Lastest Nikon Announcements

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by Gibson
The D3x has ridiculously detailed images for anyone doing studio work, and the D3 and D3s have a four FPS advantage over the D700 right of the box. As well, they have the below advantage:

The D3x isn't the same sensor as the D700/D3 so it doesn't really apply to quazi's statement.

But on the other side of that, with the D3 you also get dual card slots, and an upgraded buffer, a battery that lasts WAY longer than the D700 normal batteries(I shoot about 2000 pictures on a single charge, vs 1200 on the normal size batteries), the integrated portrait shooting button, and I'm sure one or two other things.

I know the D700 with the grip gets a portrait button too, but the D3 body is actually smaller than the D700 with the grip by a bit.

[quazimoto]

Yep definitely different feel going from a D3 body to the D700. The FPS is really not even a huge factor really. The fact is we know the D700 can shoot fast with a fairly inexpensive grip attached to it. The biggest downside with the D700 to many is the view finder and the single memory card slot. The D700 in my view is the best bang for the buck camera in the entire line up at the moment. Oddly people complaining for the D700 replacement don't really realize just how good the D700 is and even after it's replaced I don't see the value going more.

I'm still perplexed on what will happen with the D300 replacement though since there is room for a good DX camera and a cheaper FX camera.

The D3x while it is a great camera leaves a lot to be desired on the table. There is massive room for improvement on the current system. I love the camera to death but the D3s shines so brightly in the weak spots of the D3x. It seriously got to the point where i was doing 95% of my work with my D3s as opposed to the D3x as it seriously made everything that much easier. Not having to worry about ISO and noise as well as having a camera that is insanely fast were some big advantages.

Unfortunately nobody with access to pre-production units of any specific camera body can give us details of what to truly expect so we are all forced to sit and wait. I can say this though I sold my D3x specifically for the D4 release. It could be that I have a lot of faith in a system nobody knows anything about or maybe something else....

You also need to remember that megapixels only go so far and unless you doing some nutso sized prints in the neighbourhood of 32"x48" the necessity for such large sensors really isn't there unless you are the type that crops a lot.

Also I get the feeling the 200mm F2 could be the most underrated release of the bunch. The MTF charts on it show a nice improvement over the previous version. Oddly this if anything might be the prime I was waiting for. I cant think how they could improve that lens significantly but it could be a dream come true for many. Sounds odd but 200mm for portraits can be sweet lol.

[Go4Long]

the current 200 2.0 is a legendary lens, and from the mtf it's a marked improvement, so it should be fairly incredible.

[quazimoto]

This is my thinking exactly. I'm just wondering how good it will be with a TC attached to it. It's the one lens I might seriously want as it would have multi purposes as opposed to just being a portrait or telephoto lens. Not a huge shocker but I do use 200mm quite frequently for portraits and I'd love to see the natural bokeh on this new and improved version.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by quazimoto

The D3x while it is a great camera leaves a lot to be desired on the table. There is massive room for improvement on the current system. I love the camera to death but the D3s shines so brightly in the weak spots of the D3x. It seriously got to the point where i was doing 95% of my work with my D3s as opposed to the D3x as it seriously made everything that much easier. Not having to worry about ISO and noise as well as having a camera that is insanely fast were some big advantages.

I'm not sure if I'd call them "shortcomings". The D3x/1Ds are meant for pure image quality, not raw speed or ridiculous high ISO. The focus is to have the cleanest, purest low ISO detail and quality. That is why there is the D3s and 1D3/1D4, for those who want the speed and high ISO handling. If they addressed all the "shortcomings" in the X or Ds series, they would be just like their little brothers.

