Holy crap! D300, D3, ISO 25,600, Full frame! Here comes the war!

[timmciglobal]

oh my god...


Here comes the war!

D3

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp

The D3 FX format CMOS imaging sensor was designed from the ground up to offer exceptional light transmission properties, so photographers can acquire outstanding image quality even in low light conditions. With a high signal to noise ratio, a pixel pitch 15% larger than competitive cameras, gapless surface micro-lenses and advanced on-chip noise reduction means high-quality images under very low light levels are now possible. The sensor enables an ISO settings range from 200-6400, expandable up to the equivalent of 25,600 or down to 100.

D300

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp

The D300 is loaded with the latest professional technologies designed to produce images of the highest quality. The high-resolution 12.3 MP DX format CMOS sensor generates image files suitable for almost every type of output, combined with a fast standard frame advance rate of 6fps (up to 8 fps with optional Multi Power Battery Pack). The D300 offers fast power-up, quick response and outstanding flexibility to meet the needs of a wide variety of photographic assignments. The D300 powers-up in just 0.13 seconds, with an almost imperceptible 45 millisecond shutter lag.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

D300 will do 8 FPS with power pack.... ISO 6400 equiv... 12.8 megapixel cmos sensor.

Wow.... Way to one up 40D!

Tim

[timmciglobal]

"This also aids the new 51-Point Autofocus system in tracking subjects by their colour, while enhancing the accuracy of exposure and white balance metering. The D300 also offers Live View, which presents photographers with a live image on the LCD screen, with two modes suited to either hand held or tripod shooting. Autofocus is possible in both Live View modes. "

... oh my god.

Tim

[Rooz]

stats dont mean that much though and fps ? 3fps is enuf for my purposes so 8fps isnt releveant to me really. looking forward to the tests of both cos one of them will be my next body in a couple of years. what is incredibley impressive is the 920k LCD, not 230k. that is a huge feature imo.

and iso25000 ? seems like a gimick to me.

[timmciglobal]

With a base range of 200>3200 and expanded 6400 on d300 and 25,600 on d3 especially with the fact this is a BRAND NEW sony cmos sensor...

You can knock sony all you want but they've got a HUGE chip manufacturing business and it was just a matter of time before they started looking at canon and saying "hrmf.... some good ideas over there."

If the ISO proves real and as good as it sounds nikon just took the lead again.

51 point AF system which recognizes color too to factor in with AF tracking? 8 FPS in your 1500$ consumer version?

...

Sorry but damn. Live with WITH AF during live view, 150K shutters...

This is gonna be interesting when they hit reviewers.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

From Rob Galbraith:

An ISO range of 200-6400 in 1/3 step increments, plus L1 (100), H1 (ISO 12,800) and H2 (ISO 25,600). By using a relatively large pixel size - in about the last four years, only the D2H/D2Hs have contained a sensor with larger pixels in Nikon's lineup - the company has positioned themselves to tackle their main competitive weakness against Canon: poor high ISO image quality. Larger-pixel sensors tend to have better signal-to-noise ratios than smaller-pixel ones, and based on a look at ISO 1600 - ISO 25,600 frames produced by prototype D3 bodies, including a handful we shot ourselves, the camera looks like it will produce low light photos that are both massively cleaner and more usable than the D2Xs and in the same ballpark as Canon's EOS-1D Mark III (which is the D3's primary competition). Nikon claims a dynamic range bump of 300%, and we suspect that this claimed improvement is almost entirely because of the lower noise characteristics of the sensor.

Canon's 10.08 million image pixel, 10 fps digital SLR is capable of producing great quality in available darkness. We'll need to shoot with a production D3 under real-world conditions to find out whether it approaches, meets or exceeds the EOS-1D Mark III in high ISO image quality. But based on what we've seen so far, it's safe to say that the D3 will produce photos of dramatically better quality than the D2Xs at ISO 1600 and up.



....


If it's true... wow... nikon's back to competing with canon!

Galidin

[timmciglobal]

From dcresouce.com main page jeff says "I recently got a chance to use the D3 (and the D300 below), and they had to mop up my drool when the meeting was over."

:)

Tim

[No Control]

Holy sh*t! That's one hell of a camera announcement! I'm seriously impressed with Nikon's jump here. I can't wait to see these cameras and lenses get to reviewers.

[tim11]

hmm........ what's happening to the camera market in this week? :)

[No Control]

I wonder how much the D200 body will come down in the next few weeks/months. Any ideas? I have this grand delusion of trading up if it won't cost me too much. What do you think?

[r3g]

:eek: BRB, I need a towel...

[fionndruinne]

Pardon me while I stagger about in a daze.

Oh, and Speed2, I won't be buying your 30D.:D

[anco85]

Ok, this is getting ridicolous. As soon as my mind is made up, something else comes along. I will however say this..... DROOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

[Rooz]

Ok, this is getting ridicolous. As soon as my mind is made up, something else comes along. I will however say this..... DROOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

first of all these seem to be well outside your original price bracket, did you just win lotto ? lol :eek:

second of all, your mind should NEVER be made up until you see the results and some reviews. especially when you have nothing invested in a current system.

