[MacosNerd]

Looks like Nikon announced the D300 an upgrade to the D200 and the D3, a Full Frame camera which is a little shocking because they've maintained that the DX format is fine.

I own a fair amount of lenses, some high end, and pricey and so I'm tempted to sell my D70s which is an excellent camera and get one these babies (the d300).

Price is around 1800 for the body, a little pricey. The D3 is out of my league in price and performance I have no need for it.

For those interested:
D300 Preview
D3 Announcement

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a Canon vs. Nikon argument that seems to occur all of the time at dpreview. Both are excellent camera companies.

The D300 has a lot of features I like and find missing in my D70s, like a 100% viewfinder, a battery grip, better 51 point af area, self cleaning sensor.

Any Nikon users here - thoughts opinions.

[Spook E]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a Canon vs. Nikon argument that seems to occur all of the time at dpreview. Both are excellent camera companies.

How about Nikon v Sony ?

The sensor in the D300 is the same as the one in the upcoming Sony Alpha, so it'll be interesting to see what is different between the two.

I've just bought an Alpha 100, and am pretty happy with it, other than Sony's typical bulls**t overpricing for accesories (they want me to pay 99AUD for a remote trigger thing, $13 for a generic brand on ebay thankyou very much!

[MacosNerd]

Except Nikon glass is better which is why I went with them in the first place.

[davidflas]

I've always been a big Nikon fan, and I was blown away by all the new features included in the D3 and the D300. Makes me think about replacing my D80.... If I only had more money right now......

[cszar2001]

I'm definitely gonna buy a D300 next year - 6fps and 8fps with the additional battery pack is simply amazing. Speeds like that were only available on the very expensive Canon's. And the new 3' screen is simply amazing.

[MacosNerd]

the self cleaning sensor is a big thing, it means I shouldn't need to putz around around cleaning it.

[design219]

I've shoot Nikon for over 28 years, and I'm interested, but not overly excited by these new bodies. I have a D200 and was expecting a larger gain in megapixels for the next camera. (16-20 was what I was expecting)

Full frame is great, but I wish they did that a few years ago. I now have a 12-24 Dx Nikkor that will not cover it. Fortunately I still have my 20-35 f2.8 Nikkor.

[davidflas]

Originally Posted by cszar2001 

I'm definitely gonna buy a D300 next year - 6fps and 8fps with the additional battery pack is simply amazing. Speeds like that were only available on the very expensive Canon's. And the new 3' screen is simply amazing.

Yeah, 900,000 pixels is amazing for a camera lcd screen. I am glad that Nikon has a full-frame d-slr now, but its out of my price range, and I just invested in a dx 17-55 2.8 nikkor lens..

[reader50]

Read the detailed specs, the 922,000 pixel LCD is misleading. They're counting the subpixels. Actual resolution is 640 x 480, or 307,200 real pixels.

[Jawbone54]

It's about time they went full-frame. Good for Nikon.
You'd still be better off with a 5D. MUUAH HA HA HA HAAA!!!

[tie]

Built-in CA correction? I wonder how this works. CA drives me crazy. I'd love to see automatic CA and light falloff correction. I like that live view has made it to Nikon, too. I'll wait, though, for these features to move to the D80 level before buying.

Originally Posted by Jawbone

You'd still be better off with a 5D. MUUAH HA HA HA HAAA!!!

Predictable.

[dcmacdaddy]

<not a camera person>
What is a full-frame sensor? Is it the CCD element you are talking about?
</not a camera person>

[tie]

Yes, it means the camera sensor is 1.5x larger than Nikon's regular DSLR sensors (the same size as a regular film camera). This means it collects 1.5^2 times more light, so one can expect better performance (less image noise) for low-light photography. It also gives more control over depth-of-field. The disadvantages are that it is more expensive to build larger sensors, and it is easier to build lenses for smaller sensors (to a point). There is more to say, you can probably google it.

[design219]

Originally Posted by tie 

This means it collects 1.5^2 times more light, so one can expect better performance (less image noise) for low-light photography.

Hmmmm. It collects more light, yes, but over a larger area. It's relative. The lens aperture is the determining factor in light to the sensor. I don't think a larger sensor will make any difference for low light work.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

<not a camera person>
What is a full-frame sensor? Is it the CCD element you are talking about?
</not a camera person>

Until recently the sensor that captured the image in digital cameras was smaller then a 35 mm film.

Here's Dpreviews definition which explains it a whole lot better then I could.

Many digital SLRs have sensors smaller than the sensitive area of 35mm film. Typically the sensor diagonal is 1.5 times smaller than the diagonal of 35mm film.