And my opinion is... THANK GOD they don't have stupidly high ISO. I am sick and tired of this retarded ISO race... it's now getting as fricken gay as the megapixel war. ISO 102400? C'mon are you serious? Meanwhile, they're trashing the LOW ISO ability to get their sensors into these high ranges. I dunno about you, but I personally think a beautifully clean and native 100 is a heck of a lot more useful than having 102400. Why do you think Velvia 50 was the most popular? There already exists high ISO monsters... if canon/nikon bastardize the x/Ds line and lose pure LOW ISO capability, a LOT of people are gonna be SUPER pissed. Including me. 100 is why many people bought those cameras in the first place. Actually, I'd prefer if they put R&D into their sensors the OTHER way... how about ISO25-1600? But no... I'll bet the next round will be ISO100-3200 native instead... which is retarded.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Go4Long
the current 200 2.0 is a legendary lens, and from the mtf it's a marked improvement, so it should be fairly incredible.

Yeah, I was expecting them to just add the new VR system, the optical redesign came as a bit of a surprise. The 200/2 was glorious even before the update, the new one should be stellar.

Originally posted by AccentAE86


And my opinion is... THANK GOD they don't have stupidly high ISO. I am sick and tired of this retarded ISO race... it's now getting as fricken gay as the megapixel war. ISO 102400? C'mon are you serious? Meanwhile, they're trashing the LOW ISO ability to get their sensors into these high ranges. I dunno about you, but I personally think a beautifully clean and native 100 is a heck of a lot more useful than having 102400. Why do you think Velvia 50 was the most popular? There already exists high ISO monsters... if canon/nikon bastardize the x/Ds line and lose pure LOW ISO capability, a LOT of people are gonna be SUPER pissed. Including me. 100 is why many people bought those cameras in the first place. Actually, I'd prefer if they put R&D into their sensors the OTHER way... how about ISO25-1600? But no... I'll bet the next round will be ISO100-3200 native instead... which is retarded.

Manufacturers have to play to their markets. The market has demanded amazing high ISO performance to expand their range of effective shooting situations and the cameramakers have responded in fashion. Despite this, your assertion that this is hurting low ISO performance seems fallacious. For example, despite having a significantly expanded ISO range compared to the Mk1, the 5D MkII has a significantly higher SNR at base ISO. If we compare to other manufacturers, the Nikon D3s's SNR at ISO 200 is only slightly less than the 5DII's (and D3X's) ISO 100. I know SNR isn't definitive and much is subjective, but it's not a bad starting point for a comparison. The point is, low ISO performance is getting better, not worse. As much as you love low ISO, the chances of anyone releasing an ISO25 setting any time soon is slim as that's not what the majority of the buying public wants.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Some more notes from Chase Jarvis on the D7000, he claims D3-like ISO performance, which is what everyone was hoping for, if true:

--The rolling shutter is quite a bit better than we had seen in the previous cameras. There is manual exposure for shooting video.

--The ISO and shutter speed can be adjusted while shooting. You need to set the aperture before entering Live View.

--The microphone input has three levels of audio or auto levels, available through the menu.

--ISO is awesome to 3200 and very usable above for photojournalism, weddings, live events, art, etc.

--Great low light performance. Holds up for commercial to 1600-3200. Very usable for other applications at 6400. Same league as the D3 line.”

[quazimoto]

I'd state it's not what at least 95% plus want. People want absurdly clean ISO 1600 and 3200. Nobody necessarily wants ISO 100k. For most of us ISO 1600 and 3200 give us greater flexibility.

The D3x is a great camera but as I have pointed out it leaves a lot to be desired. When you use a D3s for a while and then go back to the D3x it's incredibly hard to pick the D3x over the D3s simply because the D3s gives you that image quality in just about any setting possible.

If anything this is what one should expect with the D(X) line going forward. The D4 will not be a megapixel monster, it'll likely only be in that 18-20mp range but it will most likely have extremely clean ISO 3200 and 6400 and will likely have base ISO from 100 to 100k. I do not expect the D4 will match the ISO capabilities of the D3s. I'm quite certain that Nikon is going to keep a lower resolution camera just for low light capabilities moving forward. My guess is the D4, D4s and D4x will all have different sensors. My thoughts and predictions are D4 being 18mp, D4x being 36 mp and the D4s being 12mp. All 3 cameras would serve different niche markets.