[achuang]

These 2 cameras were quite a surprise when I heard about them, quite a huge jump in features and hopefully image quality too. The D3 with the new 14-24 lens is very tempting because it is wider than any 1.5x sensor can achieve. This is a very far away dream. By the time I'm able to afford something like that there will be a D5. D300 body on the other hand is more within reach. I hope the image quality of both cameras is up to the quality of the feature set.

[anco85]

All your statements above are true.

But like you said, my ORIGINAL price bracket. If you go back, youll see in one of the threads(think it was the 40d one) that I have decided to hold back on buying an dslr for now and rather save up enough to get n prosumer.
Only thing left now is to see some proper high iso shots (from reviewers) of the 40d and d300 and I will decide on which one to go for.

F.Y.I. I found a link to a uk based camera warehouse that has the 40d for pre-order at 899 pounds, I highly doubt the price will remain at that, but it would be nice wouldnt it :D

[Rooz]

All your statements above are true.

But like you said, my ORIGINAL price bracket. If you go back, youll see in one of the threads(think it was the 40d one) that I have decided to hold back on buying an dslr for now and rather save up enough to get n prosumer.
Only thing left now is to see some proper high iso shots (from reviewers) of the 40d and d300 and I will decide on which one to go for.

F.Y.I. I found a link to a uk based camera warehouse that has the 40d for pre-order at 899 pounds, I highly doubt the price will remain at that, but it would be nice wouldnt it :D

i would suspect that the iso performance will be as close as it is in the current dslr market. i dont expect either to have a significant advantage over the other. besides which, iso performance is one small portion of trying to evaluate a dslr as a whole.

i would also add that the D300 appears to be a much higher specced and more pro-oriented dslr than the 40d. they're not really in the same class, nor do they aim to be imo. keeping in mind that all indications are that the 40d is also significantly cheaper than the d300 aswell.

both canon and nikon have moved these cameras in slightly different directions. the D300 has gone more feature and pro targetted while the 40d has gone more for an avid enthusiast market pricing it very aggressively. this is almost a mirror reflection of the d80 vs xti category when the d80 first came out.

[Ray Schnoor]

D300 will do 8 FPS with power pack.... ISO 6400 equiv... 12.8 megapixel cmos sensor.

Wow.... Way to one up 40D!

Tim
Seeing as the MSRP for the D300 is $500US more than the 40D, it should.


i would also add that the D300 appears to be a much higher specced and more pro-oriented dslr than the 40d. they're not really in the same class, nor do they aim to be imo. keeping in mind that all indications are that the 40d is also significantly cheaper than the d300 aswell.
I agree completely.

Ray.

[anco85]

i would suspect that the iso performance will be as close as it is in the current dslr market. i dont expect either to have a significant advantage over the other. besides which, iso performance is one small portion of trying to evaluate a dslr as a whole.

i would also add that the D300 appears to be a much higher specced and more pro-oriented dslr than the 40d. they're not really in the same class, nor do they aim to be imo. keeping in mind that all indications are that the 40d is also significantly cheaper than the d300 aswell.

both canon and nikon have moved these cameras in slightly different directions. the D300 has gone more feature and pro targetted while the 40d has gone more for an avid enthusiast market pricing it very aggressively. this is almost a mirror reflection of the d80 vs xti category when the d80 first came out.


You speak sense young padiwan :D

I dunno yet. Ill wait for reviews on both cameras and see what my budget allows when both are freely available

[GaryS]

Wow.... Just when you think the camera market is getting a bit static, the rules change.

Those are two awesome new cameras!

[Nickcanada]

Wow, good stuff Nikon! This is fun! I can't wait to see what the new 5D will be.

No IS/VR in body for the Nikons either eh?

[coldrain]

They say that the D3 is roughly on par with the D1 mk III noise wise, which is very impressive. It is a tad slower than the D1 MK III, but still very impressive. And what is a nice and new feature is that the D3 is capable of AF-ing compact digital camera wise (via the sensor).

Very nice to see that Nikon offers some serious competition in the reporter camera field!

About the D300, impressive specs. I do want to see first on how the sensor performs (the 12.x mp CMOS from the D2x and the 10.x CCD from the D200 were rather unimpressive to me), but Sony has put a lot of money in the new CMOS line. So, it can well be that they can match Canon's CMOS sensors now. One key difference: the D300 shoots 2.5 frames per second at 14bits depth, and 6 at 12 bit. The 40D shoots 6.5 frames per second at 14 bits.
That is quite a bit slower than the 40D...


So, impressive new cameras from Nikon and Canon, what will Sony introduce?

[VTEC_EATER]

I wonder how much the D200 body will come down in the next few weeks/months. Any ideas? I have this grand delusion of trading up if it won't cost me too much. What do you think?

Seeing how they will keep it in their line up, I only imagine maybe $100 off, or have rebates every once in a while to try and boost sales.

