View Full Version : Nikon D3 and D300!!!!!!
http://www1.nikonusa.com/announcement/index.html
D3-
http://www1.nikonusa.com/announcement/images/D3.jpg
* A Nikon-original 12.1-megapixel FX-format (23.9 x 36mm) CMOS sensor, in concert with Nikon’s exclusive Expeed digital image processing technologies, delivers breathtakingly rich image quality and greater handling speed, while also reducing noise to unprecedented levels, even high ISOs.
* Continuous shooting at up to 9 frames-per-second at full FX resolution eliminates the image quality issues that face so many low-light sports shooters.
* The 3.0-inch Super Density 920,000-dot VGA Color Monitor with 170-degree wide-angle viewing makes possible even more critical image review.
* Nikon’s exclusive Scene Recognition System, with an enhanced 1,005-pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II, provides even more intelligent light metering capabilities, along with smarter white balance detection and faster and more accurate AF performance.
* Nikon's self-diagnostic shutter system, tested to 300,000 cycles, is a clear indicator of advanced engineering and durable construction.
* 2 LiveView Shooting Modes are just one of the D3’s features that support unmatched versatility.
* Available November 2007
D300 -
http://www1.nikonusa.com/announcement/images/D300.jpg
* A new 12.3-megapixel DX-Format CMOS Sensor, in concert with Nikon’s exclusive EXPEED digital image processing technologies, advances handling speed while making possible even greater DX-format image quality.
* Continuous shooting at up to 6 frames-per-second, and up to 8 frames-per-second with the new MB-D10 High-Speed battery grip, makes the D300 a powerful performer in a variety of shooting disciplines.
* The 3.0-inch Super Density 920,000-dot VGA Color Monitor with 170-degree wide-angle viewing makes possible even more critical image review.
* Nikon’s exclusive Scene Recognition System, with an improved 1,005-pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II, provides even more intelligent light metering capabilities, along with smarter white balance detection and faster and more accurate AF performance.
* A new Dynamic Integrated Dust Reduction System stands guard against dust-born image degradation.
* 2 LiveView Shooting Modes are just one of the D300’s features that support unmatched versatility.
* Available November 2007
I MUST GET ONE!!!!!!
To bad it probably costs more money then I'll ever have lol
Canon aint got SHIT on Nikon now..
VermilionMartyr
08-23-2007, 01:18 AM
That's so funny, because I just found $5,000 in 93 about thirty minutes ago... I was contemplating what to do with the money as I logged on to tell you guys, and then I see this thread! It must be fate! I'm destined to shoot the D3.
Anonymous
08-23-2007, 02:10 AM
Canon aint got SHIT on Nikon now..
Lolz..
I'm seriously considering selling everything I own to buy a D3! {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif
My one question to Kruger is, does he regret jumping ship as of this moment?
14-24mm f/2.8G and 24-70mm f/2.8G, not bad at all.
kruger
08-23-2007, 09:14 AM
My one question to Kruger is, does he regret jumping ship as of this moment?
14-24mm f/2.8G and 24-70mm f/2.8G, not bad at all.
IF I had to have the FF D3 it will start at 5500 hun + tax, then those two lens at 1700 each..Howver the 1800.00 d300 dx sensor would be fine and keep it crop/pixel density advantage, it was always about iso performance and not FF vs crop sensor. The 1Ds2 & 3 never interested me for the same reasons. Too expensive and the 5D had lower noise but that didnt work out either
So no, I dont regret that...However I could have another fire sale {SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif Wheres dave {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif
VermilionMartyr
08-23-2007, 11:21 AM
it was always about iso performance and not FF vs crop sensor.
I understand why everyone is all psyched about FF sensors. It must be nice to finally be able to shoot with a digital camera like you shot with a film camera. Wide angle lenses turn into sex.
But I, too, would rather take a hit at the wide end in favor of better ISO performance. Being able to shoot ISO 3200 without picking up substantial amounts of grain allows you to shoot hand held indoors. Combine that with lenses that scream around 1.4 or 1.2 and you can get sharp shots, hand held, with a fraction of the light you needed before.
But I'm in absolutely no position to spend $5,000 to achieve that kind of capability. If I was pro, if I could write it off as a tax deduction, maybe. But I'm not, I'm a hobbyist photographer, a kid who can't afford college, who enjoys the occasional creepy shots he gets with his camera and tripod.