The fact canon has delayed the release of the 1Ds Mark IV though I find kind of alarming. For some reason I can see the 1Ds Mark IV and D4 being released at the same time frame in the Spring.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Manufacturers have to play to their markets. The market has demanded amazing high ISO performance to expand their range of effective shooting situations and the cameramakers have responded in fashion. Despite this, your assertion that this is hurting low ISO performance seems fallacious. For example, despite having a significantly expanded ISO range compared to the Mk1, the 5D MkII has a significantly higher SNR at base ISO. If we compare to other manufacturers, the Nikon D3s's SNR at ISO 200 is only slightly less than the 5DII's (and D3X's) ISO 100. I know SNR isn't definitive and much is subjective, but it's not a bad starting point for a comparison. The point is, low ISO performance is getting better, not worse. As much as you love low ISO, the chances of anyone releasing an ISO25 setting any time soon is slim as that's not what the majority of the buying public wants.

Actually, that's not the case. On paper, it looks like it's better but in reality, LOW ISO on the new crop of canon cameras (50D/7D/5D2/1D4) have degraded quite a bit in shadow areas. Low ISO on these cameras now actually have traces of noise, and pushed images are now showing ugly shadow noise artifacts, like BANDING in the 50D and 5D2 and maze patterns in the 7D. The 40D, 1D mark III, 5D, and all earlier models have cleaner low ISO. That is the entire reason I have stopped upgrading from the 40D and mark III brothers. Nikon is even worse... they don't even GIVE us a native 100, which is probably what I hate the most about my D700. (The pulled 100, I'm sorry, just doesn't cut it for wedding dresses on sunny days. Otherwise I LOVE the camera) Although it seems the D7000 has a 100, which is a real glimmer of hope. The D3x rightfully has a beautiful native 100.

The LOW ISO degradation lately is quite a hot topic in the canon world. They could have removed ISO100 altogether, but that would have probably caused a larger uproar.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I don't follow Canon that closely, but I was under the impression that the shadow banding/maze artifacting was a firmware issue and was fixed. Not so?

[quazimoto]

I'm confused what ISO 100 has to do with a white wedding dress if anything at all. For some reason that D700 works for some of the most elite wedding photographers in the world so I would see that as a mute point when there are other ways to manipulate exposure.

The D3x isn't perfect. Yay it has great ISO 100 that is nice and sharp and detailed. What are people going to say though when they see a D4 with dual exposure mode that can instantly record two different exposures at the same time but heck it's only ISO 200 but wait it'll make for images with the highest dynamic range ever in any DSLR. The fact is there are different niche markets for the various levels of pro products. I'm still hoping we see three different D4's that are all geared towards different markets.

When it boils down to it though I'd take my D3s time and time again over any of the cameras I've used.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I don't follow Canon that closely, but I was under the impression that the shadow banding/maze artifacting was a firmware issue and was fixed. Not so?

Definitely not fixed...

The CMOS sensors always have to be built to work well within a target range. You can move that range up and down, but it's very difficult to EXTEND the range. This is quite evident in the 1Ds3 and 5D2, which share the same sensor, but one is optimized for low ISO and one is optimized for high ISO. You build for high range and it'll sacrifice the lows, and vice versa. Canon has made the decision to still offer ISO100 despite it's degradation. Nikon for the most part has opted to drop 100 so they have more flexibility to increase the quality of the higher range. Since their users were used to a lack of 100 already, it's not such a big deal.

Originally posted by quazimoto
I'm confused what ISO 100 has to do with a white wedding dress if anything at all. For some reason that D700 works for some of the most elite wedding photographers in the world so I would see that as a mute point when there are other ways to manipulate exposure.

The D3x isn't perfect. Yay it has great ISO 100 that is nice and sharp and detailed. What are people going to say though when they see a D4 with dual exposure mode that can instantly record two different exposures at the same time but heck it's only ISO 200 but wait it'll make for images with the highest dynamic range ever in any DSLR. The fact is there are different niche markets for the various levels of pro products. I'm still hoping we see three different D4's that are all geared towards different markets.

