Nikon D3 & D300

I'd not be surprised if Sea & Sea have the first proper housing out, isn't their HQ very close to Nikon's?

From amazon.com it looks like the d300 will be out December 15th? Mine is on preorder (Price difference between US and here is almost a D40x) but I need something for Kenya over Dec / Jan. Nige 'Shorty' Wade, if you're reading this I'll give you, say £150 for the 200? Sound fair?

I actually know a few folk that are excited about the D300 for exactly the reason James puts forward. They for various reasons are very keen to shed the bulk of the D2X(s) and the various housings.

 

I predict that apart from being a smash hit of a camera there will also be a glut of D70/D100 series cameras and housings come available / traded in as people upgrade thereby making it possible for other folk to join the hobby.

sorry posted this wrongly eleswhere...but lenses do you guys use on the D200 (D300?) for strickly UW work?

...then there's the Fuji S6 Pro!

Oh,,, and someone in the know in the electronics field just told me that Sony has plans to take the whole of the high-end market from all the traditional camera producers as they did with Betacam and video. So in ten years we can argue which Betacam DSLR is best!

Spacker,

I'd rather walk a thousand miles barefoot across broken glass than sell you my D200.

Having said that, when you get your D300 can I play with it?

I did that with John Bantins 200 and had to get one !!!!!!

On second thoughts I really dont want to see it unless I can squeeze it into my Subal.

Nige.

Oh,,, and someone in the know in the electronics field just told me that Sony has plans to take the whole of the high-end market from all the traditional camera producers as they did with Betacam and video.

You mean, as they did with the professional video camera market. Yes, indeed. They did it.

Spacker,

 

I'd rather walk a thousand miles barefoot across broken glass than sell you my D200.

 

Having said that, when you get your D300 can I play with it?

 

I did that with John Bantins 200 and had to get one !!!!!!

 

On second thoughts I really dont want to see it unless I can squeeze it into my Subal.

 

Nige.

Nige

If I have a fire at my house and your mob turn up with an out-of-date pump, I'm sending them away!

Hey JB

If my lot turned up at your place I reckon the press would be taking shots of 'Huw, Pew, Barney Magrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub posing next to your smouldering damp course.

Our Chief Officer needs to make an investment that will last for 10 years or more, buying the best thats available at the time, if he kept holding on for the next generation of pumps because they were a higher spec we'd still be feeding and mucking out the horses.

Whats a Spacker? :glare:

Nige

Hey JB

 

If my lot turned up at your place I reckon the press would be taking shots of 'Huw, Pew, Barney Magrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub posing next to your smouldering damp course.

 

Our Chief Officer needs to make an investment that will last for 10 years or more, buying the best thats available at the time, if he kept holding on for the next generation of pumps because they were a higher spec we'd still be feeding and mucking out the horses.

 

Whats a Spacker? :glare:

 

Nige

My point, exactly! So be happy with your obsolete D200 and go and PUT SOME FIRES OUT WITH IT! (Sorry, TAKE PICTURES!)

Now, "Uncle Nige". Please see attached. Don't make me knock up a chart showing the "Exponential rise of geeky excitement of short fireman" against the "Decline in value of shiny technology coming to the end of it's product lifecycle". I will.

As for your fire station anaolgy - don't kid yourself. If your Chief Officer knew that by holding out for just a few short months he could have a shiny new red turbo charged, multi ladder pumpy thing then the glue pots would be empty for awhile longer.

http://tinyurl.com/35skcz That's you on the left, me to your right and The Bantin, hallowed be his name, on the far right. Come November I will be gleefully rubbing the D300 in your face and mocking your antiquated 10 megapixel Kodak Brownie.

Whats a Spacker? :glare:

That would be me. What's a "nige" - sounds very chav.

*disclaimer - this post is purely to wind Nigel up. I apologise for being off topic and for any offence to D200 owners. Please be assured, you are not included in this mocking.

Steve 'Spacker' Bryson

We are soooooh going to get banned from this forum.

Its about time we started to behave ourselves and stay on topic!!!!

Nige

Here's a rhetorical question: Did y'all think the D2Xs was a worthwhile step up from the D200? If yes, then the D300 is basically a D2Xs in a smaller package, and with a better AF system.

 

I doubt there were be many D200 users who would have turned down a free upgrade from a D200 to a D2Xs. The D300, because of its small size seems even better.

 

James

Even more appealing if the Housing Manufacturers would come out with a Kit/Back to house the D300 in a D200 System.

