference in price. While I have a very small foot in the Nikon world with a D200 I picked up to shoot with one schools lenses, the price to be at the table has just gone up a lot, and I am not sure if I am willing to belly up to the bar, or of it is time to push away and let the big boys play.... until the game gets cheaper again. I may just end up hanging on to my IIn's and waiting this one out for a while hoping Canon gives us some good news.

[Sprout Crumble]

I'm extremely dubious of these claims of a 2-stop advantage over the 1D3. Dubious to the point I'm thinking its a load of cobblers.

[Croasdail]

only time will tell.... november 21st well know for sure. The difference here is this is a guy paying his mortgage and sending his kid to college with his camera - not reading forums. If he thought it was significant to change tools that he earned his living with, I put some weight behind it. I was interested because I wanted to pick up a couple of his lenses. Unlike many pros equipment who do sports - his stuff is in excellent condition and worth the look. Unfortunately for me, he was trading the whole thing in as a lot to the shop he was getting his new Nikon kit was coming from... so no luck on my side.

[StewartR]

He will be going with 2 D3s, a 200-400, 600 f2.8, 70-200, and what ever their new 2?-7? was. This was the first pro I had run into that had decided to dump the MKIIIs in favor of the Nikons. Well, I'm sure if Nikon really made a 600mm f/2.8 then more people would be jumping ship. But since they don't, you have to wonder what he was on.

[Croasdail]

f4... whoops. my typo. You caught me. F4 seemed to be totally acceptable now with the increase ISO performance. We'll see.

[bieber]

Well, I'm sure if Nikon really made a 600mm f/2.8 then more people would be jumping ship.

Somehow, I can't see people jumping ship for a lens you'd need a handcart to carry around, and a diamond mine to finance ;)