Nikon Releases D3 and D300

[dougsmit]

I own Canons but am not addicted. Crop cameras are better when you do not own a proper lens to cover full frame. If you are shooting birds with a 400mm and cropping to part of the frame anyway, you may as well shoot a crop camera until you can afford that 600mm to go with your FF (or whatever it takes to fill the frame of your ff). Macro works the same way since ff cameras need to be closer (too close??) to fill the larger frame with the same bug. Photos with a 150mm macro on FF will be better than a 100 on crop but if you are shooting loosely and cropping down you may as well keep the cropper. Portraits are another matter since it is reasonable to expect someone to own an 85mm for their FF which simulates the 50mm on the cropper. Wide angle is the place where ff shines. I own a 24-105 for my 30D but it is hardly a wide angle lens due to the crop factor. If I were to buy a 5D I would get a free bonus of a much wider view. I disagree with teardr0p1204 regarding protraits but agree there are times where you would be better spending the extra on a better lens and keeping the crop body. For landscapes and other middle tele to wide uses, I'll regret not having the 5D, IDsMk3 or even (gasp) a D3.

I wish Nikon and Canon shared a lens mount so we could buy the lenses and sensors separately and possibly own one of each for times when one outdoes the other. I am anxious to see the super high ISO results of the D3 from practical use. I won't be buying one since I have way too much invested in Canon mount but the competition could well make whatever replaces the 5D high up on my wish list. Trust that neither Nikon nor Canon will let the other run away with the ball for long. All I really ask is a cutthroat price war on low end full frame cameras.

[LuisV]

OMG! I can't believe what I've read. Thankfully I've come in late here... this is a joke!

Hikariphoto.....wow... as a mod I would feel you should be more knowledgeable than this to make such statements. Have you ever even shot a Nikon? It's does not seem so to me. You're making very bold and completely unfounded statements. Frankly, I think you're doing nothing more than repeating what you read in other forums. I've been shooting Nikon for decades and I wouldn't trade it for a Canon given to me.

Nikon's problem in the past has been that they have been incapable of producing a chip that can compete with the Canon for high-ISO performance and clean images

Who says? I've shot, professionally, the D100, D200 and the D2X. I can tell you first hand that a properly exposed shot from any of those Nikons at ISO 800 and below will be indistinguishable from it's Canon counterpart. For one, all, not some, all, digital SLRs will manifest noise at higher ISOs. This is fact and its a matter of the physics involved in converting light to a digital image. Now, I will say that, yes, some sensors manifest more than others. However, anyabody that reads a statement like that one would assume Nikon could not shoot and ISO 800 shot if it's life depended on it. Silly. I've got hundreds that are as clean as any other.

With most of the pros I know, the image quality is more important that where the dials are and whether you have Auto-ISO, so Canon is beating the pants off Nikon in the pro arena. Hence the release of so many low-end Nikons; the D80, D40 and D50 are clearly aimed at the consumer-grade shooter....

This to me has indicated that Nikon has conceded the pro ranks to Canon, and I think that the release of these two new cameras is Nikon's last chance to retain pros.

How you make this leap baffles me. For one, you will not find data that lists Canon vs. Nikon pro market share. Nobody cares. Canon has more market share than Nikon in overall sales. However, in most every market analysis done you will find that this is so b/c of that "low-end" market that includes all the point and shoot cameras as well. In short, the pro segment is so small that no company is going to spend big dollars to go after that market. The fastest growing sector in the photography business today is the low to mid market DSLRs by a long shot. So if Nikon is attacking that market with a few new bodies, that makes them a business minded company looking after the interest of shareholders. You know what I call concession. Minolta selling the camera business to Sony. Nikon still makes pro cameras.

Nikon has made no concession of any market to anyone. So you have a couple of pros you know that switched from Nikon to Canon. I've got a few that I know that came to Nikon, in fact, because of the quality and, dare I say it, the comfort of the body. In short, people switch back and forth all the time.

From Ronald: What I like is how all the Noink shooters were saying how useless a FF chip is, and that 1.5x is fine. They'd "never" buy a FF camera. Yeah...wait and see. Those D3's will be FLYING off the shelf.

....

yeah well that was just penis envy.

Yeah OK. Do you own a FF 35mm format DSLR camera?

OK.. I'm here. I am a Nikon shooter that tells you that a FF sensor to me is meaningless. I shoot portraiture, models, commercial work and cover sports events for local schools from time to time. All with an APS sensor. Don't need a FF sensor. Don't want a FF sensor. Will I buy a D3 next month. Nope. I'll wait on what they'll do in a high resolution version. Will I ever buy a FF camera? Sure. Only if Nikon makes it at a resolution that will improve the amazing detail I have now. I feel Nikon will release a lower fps body with higher resolution than the FF 12MP body.

I'll tell you why I, as a pro, purchased Nikon and will continue to do so. For one, a legacy of nearly 50 years of the same lens mount. I can slap any Nikon SLR lens ever made on the D2X. That includes some pretty amazing glass. BTW, that may be a reason why Fuji chose Nikon to supply bodies. Hmmmm? Could be. Second, ergonomics. Hands down more comfortable for me. The balance and feel is simply better. As much as I hold the thing, I want what feels best. Image quality is second to none. I regularly sell 24x36 inch prints from the D2X. In fact I recently sold a 40 inch tall fine art nude. Not a spec of noise. Imagine that......

In the end, you will never hear me bash any vendor. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc. all make excellent bodies. Each has it's abilities and it's faults. None of them, however, are free of noise. None of them make a perfect lens. None of them make a shutter the shoots at 27 fps for 1,000,000 actuations. In the end, don't believe what you read. When I sit down with other professional photographers the conversation is not about Canon vs. Nikon..... it's more about "that's an amazing shot.... what was your light setup?"

If you want an opinion on a Nikon body, ask a Nikon shooter. For me, they make the cameras by which all others are measured. But that's just my opinion. I will also be the first to mention the faults Nikon has. We each have a favorite, don't bash another brand. That's silly.

[Michael1116]

And to think I signed up at Focus Faction to hopefully escape the Canon vs Nikon "wars" on just about every other forum.

I agree with Luis;
Can't we all go out and shoot and be friends?

[studio206]

i agree too. Canon and Nikon aren't fighting... they're just there to take our money lol I shoot with whatever camera is in my hand :-) i've shoot with Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Kodak, Mamyia, Hasselblad, Pentex, Fuji, Toyo... i think i could keep going but u get the point... brand name has never hindered my creative ability.