Film and Digital Photography

Many people did not beleive the lunch of Nikon D3 camera, yes it is not D3X but it is a full frame first Nikon Digital Camera in the market with 9 frame per second.

Just a little less than 500USA, a camera many people been waiting for.

For $500 maybe, but the actual price is well over $5000...
In fact in Europe it's being introduced at 5500 Euro.

It's sad to see Nikon go the way of Canon, with ever shorter release cycles and a focus solely on marketing terminology (feature lists...) rather than product quality.
Nikon has previously stated quite clearly to not create a 35mm framesize DSLR with the F mount because such would be physically incapable of producing quality results due to the high abberations and distortion at the frame corners resulting from using lenses with the image circle of the F mount (and indeed Canon's mount as well) on such a sensor.
They've clearly capitulated product quality for marketing slogans. I'm starting to wish I'd opted to save a few years more and buy into Leica instead of Nikon...

I do not believe that Nikon Research and Engineering forms are such edits to lunch a camera like the D3 for the use of Professionals with major system failures like the ones you have mentioned.

This camera with its full frame capabilities designed to operate at very much of calculated figures to produce images of high quality at all corners, this is one of the major reasons why they have left the Sensor value at only 12.1PM.

It is very clear to every serious and Professional photographer all over the world, that Nikon and Canon working around the clock to achieve the best quality result with their top of the range models of cameras.

Can not see how many Pro. Using Leica comparing it to the Nikon or Canon, except of course for those who have no much of an interest in photograph except to point and shoot.

Why need a camera like the D3 and end with images less than average in their quality and technicalities? of course those sort of people can not value those cameras and they do not need them.

the high end camera market is as much marketing driven as the low end market, except that instead of the actual users making uninformed purchase decisions it's corporate purchase managers.
Those people fall for the marketing hype, they don't see the poor results (and neither will a lot of customers of the photos, depending on the use of the camera. Use with telephoto lenses will not see much difference, use with wideangle lenses will see serious degradation, luckily for the main users in the corporate segment (PJs) their main weapons are telephoto lenses).
The independent expert, making his own purchase decisions from a long experience with photography and a knowledge of physics and especially optics, will be less impressed (or should be), especially if he's an architecture or landscape photographer.
That person will likely bypass the D3 series and use the D200 (or D300 when introduced) instead because of the higher quality of the smaller sensor when used with his lenses.

Nikon's market share in that market segment (big game corporate photography, like news agencies) has been slipping ever since Canon introduced their so-called "full frame" (an utterly incorrect term, anything is "full frame" for a given definition of "frame") 1d line several years ago.
With the ever increasing focus on marketing driven product development at Nikon since about mid 2005 or early 2006 it was only a matter of time until they would start to mimmic Canon in their product cycles and feature sets.
The quick succession of the D50, D40, and D40x were the first obvious signs of that.
The D3 line is the next (though the D80 may also be considered part of that policy).
The introduction of the D300 over a year early (given Nikon's previous release cycles in that market segment which were 3-5 years apart) fits in perfectly. Expect the D400 not in 2010 but 2009 or maybe even late 2008 if they're really speeding up.

Dear Jeroen Wenting in Qatar we say "الي مايعرف الصقر يشويه"

Nikon Always been one of only 2 Pro. camera providers 35MM wise of course.

For Nikon and Canon almost 90% of the world Pro. users are using these 2 brands. Nikon will not lunch a camera for 5000 USA dollars and take an Opinion of a snap shooter, these cameras built on very high and calculated technical skill and with massive research and case study.

As soon as this camera is in the market here, I will have to take it, I love wide angel lenses specially the extra wide ones, like the 8MM and 15MM, these 2 lenses I could not use with my D2X as this camera is not being full frame, D3 is a full frame camera and it will extend my possibilities.

Best regards

The D2x IS "full frame", just a different frame :)
And your 8 and 15mm will work well with it, better in fact than they will with that D3.

my 8MM fish eye will not give me the 360 degree effect on D2X as it is not a full frame camera, both the top and bottom portion of the image is missing.

Thanks

when will you learn: ANY camera is "full frame", depending on the framesize.
Yes, an 8mm doesn't give a 360 degree FOV on a frame with a size smaller than about that of 35mm film, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work...