I would love to be able to shoot those naked women lying all over my bed at 3:00 in the morning. But I just don't have the money to pull off that kind of shit.
You guys can come over and join the fun, though.
the d300 is actually semi affordable,at $1749 for its recommended retail.
though,im sure that 90% of the shooters on here and uer dont need it.
hopefully the d200 will drop somewhat in price now.
i wonder how cheap the d40's gunna be,lol
My D80 took a 3 foot fall onto concrete this morning, it wasnt even scratched, but I think thats a sign that I need a nice new D3 {SMILIES_PATH}/cheesy.gif Or at least a D300.
I could always sell my car.....lol
kruger
08-23-2007, 01:53 PM
My D80 took a 3 foot fall onto concrete this morning, it wasnt even scratched, but I think thats a sign that I need a nice new D3 {SMILIES_PATH}/cheesy.gif Or at least a D300.
I could always sell my car.....lol
Omg, youre lucky ! I think thats a sign you better stop dropping your camera ! {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif
Yeah, I need to be more carefull lol. I had it balenced on a ledge to take a group shot, and well, it didn't balance to well {SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif
kruger
08-23-2007, 02:03 PM
it was always about iso performance and not FF vs crop sensor.
But I, too, would rather take a hit at the wide end in favor of better ISO performance. Being able to shoot ISO 3200 without picking up substantial amounts of grain allows you to shoot hand held indoors. Combine that with lenses that scream around 1.4 or 1.2 and you can get sharp shots, hand held, with a fraction of the light you needed before.
Actually verm the FF generally had/has a iso advantage..The more pixel sensors or photons or whatever they squeeze onto a chip the more iso noise there is...Its just now they are using other electronics & methods to get lower noise on smaller sensors.. For example, the canon 5D FF has been king of low iso until my Mark3 1.3 crop sensor came along.. canon is doing this with the dual digic 3 processing and such... However, when the FF 5D MKII comes out with the same digic3 I assume it will surpass my mark3. The full frame sensor size gives the pixels more space for seperation , hence lower noise. It also gives a wider FOV
and one more thinge to remember about crop sensors..a Nikon 12mp D2x crop sensor will have greater pixel density than a 12mp FF Canon 5D...which means your crops will look better.. Wildlife shooters (birds) and sport shooters like crop cameras for that reason...Its a double edge sword, trade off both ways imo
kruger
08-23-2007, 02:05 PM
Yeah, I need to be more carefull lol. I had it balenced on a ledge to take a group shot, and well, it didn't balance to well {SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif
Ok, live & learn...no more balancing acts with a thousand dollar camera body {SMILIES_PATH}/lipsrsealed.gif
no-one on this site would ever need,let alone probably use the d3,or even the d300 to their full potential. ray,the d80 is as capable as you,or almost anyone will ever need from a camera.
kruger
08-23-2007, 02:11 PM
no-one on this site would ever need,let alone probably use the d3,or even the d300 to their full potential. ray,the d80 is as capable as you,or almost anyone will ever need from a camera.
Eric certainly could {SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif But he is a canon guy still...I think {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif
pshh,he is for now:)
and i stand by my statement..that is,i suppose unless eric switches.
Anonymous
08-23-2007, 02:53 PM
pshh,he is for now:)
and i stand by my statement..that is,i suppose unless eric switches.
Eric aint fuckin switching, We both know that.
ACCOUNT_CLOSED
08-23-2007, 03:33 PM
My one question to Kruger is, does he regret jumping ship as of this moment?
14-24mm f/2.8G and 24-70mm f/2.8G, not bad at all.
IF I had to have the FF D3 it will start at 5500 hun + tax, then those two lens at 1700 each..Howver the 1800.00 d300 dx sensor would be fine and keep it crop/pixel density advantage, it was always about iso performance and not FF vs crop sensor. The 1Ds2 & 3 never interested me for the same reasons. Too expensive and the 5D had lower noise but that didnt work out either
So no, I dont regret that...However I could have another fire sale {SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif Wheres dave {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif
If I could do it again I would take a loan out to buy your whole Nikon package. I been shooting some weddings and the 18-70mm just flat out sucks...
no-one on this site would ever need,let alone probably use the d3,or even the d300 to their full potential. ray,the d80 is as capable as you,or almost anyone will ever need from a camera.