[TNB]

One key difference: the D300 shoots 2.5 frames per second at 14bits depth, and 6 at 12 bit. The 40D shoots 6.5 frames per second at 14 bits.
That is quite a bit slower than the 40D...

Since I'm too lazy to look, what's the difference in the buffer/write speed between the D300 and 40D? I'm just curious since I've read the stats on two different cameras that claim 5 fps yet one brand writes faster than the other (or so it seems).

For example:

User-selectable high-speed and low-speed continuous shooting at 5 fps or 3 fps - up to 30 (JPEG), 11 (RAW) or 9 (RAW+JPEG) consecutive frames when set at 5 fps and fast 0.15-second startup time
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12929


5fps high-speed continuous shooting: Capture fast action and fleeting expressions with the ability to capture high-resolution images at a rapid 5 frames per second in continuous bursts of up to 22 NEF (RAW) or 37 JPEG (FINE - LARGE) shots**
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25235


The Nikon link that also shows the new lenses as well as the information on the new camera bodies.
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/index.htm

[No Control]

Seeing how they will keep it in their line up, I only imagine maybe $100 off, or have rebates every once in a while to try and boost sales.

Yeah I really wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Perhaps the sheer amazement of the awesomeness of the new cameras didn't let my brain understand that the D300 isn't a replacement for the D200. So yeah, nevermind me. :o

[Rhys]

And it works with AIs lenses!

Where was this in 2004 when I bought my Canon kit? I'm glad I still have my Nikon gear. Maybe now I can get into Nikon again?

Actually, if I do much in the way of Forensics photography I might need to go Nikon just to use the S3-pro UVIR.

[BBPhoto]

And it works with AIs lenses!

Where was this in 2004 when I bought my Canon kit? I'm glad I still have my Nikon gear. Maybe now I can get into Nikon again?

Actually, if I do much in the way of Forensics photography I might need to go Nikon just to use the S3-pro UVIR.


Rhys - as a Canon user, this is something that impresses me a lot. I hope Canon includes a similar feature in future models.

[erichlund]

And it works with AIs lenses!

Where was this in 2004 when I bought my Canon kit? I'm glad I still have my Nikon gear. Maybe now I can get into Nikon again?

Actually, if I do much in the way of Forensics photography I might need to go Nikon just to use the S3-pro UVIR.

Rhys,
It supports AI-S lenses in exactly the same way as the D200.

[timmciglobal]

Cold: Where did ya read about this 2.5 FPS @ 14bits vs 6 at 12?

Still I'm most impressed with same AF module in D3/D300, 51 total points that use the metering system to synch up colors for tracking is insane. Spec wise at least.

Tim

[VTEC_EATER]

One key difference: the D300 shoots 2.5 frames per second at 14bits depth, and 6 at 12 bit. The 40D shoots 6.5 frames per second at 14 bits.
That is quite a bit slower than the 40D...



I haven't seen any documentation backing up this claim.

This was taken directly from Nikon's website:

High-speed continuous shooting
The D300 is capable of shooting at a rapid 6 fps*1, and as fast as 8 fps*2 when using the Multi-Power Battery Pack MB-D10, in continuous bursts of up to 100 shots*3 at full 12.3 megapixel resolution. The Nikon D300 is also the first digital SLR to support next-generation high-speed card UDMA, which enables high speed recording.
*1 When using one EN-EL3e battery installed in the camera
*2 When using batteries other than Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL3e
*3 NORMAL – LARGE image setting, using a SanDisk Extreme IV CompactFlash 1GB card

So I don't know where your information is coming from, but it sounds like bit rating has nothing to do with the speed of the continuous shooting, only the battery power.

[coldrain]

Cold: Where did ya read about this 2.5 FPS @ 14bits vs 6 at 12?

Still I'm most impressed with same AF module in D3/D300, 51 total points that use the metering system to synch up colors for tracking is insane. Spec wise at least.

Tim
Hmm, that was just ramblings from this morning, not really accurate from early message boards.

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D300-Digital-SLR-Camera.shtml
Its 6 FPS is of course in JPEG, which gives 8bits per colour channel.
2.5 FPS is in 14 bit RAW.
What the speed of 12 bit RAW is I can not find myself, my guess is 6 fps.

The 40D apparently takes RAW 14 bits 6.5 FPS a second? I can not find a separate RAW FPS speed that tells differently. It may be slower, but I can not find that.

[TheObiJuan]

Impressed.

These are exciting times, brothers.

[VTEC_EATER]

Hmm, that was just ramblings from this morning, not really accurate from early message boards.

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D300-Digital-SLR-Camera.shtml
Its 6 FPS is of course in JPEG, which gives 8bits per colour channel.
2.5 FPS is in 14 bit RAW.
What the speed of 12 bit RAW is I can not find myself, my guess is 6 fps.

The 40D apparently takes RAW 14 bits 6.5 FPS a second? I can not find a separate RAW FPS speed that tells differently. It may be slower, but I can not find that.