I would beg plead and grovel (to my wife) in an instant for a D300 if there is a way to retrofit the Hugyfot Housing to fit it.

In the 'eighties, I once popped round from my studio in St Johns Wood to visit David Bailey. (For the American audience: He was a pretty good British photographer, who made a name for himself with a magazine called Vogue.) I noticed he was taking pictures with a 10x8 Sinar camera when he had been famous for using small cameras. When I asked why, he replied that it was getting too easy the other way!

If it's too easy, does it have any value? Why are underwater pictures virtually of no value when it comes to getting paid for them? What else can I do for a living? Do I have to work for a merchant bank like everyone else?

You are obviously not shooting the right subjects John! I can suggest numerous creatures which are difficult to photograph, regardless of the technology you are using. Perhaps going back to film might be a solution? And are you sure that Bailey wasn't just winding you up!!!?

The D2X and D200 serve different purposes just as the D3 and D300 will. Some pros shoot a lot of images (one guy posted on robgalbraith that he'd shot 600,000 images using 2 x 1D series Canons) and logically the Pro series cameras are what they would go for as it makes economic sense. Underwater few will need the robustness of a pro series camera unless they use it topside too (which is why I use 1D series - they get pro use above water too). The images delivered by most of the dSLR cameras now on the market are excellent and I'm fast coming to the conclusion that discussions on the nuances of improvement are no longer about anything other than nuances and any dramatic change in the technology may be in areas we haven't as yet considered.

You are obviously not shooting the right subjects John!

I got paid £36,000 for a picture of fifty horses in a Scottish glen in the mid 'eighties to advertise White Horse Whisky. Underwater pictures seem to command a lot less.

What would you get for the same image in todays market ?

John, that's amazing - I'd have imagined it would cost a bloody fortune to train the horses up to use scuba.

There is little or no value to my opinion on this or any photography subject as the last film camera I owned was a Canon T90. The only camera I've had for underwater was a Sea & Sea MX10 thing - out of the 6 rolls I used with it I'd say about 2 pictures were actually recognisable as divers - the rest were horrible, blurry blobs of fuzziness. However the first digital I used, a loaner for a single dive, every shot I took was at least 50x better with the main problems being composition rather than picture quality. So. in my very humble opinion, digital seems to have made things extremely accessibly to numpties like myself devaluing the whole affair.

However, because of my limited experience I've come to the conclusion that any photographer worth his salt will be able to produce results when handed a film camera. No offense to anyone who have only ever used digital or rely on photoshop, I just have renewed admiration for what is going to, sadly, become an obsolete skill.

Something about monkey's and typwriters seems appropriate.

I got paid �36,000 for a picture of fifty horses in a Scottish glen in the mid 'eighties to advertise White Horse Whisky. Underwater pictures seem to command a lot less.

Ahhh. But you can't measure everything in financial terms John. And did you shoot it on 35mm or 10" x 8" (to make it more difficult) I wonder. Advertising shoots are always expensive and not always a good guide as to what is a good or even satisfying image - I remember a chap many years ago going into the advertising industry as a photo retoucher, scalpel, paintbrush and all that. I suspect he's either very computer literate or has changed career. Photoshop has redefined the ability to manipulate but hasn't created manipulation.

Back on topic, I don't see many comments about some of the potential virtues of the D3 - Nikon's 18mm or even their excellent (on film) 20/2.8 for example, together with a very usable MPixel count. Comments?

I remember a chap many years ago going into the advertising industry as a photo retoucher, scalpel, paintbrush and all that. I suspect he's either very computer literate or has changed career. Photoshop has redefined the ability to manipulate but hasn't created manipulation.

That's a good point. A great aunt, now 92, used to work in a NY photo studio in the 50's, retouching photos. Family's that had come into money had their ancestors "poshened" to turn them from farm workers to a more acceptable standing.

Back on topic, I don't see many comments about some of the potential virtues of the D3 - Nikon's 18mm or even their excellent (on film) 20/2.8 for example, together with a very usable MPixel count. Comments?

I said I had ordered one so that I could make use of all the Nikon lenses I have in my cupboard, though I doubt if I will take it underwater. I bet the mega-megapixel D4 will be announced the moment I get it!

What would you get for the same image in todays market ?

Very little. My neighbours all worry about what to do with Christmas Bonuses that equal five times as much and more - but then, they work for Merrill Lynch!

Market-prices are very hard to define. What would you pay for an un-made bed or a cow in aspic? (Not you, Charlie S.)