Eric certainly could {SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif But he is a canon guy still...I think {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif
I think you could take those camera's to potential. And Eric, who will not use Nikon. Other than you two, I think that's everyone on this site who would really even be good with one. No offense to everyone else.
no-one on this site would ever need,let alone probably use the d3,or even the d300 to their full potential. ray,the d80 is as capable as you,or almost anyone will ever need from a camera.
Funny you say that when I was trying to tell you the exact thing about the D200 last week and you got all offended lol
I was just joking about the D3, I'd love to have one, but I wouldn't actually spend the money, I don't need it, if I even did have the money, I'd rather spend it on a bunch of lenses for my D80 body.
no-one on this site would ever need,let alone probably use the d3,or even the d300 to their full potential. ray,the d80 is as capable as you,or almost anyone will ever need from a camera.
Funny you say that when I was trying to tell you the exact thing about the D200 last week and you got all offended lol
I was just joking about the D3, I'd love to have one, but I wouldn't actually spend the money, I don't need it, if I even did have the money, I'd rather spend it on a bunch of lenses for my D80 body.
shhhhhhhhh.
ell oh ell.
lol.
The thing I actually need before even lenses is a decent tripod actually
RAY, UNFORT YOUR CAR IS ONLY WORTH WHAT THE TAX MIGHT BE ON THOSE CAMERAS! {SMILIES_PATH}/cheesy.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/cheesy.gif
Kwanon
08-24-2007, 09:27 AM
no-one on this site would ever need,let alone probably use the d3,or even the d300 to their full potential. ray,the d80 is as capable as you,or almost anyone will ever need from a camera.
speak for your damn self jake! lol.
and tell me how canon aint got shit on nikon anymore yet it took nikon THIS long to put out a FF model. Not to mention now that they finally have a FF they were still only able to put 12MP on it????? kinda pathetic for $5000 if you ask me. i'll stick with my canon thank you.
well,thats the thing eric....
no-one on this site could use it to the full potential,because the only people who could...shoot canon.
and unless nikon fixed their fucking noise reduction,then im switching to canon as soon as i have to money.
Theres nothing wrong with the noise reduction. Canon's would take forever too, they just have it off. I researched it the other day, and Eric is right wheter its Canon or Nikon, just turn it off. You can get programs on the computer that do a better job then either camera. So why take all that time wasted when your out shooting when you can do it on the computer when you get home.
Theres nothing wrong with the noise reduction. Canon's would take forever too, they just have it off. I researched it the other day, and Eric is right wheter its Canon or Nikon, just turn it off. You can get programs on the computer that do a better job then either camera. So why take all that time wasted when your out shooting when you can do it on the computer when you get home.
except that from what ive heard,nikons sensors are notorious for noise.
canon uses a different kind of sensor,that has less noise.
thats just my understanding from reading the thread on uer,though.
the validity and truthfullness is debateable
Um I'm not that dumb, I know that, I was talking about noise reduction, not noise itself.
But its not THAT much noiser then Canon, yeah one of the things there better at is noise, but its not to the point where its a problem. Most of the pictures I taken now are at like ISO 800 or higer cause of how I don't have a good tripod, and its never a problem. And I've even taken ISO 3200 pictures that looks perfectly fine as long as I don't blow them up big.
And I've even taken ISO 3200 pictures that looks perfectly fine as long as I don't blow them up big.
Exactly why almost no one on this board even needs that kind of camera.
2MP=1600x1200
Average Screen Resolution=1024x768
So unless you do major cropping, you'll never even need a camera above 2MP. That is why the megapixle's don't even matter to me. As long as it's 2, which every camera now a days is 5 or more, it doesn't matter, because if you're confined to a computer screen, you need nothing more.
LIOddities
08-25-2007, 07:54 AM
And I've even taken ISO 3200 pictures that looks perfectly fine as long as I don't blow them up big.
Exactly why almost no one on this board even needs that kind of camera.
2MP=1600x1200
Average Screen Resolution=1024x768
So unless you do major cropping, you'll never even need a camera above 2MP. That is why the megapixle's don't even matter to me. As long as it's 2, which every camera now a days is 5 or more, it doesn't matter, because if you're confined to a computer screen, you need nothing more.
What about if you want prints of your work? 2MP wont cut it for 8X10s or larger.