As a consequence, a sensor smaller than a 35mm film frame captures only the middle portion of the information projected by the lens into the 35mm film frame area, resulting in a "cropped field of view". A 35mm film camera would require a lens with a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. Hence the term Focal Length Multiplier (FLM). The FLM is equal to the diagonal of 35mm film (43.3mm) divided by the diagonal of the sensor. Let's now discuss two cases.

Canon has been producing a Full Frame (same size as a 35mm film) for a number of years. Nikon just jumped on the band wagon this year.

Personally I find it matters little but like Mac vs. PC people tend to get overly excited about it.

[design219]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Nikon just jumped on the band wagon this year.

Not to start this Canon/Nikon thing, but they didn't jump on a band wagon.

Nikon is a very conservative company, and they put a tremendous amount of research into their products. There are issues with full frame sensors because, depending upon the focal length of the lens used, light is hitting the corners of the sensor at differing angles (wide angle lenses will project light at a much greater angle onto the corners of the sensor than a telephoto.

Anyway, I'm sure that if Nikon has developed a full frame sensor for the market place, it will be very good and these issues will be well addresses.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Until recently the sensor that captured the image in digital cameras was smaller then a 35 mm film.

OK. So the new sensor is the same size as old "analog" 35mm film. Is this some sort of "holy grail" in digital photography? Does this mean that digital can now eliminate completely 35mm analog film?

[MacosNerd]

I think for a lot of photographers digital has already surpassed film. With megapixels increasing it won't be long when people will be asking the same thing about medium format cameras too.

[tie]

Originally Posted by design219 

Hmmmm. It collects more light, yes, but over a larger area. It's relative. The lens aperture is the determining factor in light to the sensor. I don't think a larger sensor will make any difference for low light work.

I disagree. What counts is the light per pixel. If you have the same number of pixels on a larger sensor, then the individual pixels will be larger. With the same lens, you'll get more light per pixel. Even if the larger sensor also has more pixels, then provided you are printing the image at the same size, ultimately the print from the larger sensor will have less noise.

This advantage in light-gathering ability comes at a cost. You'll have less DOF at the same aperture with the same lens. If you are shooting, e.g., macro, and want high DOF, then you'll need to stop down the lens more on the camera with the larger sensor. Even still, I think if you work out the math, even with the DOFs being the same, the larger sensor comes out ahead.

As more evidence for my argument, the D3 now shoots at ISO speeds up to 25,600. I think the highest ISO on previous Nikon DSLRs was 3200.

[design219]

Originally Posted by tie 

I disagree. What counts is the light per pixel. If you have the same number of pixels on a larger sensor, then the individual pixels will be larger.

Interesting point. I guess the question is, are the individual pixel sensors bigger and gather more light, or are they the same size and spread out a little bit? I can see how this would be a downside to increased megapixels.

I too would like someone who knows more about this to explain.

[design219]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I think for a lot of photographers digital has already surpassed film. With megapixels increasing it won't be long when people will be asking the same thing about medium format cameras too.

I dropped my RZ medium format system two years ago for an all digital workflow. I still have 4x5 (rarely used now), but the workflow is key. Digital makes the process from camera to publication soooo much better from a practical standpoint. And there are no reductions in quality from film base, scanners, enlarging lenses, etc.

[Goldfinger]

I'm getting a D3 as soon as I can afford one. I HATE crop sensors and the viewfinder in my D70s makes me go nuts (I had an F5, F90X and F3 before I got the D70s).

[design219]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

I HATE crop sensors

I felt the same way and resisted going digital for a long time for that very reason. After I started using them and got my head around the differences that focal lengths deliver, I have no issue now with them now.

Having said that, I too would like a D3, but I'll have to think hard on ways to justify the paying the price for one.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

I'm getting a D3 as soon as I can afford one. I HATE crop sensors and the viewfinder in my D70s makes me go nuts (I had an F5, F90X and F3 before I got the D70s).

I guess its not too important too me at least not at the price Nikon is asking for. I've taken a lot of great pictures with my D70s. I think the camera is a tool and as long as you have a good eye, good composition and a good lens. The picture will come out good regardless if its a FF or not

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Except Nikon glass is better which is why I went with them in the first place.

I'm sorry, did you just claim Nikkor lenses have better glass than Zeiss? Ooookayy..

V

[MacosNerd]

never mind not worth posting an answer

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

I'm getting a D3 as soon as I can afford one. I HATE crop sensors and the viewfinder in my D70s makes me go nuts.