You need to get your definitions straight rather than just repeat marketing slogans you don't seem to understand.

Jeroen Wenting I do not understand what a slogans is neither I market anything for any one at all, what I understand is that your understanding of photography is so poor and luck the experinces and the prove to that is your low skill of snap shooting.

Any one viewing your images would understand that but again the D2X is not a full frame camera, and the D3 is and this is the major difference between them, they fully both canon and nikon state the different between full frame ranges of cameras and the one which are not, use an 8MM lens and then post the image here ( if you have one ), and lets every one see the different.

I would not write any of this if you did not mention "slogans" amd "markiting" For whom I do markiting and if so why did you buy a nikon camera yourself ?

Thank and very best regards.

A "frame" can be any size. "full frame" is nothing more or less than the full size of some frame and can thus be any size.

The camera in your cellphone is "full frame" for its frame, a $100 P&S with a sensor the size of the nail on your pinky finger is "full frame" for its specs, the D2 is "full frame" for APS-C, and the D3 for APX.
Compared to the framesize of a Hasselblad negative none of them are "full frame" however, and that Hasselblad is not "full frame" compared to a 1x1 meter viewcamera.

Furthermore, you seem to think that a lens "does not work" if it doesn't have the exact same results on a camera as it does on some reference camera (maybe an F5?). That's simply not the case. The lens likely works fine (though with today's electronics there may be incompatibilities there, but those are unlikely between AF or Ai Nikkors and the D2 series), it just doesn't provide an identical result from the one you were expecting.
That's nothing to do with the camera not working with the lens, it's everything to do with your understanding of physics (and optics in particular) being flawed.

I wonder when they are going to release the successor for the 5D. Nikon is nice but way too expensive for most people. I bought my car in college for less than that. Long live the cheap Rebel! It gets the job done. :)

The 5D is more expensive than its closest Nikon competitor (which is superior in every respect to it according to people that have used both), the D200.
So if you think Nikon's too expensive, you'd consider Canon to be more expensive still...

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but you seem to think the 5D is a Rebel? It is not. The 300D and 350D are Rebels.

Hi Jeroen, 5D is full frame and the other is not. Do you mean they are competitors in other aspects? I am kind of surprised Nikon released a successor so soon. If I were a D200 owner, I'd be mad. D300 has nice features and hopefully less noise.

Dave, Sorry, I was just being silly. I know those are two very different cameras. Rebels rather cheaply made too but image quality is great for the price. They've got a new one out now, the 400D. Although It's probably a good idea not to penny pinch and go with a 30D or 40D.

"Full frame" is useless, it's a marketing term only. As I said before, EVERYTHING is "full frame" given a specific definition of "frame".
The 5D is the closest Canon comes to the D200, and it fails the comparison on pretty much everything.

And why should we be mad at Nikon for releasing the D300 2 years after the D200?
Apart from being sad that Nikon is changing their corporate strategy from one of quality and focus on the user to one of rapid release cycles and focus on short term profits of course, but that's got nothing to do with a specific model.
Nikon will find out to their grief that the majority of their users aren't as easily fooled into following those release cycles as are a lot of Canon users. Canon has been quite successful in convincing their users that their existing cameras are useless the moment a new model has been announced, and that they should all instantly preorder it.
Nikon hasn't succeeded in that yet. Many Nikon users still swear by the F3 and F4, despite the F5 and F6 having been on the market for years for example.
In the low segment they have been somewhat more successful, which will certainly look good to the stock markets as that's where the sales volume (in units sold, not money) is made and that number has a big influence on the stock price.

That is however a sad consequence of the way almost all businesses are run these days.
The long term health of the company is no longer an issue in deciding corporate policy in a world where hedgefunds and institutions like them can break a company if they want to and all they're interested in is extremely rapid short term profits as they're not interested in longterm investments and usually sell their stock in a year at most.

Well then maybe I should have said that Canon 5D does not have the same cropping factor as Nikon's (1.5X). I use a 50mm lens for example and it'd be nice if the camera kept "more" of the scene. As it is, I have to live with the 1.6 Rebel cropping factor. I didn't realize that it had been that long since the release of D200. Nikons definitely better made than Canons.