That seems odd that the frame rate would actually go down because of this. I would assume that the buffer would fill up much faster, due to the much larger file size, and you would be limited to the number of shots taken, but slowing the frame rate doesn't make sense in my mind.

I guess when the complete spec list comes out, and reviews are made, we will see just what we are dealing with.

In any case, I'm very excited to see how this new camera performs.

[timmciglobal]

Still amazing even if true.

Well the proof is in the pudding so we'll see when units get into reviewers hands.

Tim

[No Control]

Well the proof is in the pudding so we'll see when units get into reviewers hands.

Amen to that. :cool:

[coldrain]

That seems odd that the frame rate would actually go down because of this. I would assume that the buffer would fill up much faster, due to the much larger file size, and you would be limited to the number of shots taken, but slowing the frame rate doesn't make sense in my mind.

I guess when the complete spec list comes out, and reviews are made, we will see just what we are dealing with.

In any case, I'm very excited to see how this new camera performs.
It is not about the buffer, but probably much more about the sensor's speed on how fast it can deliver the 14bit image data.

Remember Sony a few days ago introducing a 12.5mp 10 fps 12 bit sensor? This is it. And at 14 bits it is a lot slower, it seems.

[erichlund]

Hmm, that was just ramblings from this morning, not really accurate from early message boards.

http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D300-Digital-SLR-Camera.shtml
Its 6 FPS is of course in JPEG, which gives 8bits per colour channel.
2.5 FPS is in 14 bit RAW.
What the speed of 12 bit RAW is I can not find myself, my guess is 6 fps.

The 40D apparently takes RAW 14 bits 6.5 FPS a second? I can not find a separate RAW FPS speed that tells differently. It may be slower, but I can not find that.

Some others have picked up on this as well. However, this is the only source I've seen with this info. I've not found it in any of Nikon's published info, which leads me to question the authenticity. Most sites have latched onto the 100 jpg continuous but nobody is publishing a number for NEF. DPReview has 9 on their site for the NEF buffer, but that seems a typo. Nikon didn't publish an NEF rate or buffer size on their international site. However, the international site, when quoting specs for shooting speed, doesn't specify shooting format. Nikon USA is even more "evasive".

Bottom line, I'll wait until Nikon actually publishes the numbers or there are some actual test results before I give any credence to this one site.

However, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the numbers are wrong, just that I haven't seen any real confirmation through Nikon or actual testing. Nikon does seem to be tip-toeing around the issue in the numbers they do publish.

[swgod98]

Bottom line, I'll wait until Nikon actually publishes the numbers or there are some actual test results before I give any credence to this one site.

Time will tell if the site is correct or not. If it turns out they are incorrect, that will shoot a hole through their credibility. Personally, I think 2.5fps is nearly worthless for sports and/or wildlife (for anything, really). 5fps is a bare minimum if you're going to mash the trigger down looking for a good shot.

It's also nice to see Nikon releasing a FF camera for those interested.

[coldrain]

Time will tell if the site is correct or not. If it turns out they are incorrect, that will shoot a hole through their credibility. Personally, I think 2.5fps is nearly worthless for sports and/or wildlife (for anything, really). 5fps is a bare minimum if you're going to mash the trigger down looking for a good shot.

It's also nice to see Nikon releasing a FF camera for those interested.
But if it shoots 6 fps with 12 bits, that is still pretty impressive and useful...
It just will not give you the extra 2 bits, but we all can live with 12bits at the moment anyway, so why not with the D300.

[swgod98]

But if it shoots 6 fps with 12 bits, that is still pretty impressive and useful...
It just will not give you the extra 2 bits, but we all can live with 12bits at the moment anyway, so why not with the D300.

I haven't had any complaints with 12-bit yet :) But, 14-bit files have considerably more resolution per pixel. This may become important when restoring close to saturated (or undersaturated) pixels.

I'm looking forward to the reviews for the 40D and D300.

[DonSchap]

You guys are going to wind up suffering analysis paralysis. Kind of like Blue Balls with a camera body.

I suggest you wait to make any decision until SONY pops their offering out there, too. Then ... you'll have something to truly compare to.

Got to give these clowns some credit ... they've shelled the camera world with a dynamite Fall Fashion Show of Photography.

Awesome ... don't ya just hate it? LOL :D What was PMA all about? What a joke! Glad I stayed home, this year.

[No Control]

You guys are going to wind up suffering analysis paralysis. Kind of like Blue Balls with a camera body.


Hahaha! :D:D:D

At any rate these are some exciting times. Everything should be very interesting over the coming months.

[erichlund]

You guys are going to wind up suffering analysis paralysis. Kind of like Blue Balls with a camera body.

I suggest you wait to make any decision until SONY pops their offering out there, too. Then ... you'll have something to truly compare to.

Got to give these clowns some credit ... they've shelled the camera world with a dynamite Fall Fashion Show of Photography.

Awesome ... don't ya just hate it? LOL :D What was PMA all about? What a joke! Glad I stayed home, this year.