Try the D200/D80's viewfinder. I find that they are about as large and bright as my F80's viewfinder. Since then, I considered the viewfinder problem to be solved. (I sold a D70 after 2 weeks just for that reason.)

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Try the D200/D80's viewfinder. I find that they are about as large and bright as my F80's viewfinder. Since then, I considered the viewfinder problem to be solved. (I sold a D70 after 2 weeks just for that reason.)

I know they're a lot better. I bought my D70s at 620 euros and I sold my F5 for 600 so I got it for 20 euros. I didn't go for the D200 at that time because I didn't have money otherwise I would've gotten it. I didn't want the D80 because of no Compact flash support, slower shutter, slower flash sync and the fact that it's even smaller and lighter than my D70s and the D70s feels better in my hands than the D80. In retrospect I should've waited a few more months and go with a D200.
Fact is that even the D200's viewfinder is nothing compared to the F5 that I was used to.

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I think the camera is a tool and as long as you have a good eye, good composition and a good lens. The picture will come out good regardless if its a FF or not

Oh I agree, it's just a tool and I make great pics with that D70s but having an even better tool helps. For example, I can't manually focus properly with the D70s and I need to spend a ton on something like a 10-22 or 12-24 to get a decent wide angle lens. I never cared to much for long lenses. I'm happy with my simple and rattling 70-210 f4.
Somehow crop-cameras have made long lenses much more popular then they used to be. That's my impression anyway. Now you can get a "300 mm 2.8" for the price of a 70-200 2.8.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Oh I agree, it's just a tool and I make great pics with that D70s but having an even better tool helps. For example, I can't manually focus properly with the D70s and I need to spend a ton on something like a 10-22 or 12-24 to get a decent wide angle lens. I never cared to much for long lenses. I'm happy with my simple and rattling 70-210 f4.
Somehow crop-cameras have made long lenses much more popular then they used to be. That's my impression anyway. Now you can get a "300 mm 2.8" for the price of a 70-200 2.8.

I have the 28-70mm f/2.8D best lens in my collection. 9 times out of 10 that baby stays on my camera. It cost more then my camera. Great lens, good camera, though I am tempted with the D300. I may opt for a discounted D200 if the price is right. If the reduction isn't too much I may be tempted into buying that d300

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

I didn't want the D80 because of no Compact flash support, slower shutter, slower flash sync and the fact that it's even smaller and lighter than my D70s and the D70s feels better in my hands than the D80. In retrospect I should've waited a few more months and go with a D200.

The D80 is `small', especially when you come from a 1.3 kg chunk of metal in your hand. It'll feel better once you attach a `serious' lens.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Fact is that even the D200's viewfinder is nothing compared to the F5 that I was used to.

I hear ya. I opted not to replace my Olympus E-20 for that reason: the viewfinder.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

... and I need to spend a ton on something like a 10-22 or 12-24 to get a decent wide angle lens.

Tokina's excellent 12-24 mm zoom is quite cheap. I've seen them for 400 Euros (new) on ebay, quite a bargain, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

That's my impression anyway. Now you can get a "300 mm 2.8" for the price of a 70-200 2.8.

However, there is a gap since the minimum focal range is effectively 105 mm -- not so good for indoor portraits. I'm amazed that neither Nikon nor Canon have budged and brought a 2.8/50-135/150 mm zoom to market, quite disappointing. Looks like my Nikon 2.8/80-200 will be on ebay soon … 

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

I'm sorry, did you just claim Nikkor lenses have better glass than Zeiss? Ooookayy..

V

Are you suggesting that lenses made for Sony cameras are better than Lenses made for Nikon cameras?!?! Oooookayy...

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Tokina's excellent 12-24 mm zoom is quite cheap. I've seen them for 400 Euros (new) on ebay, quite a bargain, if you ask me.

Great lens. I wanted to buy it but in the end I decided against it because it's a DX lens and I had a gut feeling that Nikon was developing a FF camera. Glad that I didn't buy it. My 20-35 2.8 will do for now. I got a 60mm Micro-Nikkor instead to play with.

However, there is a gap since the minimum focal range is effectively 105 mm -- not so good for indoor portraits. I'm amazed that neither Nikon nor Canon have budged and brought a 2.8/50-135/150 mm zoom to market, quite disappointing. Looks like my Nikon 2.8/80-200 will be on ebay soon …

My thoughts exactly. I've been looking at the 35-70 2.8 for months now but I'm always reconsidering. It probably is a great lens but it's limited in reach and it's a push-pull which I don't really like.
There is the AF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 but I doubt it's qualities and there is the 50-135mm f/3.5 AI-S. But that last one doesn't meter on the D70s (nor on the D80 I think ?) and it's of course a manual focus lens.
I also hear that the 75-150 E-series is optically awesome but it has the same drawbacks as the 50-135.
I don't really NEED such a lens but it would be nice for travelling.