When it boils down to it though I'd take my D3s time and time again over any of the cameras I've used.

I'm confused at your statements. You complain that the D3x isn't handling your specific needs/desires, saying it has shortcomings. But then you say there are different niche markets that the different cameras are targeted for. Just like you say, your D3x has it's own market that it's targeted for, that people are THRILLED ABOUT. You just happen to not be in that market. So just because it's strengths don't align with your desires, doesn't make it a shortcoming. You've found your match in the D3s, which is great for you. But that doesn't mean the D3x isn't EXACTLY the camera that many others want for THEIR needs. It is designed as a LOW iso monster. The D3s is the HIGH ISO monster. They complement each other. Why would you have two cameras that have strengths in the same areas?

And a native ISO100 is a GREAT thing... especially when you are shooting a wedding dress at F/1.4 in the sun. I simply cannot do that on my D700 without ND filters. When I shoot it RAW at LOW1, I cannot recover the highlights. They're gone. It just loses some flexibility in that way. If you are normally shooting narrower than F/2.8 then this probably isn't an issue for you. But it is for many many other people.

This dual exposure mode you're talking about... I'll have to see it before I get excited about it. Canon's Highlight Tone Priority basically does a dual exposure. Shoots the highlights at ISO100 (for example) and the midtones and shadows are pushed to 200. Works great for highlights, but loses a bit on the shadow end. Great in theory, but not as great in real life as it is on paper. It DOES work though.

[quazimoto]

When I shoot at 1.4 I just decrease the shutter speed for the best possible exposure. That would be the logical thing to do you would think. Afterall aperture, ISO and shutter speed all control the focus being proper. I mean sure you might be using flash at 1.4 so you might not be wanting to push the shutter past 1/250 or 1/300 etc however as I have found out it's not hard to force both the canon and nikon system to sync at ridiculous high speeds.

The dual exposure mode being pushed would be two separate exposure levels so a little different than what we see already. It would basically be any photographers dream come true as it would capture all the highlights and all the shadows or at least do a much better jobs than current cameras bodies accomplish.

I'll state it again just for the record. I'm quite confident most photographers given the choice between the D3x and the D3s will go with a D3s as its a better overall rounded camera. Nikon and Canon are both attempting to create niche markets in the pro level segment where by no camera will be perfect. With Nikon expect a D4, D4s and a D4x in the case of Canon it will be a 1D M4, 1Ds M4 and then either some fabled unicorn of a Canon 3D camera or the re-introduction of something like a 1D M4m that will be designed as a higher iso capable creature with lower megapixel count.

The problem is that in the pro segment there is a demand for all 3. I dont think it's possible to combine all three in to the perfect camera we'd all want. I think if they do provide us with a lower mp camera with light sensitivity in mind many will buy it. I know quite a few people who said they'd even buy a 6MP camera with technology along the lines of the D3s simply because both Canon and Nikon could push the light envelope to the sky. It's not for every photographer out there though.

If anything I'd expect this from both companies as they realize they can sell more and more bodies like this where as a lens like the 200mm F2 once you own it you are likely to switch or upgrade for 10 years.


For the record I did love my D3x, the D3s was the better all around camera though, no questions asked. The D3x did make for some greatly detailed images. The main reason for selling the D3x was simply to finance the D4 purchase. Do you think I would do this going just on faith alone or maybe for some other reason....

[blitz]

Ignoring flashes, ISO200, f1.4 & 1/8000 gives you an exposure of EV13. For bright sunlight and white objects you'll need to go below ISO200 or add ND's to get a proper exposure.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by quazimoto
When I shoot at 1.4 I just decrease the shutter speed for the best possible exposure. That would be the logical thing to do you would think. Afterall aperture, ISO and shutter speed all control the focus being proper. I mean sure you might be using flash at 1.4 so you might not be wanting to push the shutter past 1/250 or 1/300 etc however as I have found out it's not hard to force both the canon and nikon system to sync at ridiculous high speeds.