Sony? I have about $3500 in F mount lenses. Why would I suddenly consider a camera from a company that I don't even fully trust. Sony will find a way to mess up what they have. They usually do. They just sell lots and lots of cheap consumer stuff where the customer doesn't know or care that there is better.

OK. Not completely fair. They do have some good products. But when the product involves formats, Sony is notorious for wanting to imprint their own standard on it. And, other than Blue Ray, they usually lose that battle. The only reason Blue Ray is winning is the PS-3, a cheap DVD player that also happens to play games (I may have that backward, but not in my household).

[fionndruinne]

I'm apt to agree that Sony does some stupid things, which is why I stick with HP for computers, Microsoft for gaming, Altec Lansing for sound, Logitech for peripherals... and Nikon for cameras.:)

No, I'm not really quite so brand-oriented as all that, but I have seen Sony kind of decimate their own leads with multiple different categories, like that ridiculous price for a gaming system that can't seem to pull past Microsoft in anything but slogans, and slips right off the edge in affordability.

I do want to hang onto my D40, as it's a great little DSLR. It'd be silly, though, to buy a different array of lenses for two bodies, though, and I do fully intend to get somewhat more serious with my shooting, and my camera. 14-bit raw is a concept I'm rather liking.

[XaiLo]

The A/D conversion takes place on the sensor, it would seem counter intuitive to conclude that a process that is meant to increase fps would actually slow it down.

Edit: http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cmos/cmos1.html (http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cmos/cmos1.html) might find this demo interesting :)

[gmtech79]

But when the product involves formats, Sony is notorious for wanting to imprint their own standard on it. .

Not to mention they definitely lost my business with the whole root kits on cd's fiasco.:mad: That is one of the few reason's I never looked at sony for my choice of DSLR. Though cd's have nothing to do with camera's, I just don't like some of the ways they do business.

[DonSchap]

Well, to be honest, I really don't much care for Canon's approach to problem-solving, either.

I can't vouche for Niikon ... so I won't, but I have Canon product ... and Canon has pretty much ignored the USA cry for "IS in the body" ... and by doing so, they are losing my vote.

Now, what's with this lame EOS 40D ... using the XTi's sensor? (as the caveman guy says on the GIECO commercial) "uh, what?"

C'mon .. these guys are very capable of spitting out a 12MP/16MP/21MP sensors ... and we wind up with the old, lame 10.1MP? Last year's development? Heck, the introductory DLSR SONY A100 had it in the body back in July 2006. Here, it's August 2007 ... and Canon is just now getting it in? Not with my money their not. :eek:

Just to be punny:

"WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?" :rolleyes:

Nikon moves ahead ... waiting a mere two days to announce their stuff. Who, at Canon, didn't see that coming? Do I hear "Job Hunt?"

[coldrain]

The 40D is not using the 400D's sensor. Just as the D300 is not using the D2x' sensor.

Bigger photo diodes, bigger micro lenses, 14 bit signals and more differences. It just is not at all the same sensor.

[DonSchap]

If it looks like a duck ... quacks like a duck ... it's a 10.1MP sensor. :o

[Rooz]

Canon has pretty much ignored the USA cry for "IS in the body" ... and by doing so, they are losing my vote

i've never heard one canon person, (or person looking at buying canon), saying they want in-body IS. so imo, that "cry" is more of a whimper. perhaps in the bottom level of the scale there is a call, from people that are migrating from p/s, but certianly not the higher end people which is what the 40d is aimed at.

the simple facts of the matter are that:

1. in lens IS works better than in body IS.
2. there is already a massive amount of lens' that have IS.
3. canon, (and nikon), have and are continuing to launch IS equipped lens' so there is no signal of an intention to move to inbody IS
4. 3rd party lens providers are also moving more to in-lens IS so again, no signals to move to IS.

perhaps sony feel they have a marketing edge with providing in-body IS. maybe they do in some way i suppose ? sales of the alpha certianly can't have been encouraging to anyone who thinks in-body IS is such a massive factor in dslr purchases cos by any measure the alpha has been a poor cousin and hasnt been the revolution many touted it to be.

sorry Don, but i don;t think canon have dropped the ball at all. i think they are just heading in a different direction than sony. if sony proves by their sales figures that IS is a huge requirement and demand from the market place then perhaps eventually they will move in that direction but for right now, i don;t see it coming...perhaps we may see it in a couple of years with a new xti level cam which is aimed at the lower end consumer but i certianly dont see it at all in an advanced SLR for the time being.

[erichlund]

Don,

I don't pay much attention to the Canon sites, but if they are like the Nikon sites, there really isn't much of a ground swell for you heart's desire. There are a few who would like to see in camera stabilization, but most accept that Canon and Nikon's investment in lens based stabilization is what it is.

As for revolutionary things from Canon, they are mostly more evolutionary. Oh the CMOS sensor was off the beaten track (the resulting high ISO low noise performance has driven the entire industry toward CMOS), and they've led the way in megapixels at the Pro end. But, with most of their products, once you see them, you go, "yup, that's pretty much the next step". Oh there's no denying the basic competence of the 40D, and there were perhaps a couple of unexpected features thrown in, but nothing that just takes your breath away because it's so unexpected. I did wonder, when I saw it, how is Nikon going to respond to that. And, I do have to admit, the first time I saw 21 mega pixels on the 1DsMarkIII, I was divided between "Oh my gosh" and "How much is THAT going to cost?".

