Nikon DSLR speculation - April 2008

Personally, I think that's why the D3 in particular is so appealing. You can use either the FX or DX (1.5 FOV) option for many different lens applications and enhance your workflow.

Good point; I don't want to give up my 10-17 Tokina. Would be great as well if the DX / FX change can be done with a housing control, then my 16mm and 17-35 would be pretty versatile.

I disagree about the D3 offering a useful DX mode. $5000 would be a lot of money to spend on a 5MP DX camera.

Alex

I disagree about the D3 offering a useful DX mode. $5000 would be a lot of money to spend on a 5MP DX camera.

 

Alex

I disagree about the D3 offering a useful DX mode. $5000 would be a lot of money to spend on a 5MP DX camera.

 

Alex

Though I think that will be a different story with the "D3x" and its DX resolution options. (10MP anyone? and before you go there...no, that's not scientific, just a thought) But then again it wont be for $5000 either.

Anyhow I was interested in hearing the list as to why DX might be a better bet over FX - it made me feel good about just paying out for a D300.......

Paul C

I'm not convinced that way either, Paul!

I think that the D300 is an excellent camera, as are the 5D, 1Ds Mk3, D3 etc - for what they were designed to do. I think the points coming out of this discussion suggest that both have positives and negatives and it is the sweeping statements of FF good, DX bad (or vice versa) that are misleading.

Alex

I think that the D300 is an excellent camera, as are the 5D, 1Ds Mk3, D3 etc - for what they were designed to do. I think the points coming out of this discussion suggest that both have positives and negatives and it is the sweeping statements of FF good, DX bad (or vice versa) that are misleading.

 

Alex

And we may now be now far from the topic of speculation of specific models yet to come...

With that, I think what Adams wrote quite a time ago still resonates simularily to the process of FX/DX today.

"If we fail to comprehend the medium, or relinquish our control to automation of one kind or the other, we allow the system to dictate results instead of controlling them to our own purposes. The term automation is taken here in its broadest sense, to include not only automatic cameras, but any process we carry out automatically, including mindless adherence to manufacturers’ in such matters as in film speed rating or processing of film. All such ratings are based on an average of diverse conditions, and can be expected to give only adequate results under “average†circumstances, they seldom yield optimum results, and then only by chance. If our standards are higher than average, we must control the process and use it creatively.

Ideally, a photographer develops a personal style and works with a camera format that compliments it. But a photographer who uses several different camera types will often find that his very perception changes when he is carrying a large camera instead of a small one, and visa versa. Knowing the characteristics of each camera type can helps us appreciate its advantages, while coping successful with its drawbacks."

And before you say, "Duh". I just meant to show that I agree with what Alex is saying on sweeping statements of good or bad and not my intent. Only that the D3 series now offers us a way to almost have two cameras in one for the advantages of different optics and being able to match those up more closely to our desired effect.

Just as the D10 or Dxx will probably allow us to have video and slr capabilty in one camera some day, but it wont be good versus bad then either. I'll go be quiet now.

Pretty interesting though Alex when you get quality photographers starting to suggest that actually the 'lower' spec cameras may have what seem to be significant advantages (to me anyhow).

Probably it should not be a surprise, or all of you top end guys would be toting Hasselblads, and you are not.

The 1DSMk3 is a hell of a piece of kit - a (pro shooter) friend has one and it does come darn close to his Hasselblads performance - and here we have Eric listing some of the difficulties of FF in the water :-

FF doesn't seem to be any better for wide-angle unless you're shooting in low light...

and

Actually, it doesn't seem to be better for macro, either.

To be fair, both of these seem to be due to the medium in which we are shooting - on the land - different case. On land I expect my mates 1DSMk3 to knock the nuts off of my D300 (he takes better pictures anyhow, which is also a bonus - mind you he charges 1K a day).

mmmmmm - real interesting thoughts to chew on, to be honest I made my D300 decision based on the fact that I don't believe I can justify the projected cost of a D10 or D2X or whatever - completely different economics for you who are actually good enough to be making money at this game.

Whatever happens FF is going to be the way that everything eventually goes, that is regardless of its suitability for us or otherwise. Just as we have seen 7MP, 8MP, 10MP and now 12MP as 'entry level' again regardless.

Paul C

Just as we have seen 7MP, 8MP, 10MP and now 12MP as 'entry level' again regardless.

 

Paul C

hehe so as a 6mp shooter that means i am lower than an entry level shooter... sigh...

hehe so as a 6mp shooter that means i am lower than an entry level shooter... sigh...

Mike - but think of all those backup D70 and D70s bodies you can get real cheap now - heck - I'll sell you my original D70 body.

Andy

It's a question of having the right tool for the job.

In my heyday as a photographer I had 10x8 Sinar, 5x4 Sinar, Hasselblad and Nikon outfits. I didn't buy them because I was keen on collecting kit. I was running a serious business and I needed to use the best tool for a particular job in hand. There will always be pros and cons.

I want a 30mp camera with the equivalent of a 10-17 macro fish-eye lens that fits into a sandwich box like a Fuji F50fd and gives perfect colour without help from any strobes - and doesn't cost too much. Anyone got any ideas?

hehe so as a 6mp shooter that means i am lower than an entry level shooter... sigh...