Yes, I agree with Rashed Abdulla. Please let Mark have his say.

For Mark: I meant better in terms of camera body.

Mark, my initial comment about Nikon being too expensive was meant for the new full frame Nikon @$5,000.

Mark could have his say, if he refrained from constantly attacking people (and me in particular) personally.

Lily...Nikon is "defentely" better than Canon? I dont think so.
First, you shouldnt say defentely because that´s not true. Your opinion is based on loyalty to the brand. I in fact have Nikon, but I think Canon digital cameras are more developed and better prepared to the digital era than Nikon. I´m just being objective.

The camera Canon D5 is simply incredible. I have a Nikon D200 and the Canon D5 is much better than mine...doesnt matter where you look is better.

It´s true Nikon came out with the Nikon D3. Is it worth buying it? I would say no. It´s extremelly expensive for its characteristics. In fact, Canon is coming with a new version of the Canon D5 which is going to have at least 16 megapixels....and will have a similar price.

I only have to say that Canon and Nikon are BOTH great brands, even olympus (good quality and excellent price).

>>

Jeroen, I really don't intend any offense when I say this, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You need to stop reading the theories of other people who don't know what they're talking about on the Internet, and actually shoot the cameras you're bashing, or at least check out online test images. Sensor fabrication technology being equal, FX sensors have a clear MTF and noise advantage over DX sensors. This is a consequence of physics, and is not something that can be dismissed.

FX sensors do not introduce any additional aberration or distortion into the corners of an image. This is a myth started by people who never shot 35mm, or never shot it seriously and printed it large, and then were surprised at the corner performance of some common lenses when mounted on full frame digital bodies. Corner performance has always been a factor of the lens, and good corner performance has always been difficult to design into WA lenses. Especially extreme (< 28mm) and fast (< f/2.8) WA lenses, and any WA zooms. The best modern lenses are better than lenses have ever been in this regard. I would shoot a landscape with a Canon full frame body and a 16-35 II or 14 II, or a Nikon D3 and Nikon's new 14-24, any day over any DX body and lens combination.

I'm not saying that high quality results are impossible with DX bodies. Quite the opposite, digital has raised the bar across the board, and DX bodies today are capable of results better than the very best 35mm work of just a decade ago, and by a wide margin. Heck, some subjects shot on DX bodies and printed to 8x10 or 11x14 look more like old medium format work than old 35mm work. Never the less, if you pit a FX body against a DX body and you have a high quality WA lens on the FX body, one that has good corner performance, the FX body will simply pull ahead. This won't matter much unless you're printing large, but it will pull ahead.

You said the D200 is better than the 5D in every respect. But it's not better in the one respect that matters most to people who buy the 5D: sensor image quality. The 5D has a better MTF response and will bury any of the Nikon DX sensors in noise performance. The 5D has dominated high ISO digital photography for two years now. Until the D3, Nikon had no answer to this. The D200 is closer in image quality to a D60 or 10D than to a 5D even though it's closer in megapixel count (the true marketing term that means little) to the 5D. You can't get around the superior MTF response and signal-to-noise of a full frame sensor. Nikon could not stand by and let Canon continue to dominate both high end image quality and high end noise performance and thereby bleed even more customers to Canon.

Most Nikon users are not sad to see Nikon "go the way of Canon" because Canon has dominated professional photography for about 15 years now. Their dominance has been particularly strong during the past 5 years. Landscape, studio, and architecture photographers were flocking to Canon full frame. And not just from Nikon, but from MF as well! Before that it was sports and wildlife photographers flocking to Canon's excellent, fast, USM super telephotos. (It took Nikon over a decade to finally have an answer for those!) It is beyond arrogant of you to assume that you know more than all those pros based on what you've read on forums. Many of them did their own side by side tests, and some even published those tests. I seriously doubt you have ever tested a full frame body, much less one with a really good WA lens. Most Nikon users are THRILLED that Nikon released the D3. The phrase being heard among knowledgeable Nikon fans is that with the D3 and the new Nikon telephotos, Nikon is "back in the game." Even though I'm invested in the Canon system, I'm thrilled to see Nikon get back in the game because it will keep Canon on their toes and moving forward. The D3 will force Canon to make the 1D series full frame (not 1Ds, which has always been full frame), and might encourage them to drop the entry price point on full frame with the next 5D.