OTOH, I was quite shocked at some of the features on the new Nikons. We're starting to get used to the idea, but 51 focus points, come on!!!! 900,000+ pixel screen (there's an argument going on about this, but the convention with these screens is that each dot counts). ISO 25THOUSAND. Even if it's a joke, it's a good joke. And so many more. :p I don't know if the new Nikons will live up to the hype we've seen today, but it's been a heck of a show.

Perhaps the biggest shocker, to me, was how Nikon took dead aim at their most glaring weakness, the PJ/Sports area. Frankly, the D2H(s) has been a major disappointment, and Nikon was already weak in the area. Canon remained vulnerable with the 1DmarkIII, and Nikon has stepped up to the plate. Not just the D3, though it is certainly good. The new lenses are squarely aimed at filling the gaps to make Nikon a new strength in this arena.

The new lens lineup, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, 200, 300, 400 all @f2.8 (200 is f2), everything is AF-S, everything above 70 is VR. Then there's also some less expensive f4 lenses, and the addition of 500 and 600 f4 with VR. There are still some gaps in the f4 lineup, but it's an impressive shot across the bow.

One last point, since this was somewhat in answer to your Sony prediction. Sony has already made an annoucement this week. It did not include any dSLR cameras. Are we sure they are not done?

[erichlund]

Rooz,

I agree with you about in body IS. The one that nobody seems to be recognizing here is Olympus. Sure. They are kind of getting pushed out of the picture like a weak stepsister. But both Canon and Nikon now have some form of dust shaker and live view. Those were Olympus innovations. Maybe the small 4/3 sensor wasn't such a great idea. But you do have to give credit where it's due, even if the original live view was a true Rube Goldberg solution.

Hmmmm.... I just had a thought. The D300 has a dust shaker, but it doesn't have the delayed startup that the Oly cameras suffered from. I haven't checked. Is Nikon the only one to have overcome this???

[TheObiJuan]

Don, before it wasn't about Megapixels, D70's 6mp vs 20D's 8mp wasn't a big deal, it was almost negligible-- back in George Reihm's day.
Now a couple of MP are so important when ultimate image quality, camera speed, and ergonomics have yet to be determined.

If the sensor is reused, big deal, it's a damn good one!

Rather than being a spec comparison guy, I'll wait for Galbraith's usual direct comparisons.

It's been said on one of these related threads already today that the proof is in the puddin'-- I have to agree.

I can't wait to see what these new cameras produce.

Regarding in-camera IS: I agree it would be an incredible asset, but understand that it would raise the price of the camera bodies and add to the complexity of the design.
I've learned by owning a complex and well built German car that the features & luxuries are nice, but when something goes awry, outside of warranty--like the "in-camera IS" will, it'll render the entire camera impotent.
With a malfunctioning IS lens, you just turn it off or replace the lens.

I wonder how much a 500 f/4 or other expensive glass would go for if they didn't have IS?

[erichlund]

That reminds me of my friend, and what it costs each time he has to replace his tires on his beamer (a rather regular event). Four of mine cost one of his. We both seem to get to work on time.

[TheObiJuan]

Damnit! I want to see those ISO 6400 and higher shots!!!

"...almost no noise at speeds up to ISO 6400."

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/prodtech/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003629911

[Esoterra]

How soon can we expect to see sample images from theD3 and the D300?

[Rooz]

i think the osaka games start this weekend. i'd imagine there will be selected people using the d3, not too sure about the d300.

[erichlund]

i think the osaka games start this weekend. i'd imagine there will be selected people using the d3, not too sure about the d300.

There have already been reports of people being given a brief opportunity to handle the camera. I don't believe that anyone is being allowed to use it for the games thus far.

[Rooz]

There have already been reports of people being given a brief opportunity to handle the camera. I don't believe that anyone is being allowed to use it for the games thus far.

does anyone else think this is strange...even "worrying" ? i'm shocked that they wouldn;t drop a dozen of these in the hands of pros to go ga-ga over. the hype over these bodies is greater than anything i've ever seen in dslr so why not build on it and let the bodies prove their claims ?

perhaps there are still some issues with it that they haven;t resolved ? new AF system, new sensor. the longer it takes to see images from them the more skeptical people should become imo.

nikon certianly seem very confident..even SMUG about these 2 bodies, but the proof is in the pudding and to date...nothing.

[coldrain]

Nikon has a history of putting pro cameras out in the field with certain photographers though. And you never see samples from them... They are not the kind of photographer that hangs around on internet, but photographers who will use the photos for their work.

So, I am not so worried about this... Nikon clearly is doing this very early introduction to steal the lime light from Canon, the market introduction date is only somewhere in November...