It's a hardware issue.
The problem is that at F/1.4 ISO200 1/8000, the dress is too far blown out to recover without ND filters.

On a low ISO camera like the D3x or 1Ds3, it has an extra stop of low ISO headroom as it has a native 100, PLUS it has better low ISO quality and depth, so you can pull the exposure even more than you can with, say, a 5D2 or D700. All in all it probably gives you about two or more extra stops of highlight headroom to play with.

If the cameras could shoot at 1/16000 or 1/32000 then it wouldn't really be an issue.

Just like people need high ISO capability, there are many that want low ISO capability too. I just don't want to see ALL cameras cater to the high ISO crowd. I can only think of TWO instances in the last three years that I needed ISO6400. Some of us have absolutely no use for sky high ISO. It's not unreasonable to want the companies to continue building us a camera that suits our needs.

It's like if a car company only made race tuned race suspension cars, and got rid of their commuter cars. Some people say speed and performance is always best, but others don't want speed; they want comfort and economy. Not everybody wants the same features. And megapixels and high ISO seem to be going into all the cameras now.

[HiSpec]

Does anyone know typically how long it'll take for local camera shops to get the latest camera? The next day after shipping? A week later?

TCS and Vistek doesnt' even have the price in their system. So I can't even ask about pre-order.

Nikon states it'll be shipped out in October, but didn't specify which day it'll be shipped out.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by HiSpec
Does anyone know typically how long it'll take for local camera shops to get the latest camera? The next day after shipping? A week later?

TCS and Vistek doesnt' even have the price in their system. So I can't even ask about pre-order.

Nikon states it'll be shipped out in October, but didn't specify which day it'll be shipped out.

The D7000 should be here in October or November at the latest. Even the stores rarely know the exact date they will be getting it. Canadian price will very likely be $1299 MSRP, maybe a bit less at TCS. Nikon has got a bit better at meeting demand these days. If you want one, your best bet is to call TCS and get your name on the list - you don't need to pay anything until the camera arrives, so no need to worry about a price in the system.

I remember getting on TCS's pre-order list for the D300 the day it was announced in August 2007, and I don't think I saw the camera until late November - it's better now though.

[quazimoto]

going on the same theory of argument some of the very best wedding photogs in the world are using that same D700 and D3 body with no problems. At the same point using an ND filter isn't exactly horrible. Heck I use one that ND 1000x filter which provides 10 full stops just to avoid using crazy F stops just so I can pull off certain shots and still have a fairly shallow depth of field.

ND filters are one of the most valuable filters I can personally think of. Then again how often are you going to be shooting at F1.4 on a bright sunny day, I wouldn't think you'd be doing the majority of the shots like that.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


The D7000 should be here in October or November at the latest. Even the stores rarely know the exact date they will be getting it. Canadian price will very likely be $1299 MSRP, maybe a bit less at TCS. Nikon has got a bit better at meeting demand these days. If you want one, your best bet is to call TCS and get your name on the list - you don't need to pay anything until the camera arrives, so no need to worry about a price in the system.

I remember getting on TCS's pre-order list for the D300 the day it was announced in August, and I don't think I saw the camera until late November - it's better now though.

Reason I am asking because I am in the current stage of selling my existing camera before the value drops too much in order to finance the D7000.
I am really hoping it'll be out by mid-October (latest!!) because I will be helping out at a wedding with photos (I am not shooting at a wedding, just helping out)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by HiSpec


Reason I am asking because I am in the current stage of selling my existing camera before the value drops too much in order to finance the D7000.
I am really hoping it'll be out by mid-October (latest!!) because I will be helping out at a wedding with photos (I am not shooting at a wedding, just helping out)

Well, you can always rent a camera body for really cheap if the D7000 isn't out by the time you need to help out at the wedding.