I really want a zoom that sits between my 20-35 f2.8 and my 70-210 f4.
Pentax has a 50-135 2.8 which is probably great.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Great lens. I wanted to buy it but in the end I decided against it because it's a DX lens and I had a gut feeling that Nikon was developing a FF camera. Glad that I didn't buy it.

I wouldn't hesitate. It's very unlikely that I will be able to afford a FF camera within the next 5 years. Even if I can, I would have the money to replace the lenses that don't work anymore. You're not going to shell out 5k+ € and then cr*p out on your glass. I'm 90 % sure that I'll get it within the next 12 months or so. First, I'll replace my 80-200 zoom, though.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Pentax has a 50-135 2.8 which is probably great.

The Pentax lens is identical to Tokina's 50-135 -- which is the tele zoom lens I'm considering. They are built like (full-metal) tanks and I can afford them.

[Veltliner]

Full frame is great, as the bigger photosites give you less noise.

But the D3 weighs about 2.7 pounds. Without the battery. And without the lens. And its weight in dollars is even higher - but still very reasonable, considering what you had to pay for a FF so far.

And the image quality of the most recent APX sensor SLRs is fantastic. The improvement to 12 and 14 bit will bring even better colors. For me, this is actually the great improvement of this camera.

I hope the dust reduction works. There was a widely read review of the dust reduction systems currently available, and all but Olympus' failed.

As for me, I'm very much curious about the successor of the Pentax K10d.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The Pentax lens is identical to Tokina's 50-135 -- which is the tele zoom lens I'm considering. They are built like (full-metal) tanks and I can afford them.

Pentax lenses are fantastic at an amazing price. I have the 50/1,4, and I totally love it. What a great bookeh!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Are you suggesting ..blah blah

of course I am, smartypants.

You are some sort of a late-middle aged blue-collar worker and clearly don't know anything about cameras. You're loud, but you obviously shouldn't be participating in this discussion since you can't contribute anything to it.

Having bought a digital SLR doesn't make you eligible to an opinion. You're just an amateur and embarrassingly bad at taking pictures. Maybe you should take a few years to practice. Learn something.. for instance when to be quiet so your ignarance isn't broadcast for all to know.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

of course I am, smartypants.

Learn something.. for instance when to be quiet so your ignarance isn't broadcast for all to know.

Actually Nikon Glass is better and if you're going to insult someone's intelligence you might want to check your own spelling

Beside, lets not hijack this thread. I posted this to discuss the new Nikon cameras I don't need someone coming in hijacking it saying Sony lenses are superior. Its not germane to the discussion.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Actually Nikon Glass is better and if you're going to insult someone's intelligence you might want to check your own spelling

Beside, lets not hijack this thread. I posted this to discuss the new Nikon cameras I don't need someone coming in hijacking it saying Sony lenses are superior. Its not germane to the discussion.

Not even Nikon claims Nikkor is better than Carl Zeiss glass. WTF are you smoking?

Sony lenses aren't superior. WTF are Sony lenses anyway??

Do you even know what Zeiss is?

Hasselblad?

Leica?

All of the above make the Nikon lenses appear as mere toys in comparison.

So in very short and simple: Zeiss makes far better lenses than Nikon. Always have, always will.

Reality doesn't agree with your wishes. What a pity.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

WTF are you smoking?

FYI
since you seem intent on insulting me and others, I've put you on my ignore list so you have little reason to keep hijacking this thread. If you want to create a thread about your vast photographic knowledge knock yourself out.

Otherwise I'll keep posting here on the D300.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

FYI
since you seem intent on insulting me and others, I've put you on my ignore list so you have little reason to keep hijacking this thread. If you want to create a thread about your vast photographic knowledge knock yourself out.

Otherwise I'll keep posting here on the D300.

Hehe I bet you didn't know Zeiss made lenses for Sony cameras when you bought your Nikon

A-mazing

[Veltliner]

Just one example regarding the Zeiss Planar ZF T* 85mm f/1.4, and a comparing remark to Nikon.

Zeiss Planar ZF T* 85mm f/1.4 - Photozone Review / Test Report

Photozone is one of the top review sites.