You well know you are just giving us poor people a chance Mike - anyhow a couple of posts back there was loose talk of a D300.... Or are you holding out for FF ?

Paul C

You well know you are just giving us poor people a chance Mike - anyhow a couple of posts back there was loose talk of a D300.... Or are you holding out for FF ?

 

Paul C

Mike is ahead of all of us regardless of camera kit because what is in front of the camera the moment you press the release still counts most and I am in Twickenham while he is in Yap!

Look at the economics of underwater photography. I've just sold 105 pictures to a publisher of a book. They come from a collection of pictures taken over 20 years with lots of different kit. They are worth around 20 GBP each. That's about USD4000 total. If you flood a top-of-the-range camera it quickly puts cost into perspective. How many saleable pictures will you take with one camera before it is worthless (flooded or not)? Underwater photography is an expensive hobby.

Yea and I have had 6" of vis since xmas!

Mike - enjoy the 6mp!

Paul C

I was surprised to see you sell the 5D Walt..curious, what did you move on to?

Actually I am still shooting (commercial work) with the 5D, can beat the image qaulity except with a 1Ds MK II, or possibly Nikon's new D3. Hmmmm!

But underwater, just found full frame sensors working with wide angle optics (with the exception of the 15mm fisheye) behind a dome port was too much of a bitch to get what you paided for. Hence, I went to a Nikon D200 for underwater work. Crop sensor cameras like the D200 don't have as the number of issues, at least with lenses like Tokina's 10-17 or 12-24.

Walt,

That's odd about your wideangle experience. I think we need to put this into an "angle of view" context to understand it better.

For folks looking at ultra wide (weitwinkel): Of course the Nikon 14-24mm lens doesn't work well - it's a 14mm lens! Even a 14mm prime is hard to house. The 17-35mm is much better because it simply doesn't have as large a field of view. By the time you get a 20mm or 24mm prime, you start getting good results w/ a "normal" retail-available dome port.

A 10-22 or 12-24mm lens on a DX camera yields decent results because the field of view just isn't that wide. Heck, even Nikon still can't get it right because the 12-24 isn't that good at 12mm (which is 18mm equivalent). Nikon's 18mm on a FF camera would surely crush the 12-24 at 12mm on a DX camera for instance.

Anyhow - I'm rambling a bit but this is a useful discussion because there are many in this thread who have used both FF and cropped sensor systems.

The only comment that really hit home for me is about how the depth of field is so much greater on the lenses designed for DX or APS-C cameras - because the focal lengths are so short. That extra DOF may help you to get the whole "curved virtual image" into the DOF range - yielding sharper looking corners.

Cheers

James

Mike is ahead of all of us regardless of camera kit because what is in front of the camera the moment you press the release still counts most and I am in Twickenham while he is in Yap!

Actually John I am in Bali now.. better looking women

Paul, thinking D300.. thinking is the key word.. my CC wont let me

Walt, interesting. Score one for the crop sensor there.

Surprised that you went to Nikon though, you must have to carry so many lenses..

When I look at my film shots I do find that there are more corner issues than what I have with my d2x. However I was hoping that a larger sensor (FF/d3x) would help with some issues;

- Better dynamic range (basically an upgrade we are getting with most new models)

- Less depth of field... Sometimes this can actually be an advantage. I miss the selective focus of my film system now and then...

- Lower ISO, to facilitate the sunburst shots (fits my photographic preferance). I find now that unless I'm shooting deep or during sunsets/sunrise I can forget shooting with flash. Thats a big disadvantage. The IMHO larger dynamic forgiveness of film lets me do this because I dont need to stop down as much to prevent blown highligts. Thus the base Iso of 200 on the D3 is a step in the wrong direction.

- Low noise. The D3 seems fantastic in this respect, but I doubt the "D3x" would have the same advantage as I expect more pixels will increase noise somewhat.

I'm on the fence for now. Thus far I can't see any aspects of the D3 that merrits the expense.

My dream camera is a 18MP, with a base iso of 100, but a secondary base iso (without loss of dynamic range) of 50. Dynamic range like the D3 (or close). Flash sync of 1/500 or faster. That should do it...

I'll go be quiet now...

Espen

So, having projected doom upon prospective FF shooters, I have to say that I love my FF rig. I'm at odds with... myself!

Seriously, I feel like it's harder, but I love (some of) the images I get. Subjectively, I like them better than images from DX cameras, but it would be hard for me to say why. Maybe I like the perspective of a 20mm wide-angle lens better than I do the perspective of a 14mm lens, given the same field of view? Maybe I like the shallower depth of field at the same f-stop for the same field of view?

Whatever it is, I'm happy even though I feel like it's harder to get the same shot.

The pro bodies also perform really well and are tremendously satisfying to use. So that's another thing to consider. I am more inspired when looking through the Seacam viewfinder through a wide lens than I am moving my head around trying to see the entire frame on what I used before, which didn't allow me to even see the entire frame.

I am more inspired when looking through the Seacam viewfinder through a wide lens than I am moving my head around trying to see the entire frame on what I used before, which didn't allow me to even see the entire frame.

Fair point, but not a FF vs DX issue. Rather a good housing vs poor housing issue. Alex