I am pretty sure that the D3 will have a good sensor, and that the D300 will perform better than its predecessor too. November is far away, we will get samples when we near that date....

[Norm in Fujino]

Rooz,
I agree with you about in body IS. The one that nobody seems to be recognizing here is Olympus. Sure. They are kind of getting pushed out of the picture like a weak stepsister. But both Canon and Nikon now have some form of dust shaker and live view. Those were Olympus innovations. Maybe the small 4/3 sensor wasn't such a great idea. But you do have to give credit where it's due, even if the original live view was a true Rube Goldberg solution.

I haven't seen anything that shows in-lens IS is conclusively superior to in-body, and it surely must be related to the specific implementation. In-body IS makes more economic sense, as we all know. Olympus suddenly has a whole stable of made-for-digital stabilized lenses.

And the evolutionary dead end of the smaller (hey, they're all small) sensor has been put on at least temporary reprieve. Although one hears a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth with any new announcement from rivals, those of us who actually like what Olympus has in terms of color and optics are waiting to see what the E-3 offers. Anyway you look, this is going to be an interesting fall season.

That initial Rube Goldberg contraption of a liveview on the E-330 happens to have quite a few fans, BTW. Mode A doesn't give 100% viewfield coverage, but it's as quick as using the viewfinder for on-the-go shots, and it remains a handy, well-built camera. With the way the E-410 and E-510 have taken off this year, my hunch is that Olympus will solidify their position in third place overall, and find more fans among those who realize that cameras like the D3 (1250g body only, without battery!) are really looking more like a MF solution. Fine for studio work and people with the physiques to haul it, but not required for a large proportion of photography (apropos Brett Weston: "Anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic.")


Hmmmm.... I just had a thought. The D300 has a dust shaker, but it doesn't have the delayed startup that the Oly cameras suffered from. I haven't checked. Is Nikon the only one to have overcome this???

Well, we haven't even seen it in action yet, so I'd like to wait and see how it really works; it may be just peaches and cream, or turn out like the Canon XTi version--a solution that doesn't really solve. Best guess is that they let the shaker work on shutdown, or optionally at user control, which allows them a faster startup time.

[coldrain]

I haven't seen anything that shows in-lens IS is conclusively superior to in-body, and it surely must be related to the specific implementation. In-body IS makes more economic sense, as we all know. Olympus suddenly has a whole stable of made-for-digital stabilized lenses.

The reason why in-lens IS can be better than in-body IS is easy to understand.

Suppose your sensor is allowed to move 5mm up/down and 5mm left/right, to compensate the movement of the image due to the camera shake.

Suppose the in-body IS has a 4 stop efficiency with a standard zoom lens.
So, it can, with its 5mm freedom, compensate for the movement of the wide angle image that the wider angle lens gives.

You do know that with a longer tele lens the effects of camera shake are a LOT bigger. Moving the optical axis of the lens over the subject for the same number of degrees, makes of a MUCH bigger displacement on the image with a tele lens than with a wider angle lens.

This does have its effect on the efficiency of the in-body IS. It still has the same 5 mm freedom, but it should move a LOT more because the image displacement due to the camera shake is alot bigger.

In short, you simply can NOT compensate the same amount with the tele lens as with a wider lens, and you will most certainly not have anything near the 4 stop efficiency anymore.

That is why, technically (not price wise), in-lens IS is better, as it can be designed for that particular lens.

Another reason why in-body IS can be inferior is because lenses almost never report the correct focal length to the camera, the focal length fluctuates while focussing close or far away. And so, when focussing close by, the IS correction can be less precise, due to incorrect focal length information. Also, with in-body IS, you can not use a TC and still use the IS, as the extra focal length is not reported back to the camera.
But in lens IS can take account of the lens' focussing properties.
Think for instance about the Nikon 18-200 VR, which at the 200mm setting is maybe close to 200mm at infinity focus, but closer to 135mm when focussing on something close by. Yet the camera always will put 200mm in the EXIF data of the photo. You can try that yourself.

[Rooz]

thats pretty much what i always thought. i cant see the logic behind suggesting that in-body IS could be the equivalent to in lens. at shorter focal lengths maybe. but at the longer end ? i don;t know. to a lamen like me, it just doesn't add up.

so it begs the question why does sony and pentax and olympus use in body IS ? i woulda thought it was pretty simple. they need something to differentiate themselves from the big 2 in order to appeal to the market and they have no foundation of IS equipped lens' to promote. in particular sony, one of their biggest selling points is to be able to use old minolta glass...that would be far less favurable if they couldnt say they just made that glass IS equipped.

[coldrain]

The reason for different systems is easy: Patents.
Everybody patents everything, and not everybody wants to just license to everyone.

So, it took Nikon a few years to make VR just different enough from Canon's IS to not make them fight too much. Same with AF-S and USM.

So, Minolta had to come up with something different, and decided on in-body IS. Possible because they do not use full frame sensors anyway.

Then it took a while for Pentax to come up with also an in-body IS system, that works a bit different from what Sony/KM uses.

