Another D3 Review misses important points!

I'm sick of all the D3 reviews missing important points when comparing to either the 1Ds or the 1D. They either don't put in important information or they compare to one or the other when the D3 is really a compromise at a good price between 3 Canons - 5d inlcuded. See my comments on this one at the end of the review...

http://photo.net …nt/nikon/D3/D3-review.adp

where is that picture i saw ther other day... it was a typical shot from a sporting event, where 95% of the lenses in the photo-journ crowd where big white canons... thats WHY they made them white.

you say the review misses the point... i think every review comparing nikon to canon misses the blinding obvious!

mzivtins wrote in post #5147426
where is that picture i saw ther other day... it was a typical shot from a sporting event, where 95% of the lenses in the photo-journ crowd where big white canons... thats WHY they made them white.


you say the review misses the point... i think every review comparing nikon to canon misses the blinding obvious!

True - but I would like to argue technical not bandwagon reasons.

It seems realtively un-biased to me.
It's not like he is saying one is better than the other.

TooManyHobbies wrote in post #5147474
True - but I would like to argue technical not bandwagon reasons.

i can spew out massive tech on cmos versus CCD and why canon has problems with the MKIII etc, but its always met with no repsonse, so i leave it up to those picture as a product to prove our points

bassicaly in a nutshell, nikon is a safety, never pushing new tech, look how long they used the CCD for, canon developed the CMOS into something that was usable. the MKIII has problems because its tech is one-of a kind. it will kick sh1t into the D3. it seems nikon ONLY progress to keep up with canon... hence why they all of a sudden went to cmos ONCE canon had made it work better than CCD could ever!

they will argue lenses, but the manufacturing isnt really up to the same standards yes they are good as are some zeiss lens i have used/abused/borrowed..​. but you know what... they have 'characteristics' rather than being a WYSIWYG lens, like an pure L

my flame retardand jacket is own like donkey-kong haha

mzivtins wrote in post #5147506
i can spew out massive tech on cmos versus CCD and why canon has problems with the MKIII etc, but its always met with no repsonse, so i leave it up to those picture as a product to prove our points

bassicaly in a nutshell, nikon is a safety, never pushing new tech, look how long they used the CCD for, canon developed the CMOS into something that was usable. the MKIII has problems because its tech is one-of a kind. it will kick sh1t into the D3. it seems nikon ONLY progress to keep up with canon... hence why they all of a sudden went to cmos ONCE canon had made it work better than CCD could ever!

they will argue lenses, but the manufacturing isnt really up to the same standards yes they are good as are some zeiss lens i have used/abused/borrowed..​. but you know what... they have 'characteristics' rather than being a WYSIWYG lens, like an pure L

my flame retardand jacket is own like donkey-kong haha

so Nikon never pushed the envelope? what about the wireless flash control that Canon still don't have? what about the WAY better LCD? what about a FAST FF DSLR which canon doesn't have? what about pro AF in a prosumer camera? what about crop mode?

also, what's wrong with a CCD sensor? you can get great results from a CCD sensor (canon 1D anyone?).

lastly, you do realize that there are some L lenses out there that are pure garbage right? just like everything, Canon has some great lenses and so does Nikon.

mzivtins wrote in post #5147506
i can spew out massive tech on cmos versus CCD and why canon has problems with the MKIII etc, but its always met with no repsonse, so i leave it up to those picture as a product to prove our points

bassicaly in a nutshell, nikon is a safety, never pushing new tech, look how long they used the CCD for, canon developed the CMOS into something that was usable. the MKIII has problems because its tech is one-of a kind. it will kick sh1t into the D3. it seems nikon ONLY progress to keep up with canon... hence why they all of a sudden went to cmos ONCE canon had made it work better than CCD could ever!

they will argue lenses, but the manufacturing isnt really up to the same standards yes they are good as are some zeiss lens i have used/abused/borrowed..​. but you know what... they have 'characteristics' rather than being a WYSIWYG lens, like an pure L

my flame retardand jacket is own like donkey-kong haha

Just as a matter of interest, how many modern Nikons have you owned?

heh, he's barely out of his teens give the guy a chance. We all thought we knew everything at that age.

Sorry!

fordmondeo wrote in post #5147488
It seems realtively un-biased to me.
It's not like he is saying one is better than the other.

It wasnt' biased in my opinion either, but it missed some very important points that everyone seems to skip over. Thats like chosing a camera on resolution alone. I'm not saying the article was that bad, but in tune with. Did you read my comments at the end.

Nikon has always had a small bunch of born-&-bread zealots, much like Apple Mac users... the mac can do no wrong only user error can cause a Mac problem. They cling to the 1 month the Mac actually had a machine that outperformed a mid-level PC available in best buy. The world according to Steve Jobs.

so alot of these reviewers (like Mac nuts) overlook things. They can gloat Nikon scored the Touchdown.... finallly! Realize Nikon has been so beaten down and reduced to buying sensors from their #2 competitor (sony) these reviewers are overhyping things for sure. After all the "competition" makes for good press, advertising revenues, etc.

THe D3 is a great camera and benefits EVERY shooter (as does Sony's forthcoming FF)... but it's sorta a compromise between the 1DmkII, 1Ds and 5D.. and used 1DmkII/1DsmkII. So that is 5 canon choices for one nikon, each with their place and usefulness.

chinch wrote in post #5148341
Nikon has always had a small bunch of born-&-bread zealots, much like Apple Mac users... the mac can do no wrong only user error can cause a Mac problem. They cling to the 1 month the Mac actually had a machine that outperformed a mid-level PC available in best buy. The world according to Steve Jobs.

so alot of these reviewers (like Mac nuts) overlook things. They can gloat Nikon scored the Touchdown.... finallly! Realize Nikon has been so beaten down and reduced to buying sensors from their #2 competitor (sony) these reviewers are overhyping things for sure. After all the "competition" makes for good press, advertising revenues, etc.

THe D3 is a great camera and benefits EVERY shooter (as does Sony's forthcoming FF)... but it's sorta a compromise between the 1DmkII, 1Ds and 5D.. and used 1DmkII/1DsmkII. So that is 5 canon choices for one nikon, each with their place and usefulness.

now i have seen it all....

and btw, the fact that Nikon buys their sensors doesn't mean a god damn thing. companies do it all the time and it is part of business. hell, your precious canon also buys stuff from Sony...

chinch wrote in post #5148341
Nikon has always had a small bunch of born-&-bread zealots, much like Canon users...

Fixed

Originally Posted by chinch

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Nikon has always had a small bunch of born-&-bread zealots, much like Canon users...

I don't think that's the case. I think it's a matter of not really thinking what the specifications really mean and how they apply to how the cameras are used.

I love the 100% black noise crops in reviews that don't mention detail loss. Not that all reviews don't.

I also love when people leave out the noise to resolution relationship.

And I really love when they say __fps but then don't say for how many images of what type.

It all plays into the manufactures specifcation and marketing game which reviews are supposed to see through.

I like it when people say how many fps but omit the image size.