Your insistence that Nikon has better product quality than Canon is just plain ignorant brand loyalty. I'm past 30k shutter cycles on a 5 year old Canon DSLR that has seen drops, rain, heat, cold, dust, sand, fog, mist, etc, etc. It still works as well as day 1. It feels better built than my friend's D70 and D80 bodies, though I quite frankly don't find anything wrong with them either, and I'm sure they will work long after my friends have upgraded.

You need to stop reading conspiracy theories from DX fans and actually rent a full frame body, Canon or Nikon, along with a good WA lens for a weekend. And lose the "Nikon has the best product quality" line. If Nikon's product quality were ahead of Canon's, there wouldn't be so many Canon bodies and lenses at sporting and news events.

I feel so sorry that everything been written here concerning this subject and specially those things written by Mark been all removed.

I thought people are open minded and they are intitled to say whats in their mind as long as it is not hurting any one and I beleive Mark did not mention anything agianst you in person Jeroen Wenting but for sure he proved that you are all wrong technical wise and of very poor photographic technical experinces, I do not mean also being wrong to you but you should spend some more time into photography than being a guard of a chat channel 24hrs a day, 30 days a month and the whole year long, a channel which is like a grave yard, may be if you are not there that channel whould have some visitors.

Take care my friend and leave technicalities of this hobby to those who work on it so hard.

My best wish's to you and yours and very happy new year

Very interesting subject, also the technical aspect and quality seems on endless argument, personally believe not a technology issue it's the photographers ...Also Jerome you wrote;

"""""""""""Those people fall for the marketing hype, they don't see the poor results (and neither will a lot of customers of the photos, depending on the use of the camera. Use with telephoto lenses will not see much difference, use with Wideangle lenses will see serious degradation, luckily for the main users in the corporate segment (PJs) their main weapons are telephoto lenses""""""""""""""

I’m sorry Jeroen your statement it’s truly inaccurate, Canon 16-35 and Nikons are the most world wide use in journalism, and interior architecture, Personally have met field top guns which seems regarded as their secret weapon, also you must understand the environment and it’s dimensions because if you off by 1mm that can truly make huge difference … that's my opinion... I might be wrong!!!!
Regards,
Harry

Thank you my friend Harry L for your input, I beleive this is the only way for us to learn and go for the best.

My problem with digital Nikon in the past was the sort of super wide angel lenses, specailly the fish eye lenses which I do like a lot.

Both my 8 and 15 mm sigma for Nikon did not give me the fish eye result, the 8mm images shows very ugly as the top and bottom are in stright format.

I was there fore looking for the D3 to show up, unfortuantly I had to go for the 5D recently from Dubai as they had a pormotion on this camera it comes with the a zoom and vibration free, plus I had to buy another 8mm sigma for this camera and another 150mm macro, now all these lenes been doubled for both brand. But luckly I bought the 135mm canon soft focus lens also, in the past I used the 85mm soft focus canon lens which is a manual lens on my F1n camera.

I have nothing against Nikon or canon and I do understand that majarty of serious photographers in the field they use these 2 brands.

Endless choises here, but this case been always like this, own a canon and you think it is the best, own nikon and it is the best, both are great cameras, this is for sure.

Thank you my friend again and I wish the new year bring all of the good things for you and yours.

Thank you , Rashed ,personally my widest lenses is Canon 16-35 never have problem use with 20D or full frame one of the reasons is I study the lenses to it's limits which it was very difficult and time consume of a project …but it pay off, also every year do send the most use lenses for inspection, I know I might sound weird but that’s me! Also never click with Fish Eye of course aware of issues and limitations but most photographers don’t really accept or
Understand the fact of limits…..I have several dozens of factual examples but you know life lately it’s a jungle of photographers it seems every one it’s export, great, knowledgeable, creative, special, etc but when you look at their gallery you know it’s time to move on. It’s a hard to stay out but be careful never to trap your self in to it... talent it’s a GIFT then of course the avoidable evil will get you ....trying not to let down in to your self
My best regards,
Harry

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Film and Digital Photography