Panasonic uses similat IS to Canon, they are cross licensing patents on the technology.

Patents are also the reason why all anti dust shake systems work in a different way.

[fionndruinne]

Nikon seems to be very good at assessing just what their strong points are (judging from the direction the D300 has taken from the D200), and working with those. Also, their new implementations tend to be pretty well-thought-out, with the possible exception of the kinda aggressive NR in the D80 (but that could be seen as expedient, given the noisiness of that Sony sensor). So hey, maybe the Nikon dust reduction system will work. Then again, maybe it won't... and I doubt those outrageously high ISOs quoted for the new bodies will be any more usable than, say, 3200 in the D40 - there if you need it, but incapable of really high-quality results. At any rate, Nikon doesn't seem to be big on gimmicks.

[Rooz]

At any rate, Nikon doesn't seem to be big on gimmicks.

in camera editing and slideshow mode ? lol probably the biggest gimick ever put in a dslr.

[Rooz]

The reason for different systems is easy: Patents.
Everybody patents everything, and not everybody wants to just license to everyone. So, it took Nikon a few years to make VR just different enough from Canon's IS to not make them fight too much. Same with AF-S and USM.

So, Minolta had to come up with something different, and decided on in-body IS. Possible because they do not use full frame sensors anyway.

Then it took a while for Pentax to come up with also an in-body IS system, that works a bit different from what Sony/KM uses.

Panasonic uses similat IS to Canon, they are cross licensing patents on the technology.

Patents are also the reason why all anti dust shake systems work in a different way.

possibly. although i find it hard to believe that they couldnt have developed in-lens' systems if they really wanted to. i just dont think it would have helped their cause to go down that road for the reasons i mentioned.

[fionndruinne]

Hard to believe it, Rooz, but some people actually use a camera slideshow feature. As for in-cam editing, I've used a couple things (mostly D-lighting) to my advantage more than once. Think getting some prints made directly from your camera, without access to a computer. It helps to have in-camera cropping and such as well.

[No Control]

Hard to believe it, Rooz, but some people actually use a camera slideshow feature. As for in-cam editing, I've used a couple things (mostly D-lighting) to my advantage more than once. Think getting some prints made directly from your camera, without access to a computer. It helps to have in-camera cropping and such as well.

I've also used D-lighting a few times already. It's pretty handy when you know you're not going to take the time to edit that particular picture in photoshop or the like.

[swgod98]

Hard to believe it, Rooz, but some people actually use a camera slideshow feature. As for in-cam editing, I've used a couple things (mostly D-lighting) to my advantage more than once. Think getting some prints made directly from your camera, without access to a computer. It helps to have in-camera cropping and such as well.

I've used the slideshow feature many times to show my parents and/or relatives pictures. It's worked out really well.

Hey, if a feature exists, it will be used :D

[fionndruinne]

Hey, if a feature exists, it will be used

True. The better question to ask is, does the feature work? Seems to me that Nikon's features work pretty well.

[timmciglobal]

http://bptv.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/070824/070824133.html

It's in japanese but if you look at the 2 sample shots he takes at ISO 6400 considering its a 1 mega pixel LCD (which at 7x is about 1:1 pixel size) from the video at least wow.

Honestly if nikon's finally licked the noise issues that have plagued the sony CCD's with this new cmos chip the D300/d3 is going to be an amazing piece of hardware. Looking at that second shot of the light he took I'd say thats amazing for ISO 6400 considering that LCD's showing nearly 1 megapixel of image.

Tim

[Rooz]

lmao tim, if you're not careful you're gonna talk yourself into a D3 and be eating jellybeans and poptarts for the next 6 months trying to pay it off. :D

i think alot of people's credit cards are going to be thankful for the 6month lead time before they can pick some of this gear up. gives everyone a chance to take a deep breath and resist the impulse purchase. :p

[timmciglobal]

I'd never buy a D3, I don't want full frame. But a d300 is tempting!

It is a shame nikon's delivering on time is about 0 chance so we'll see when one can actually buy a D300.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1187901361.html

"# The D3's high ISO is really impressive I'll remain at least somewhat skeptical until we can get a D3 back in the lab and test it under controlled conditions, but Nikon showed some incredibly impressive prints at the event. They had enlargements that must have been 30x45 inches or more in size, comparing identical shots taken with the D3 and Canon EOS-1D Mark III at ISO 3,200 and 6,400.

After the disappointment of the D2H, I have to say I was taking Nikon's claims of low noise at high ISOs with a rather large grain of salt. When I saw the aforementioned prints though, I was literally flabbergasted. The D3 didn't just surpass the 1D Mark III, it far surpassed it. Well, that may be a little strong; the Mark III is a fantastic camera, but the difference between its images and those from the D3 was anything but subtle. As I say, I'll remain a skeptic until we can test a production sample of the D3 ourselves, but if the images shown had any basis in reality (and Nikon would be foolish to have doctored them in any way), it looks like there's a new leader in the high-ISO / low-noise derby, and it's the D3.


That says a lot.

Tim