VermilionMartyr
08-25-2007, 10:33 AM
There's a point at which having more MP is irrelevant. For me it's around 7-10. After that, I'm not sure I really need the quality, and I'm better off spending my money on other things.
Some people who have million-dollar cameras would be better off spending their money on a photography course. The principle works on a smaller scale, too- you need to examine cost vs. benefit.
ACCOUNT_CLOSED
08-25-2007, 11:30 AM
Theres nothing wrong with the noise reduction. Canon's would take forever too, they just have it off. I researched it the other day, and Eric is right wheter its Canon or Nikon, just turn it off. You can get programs on the computer that do a better job then either camera. So why take all that time wasted when your out shooting when you can do it on the computer when you get home.
except that from what ive heard,nikons sensors are notorious for noise.
canon uses a different kind of sensor,that has less noise.
thats just my understanding from reading the thread on uer,though.
the validity and truthfullness is debateable
notorious for noise? I guess i'm simple just an amature because that one problem I have NEVER had
well,have you ever shot an exposure longer than a few minutes,and notices how long the noise reduction takes,and how it still is noisy?
And I've even taken ISO 3200 pictures that looks perfectly fine as long as I don't blow them up big.
Exactly why almost no one on this board even needs that kind of camera.
2MP=1600x1200
Average Screen Resolution=1024x768
So unless you do major cropping, you'll never even need a camera above 2MP. That is why the megapixle's don't even matter to me. As long as it's 2, which every camera now a days is 5 or more, it doesn't matter, because if you're confined to a computer screen, you need nothing more.
What about if you want prints of your work? 2MP wont cut it for 8X10s or larger.
Of coarse not. And that is why I said, if you are confined to the computer like me, and not making prints, 2mp is enough.
I would never shoot at high megapixels even if I had them, I've got a 10 megapixel camera, and I never shoot at the full 10. I don't make prints ever, so I don't need it, and its a waste of hard drive space, which is very limited, I'm already filling up my new laptop. I take way to many pictures lol.
VermilionMartyr
08-25-2007, 11:44 PM
I would never shoot at high megapixels even if I had them, I've got a 10 megapixel camera, and I never shoot at the full 10. I don't make prints ever, so I don't need it, and its a waste of hard drive space, which is very limited, I'm already filling up my new laptop. I take way to many pictures lol.
I bought a 320GB external HD because I had too many pictures and videos on my 200GB internal. The external cost about a buck plus shipping.
Uh, and those pictures and videos that are soaking up space... I didn't take them. They're, uh... you know, pictures of professionals. Doing... professional things. Professionally.
I have about 50GB of professionalism on my computer at the moment.
I would never shoot at high megapixels even if I had them, I've got a 10 megapixel camera, and I never shoot at the full 10. I don't make prints ever, so I don't need it, and its a waste of hard drive space, which is very limited, I'm already filling up my new laptop. I take way to many pictures lol.
I bought a 320GB external HD because I had too many pictures and videos on my 200GB internal. The external cost about a buck plus shipping.
Uh, and those pictures and videos that are soaking up space... I didn't take them. They're, uh... you know, pictures of professionals. Doing... professional things. Professionally.
I have about 50GB of professionalism on my computer at the moment.
dude...you need a girlfriend.
VermilionMartyr
08-26-2007, 12:13 AM
Dude... I have.
But I'm going to college, so... ?
Anonymous
08-26-2007, 12:27 AM
Uh, and those pictures and videos that are soaking up space... I didn't take them. They're, uh... you know, pictures of professionals. Doing... professional things. Professionally.
HAHA!!!!
Dude, just watch it on the internet. I could hook you up with some links.
ACCOUNT_CLOSED
08-26-2007, 11:12 AM
well,have you ever shot an exposure longer than a few minutes,and notices how long the noise reduction takes,and how it still is noisy?
never had a problem with noise
Me either, I can shoot at 1600 and not have a problem with it.
Me either, I can shoot at 1600 and not have a problem with it.
yeah,except that noise reduction takes 40 fucking minutes after you expose for 20,lol
Me either, I can shoot at 1600 and not have a problem with it.
yeah,except that noise reduction takes 40 fucking minutes after you expose for 20,lol
I guess you weren't listening to anything I explained to you yesterday about why not to use that then.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.