Quote from photozone: "The price tag of the Zeiss comes almost as a surprise - at 1200 €/US$ it costs about the same like the (optically slightly inferior) Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D"

Slightly. Negligeable. Wouldn't cause a photographer any trouble.

They also say:

"Zeiss ZF lenses are controversial beings because they lack auto-focus and an electronically controlled aperture. However, they also tend to represent a benchmark in their respective class and the same goes for the Zeiss Planar ZF T* 85mm f/1.4."

So: Nikon has top lenses, and even those that are - look at the price - not top, are good, and they won't pose any obstacle to a good photographer to take great photos and get great sharpness, detail and color.

So, the D-300 is backed up by great lenses.

And I'll be excited to get to read more detailed reviews about the color depth.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Photozone is one of the top review sites.

Quote from photozone: "The price tag of the Zeiss comes almost as a surprise - at 1200 €/US$ it costs about the same like the (optically slightly inferior) Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D"

As I said, Zeiss make better lenses. Everyone agrees on that, because you know, it's a fact.

I'd rather buy a Nikon than Sony body, but to claim Nikon has access to better 'glass' than Sony is absurd.

Contax uses Zeiss lenses a well. Nikon could, if they were so inclined.

Zeiss makes the best lenses in the world and are quite famous for it. Nikon is a prosumer brand, fine as such - but not in the same ballpark as Zeiss.

Sorry, people who know photography know this. There is no single element more important in a camera than the lens.

Zeiss makes better lenses than Nikon.

[Goldfinger]

The F-mount Zeiss lenses are not worth it IMHO. The difference in image quality compared to the top Nikkors (like that 85 1.4) is negligible and probably only visible in the measurement numbers and not in the pictures themselves. The fact that they are AI-S is too much of a drawback IMHO. AFAIK CLS doesn't support AI-S lenses. And I doubt that you get the 3D color Matrix metering. Only plain matrix. The price difference and them being AI-S makes them hard to justify IMHO.

I would maybe consider one of the distagons if I were a landscape photographer.

And not all Zeiss lenses are great. The 16-80 for Sony cameras isn't great IMHO. Mostly because of vignetting and extreme barrel distortion. But it has great resolution. There are also a lot of so called "Zeiss" lenses on sony video cameras and compact digital cameras that are absolutely not up to standards.
Calling the high end Nikkors "prosumer" is a bit ignorant IMHO.

[design219]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Zeiss make better lenses. Everyone agrees on that, because you know, it's a fact.

Zeiss lenses for the Sony are made by Cosina in Japan. They are not made in Germany to the standards of the high end Hasselblad and Liecas. You get what you pay for, and a point and shoot Sony is what it is.

Just because it says Zeiss, doesn't make it better.

[Railroader]

SHHH... they don't like facts.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

of course I am, smartypants.

You are some sort of a late-middle aged blue-collar worker and clearly don't know anything about cameras. You're loud, but you obviously shouldn't be participating in this discussion since you can't contribute anything to it.

Having bought a digital SLR doesn't make you eligible to an opinion. You're just an amateur and embarrassingly bad at taking pictures. Maybe you should take a few years to practice. Learn something.. for instance when to be quiet so your ignarance isn't broadcast for all to know.

From my experience, when a person has nothing to say worth saying or they have their facts all wrong, they just insult people.

Are you still sticking to your assertion that lenses made for Sony cameras are superior to lenses made for Nikon cameras?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Beside, lets not hijack this thread. I posted this to discuss the new Nikon cameras I don't need someone coming in hijacking it saying Sony lenses are superior. Its not germane to the discussion.

Sorry, MacosNerd. I'll stop now.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally Posted by design219 

Zeiss lenses for the Sony are made by Cosina in Japan. They are not made in Germany to the standards of the high end Hasselblad and Liecas. You get what you pay for, and a point and shoot Sony is what it is.

Just because it says Zeiss, doesn't make it better.

We're not talking about point-and-shoot cameras. We're talking about SLR. Everything you claimed is irrelevant.

But hey. Don't let facts and reality stop you!

[Twilly Spree]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

From my experience, when a person has nothing to say worth saying or they have their facts all wrong, they just insult people.

Are you still sticking to your assertion that lenses made for Sony cameras are superior to lenses made for Nikon cameras?

Railroader you're the king of saying nothing worthwhile and insulting people. Look who's talking babe. And by babe I mean thin-skinned photo amateur.

Zeiss lenses are superior to Nikkor lenses. Nobody in their right mind argues different. The Zeiss lenses made to fit Sony mounts are superior to Nikkor and even the Zeiss lenses made to fit Nikon mounts are superior to Nikkor.

The OP made the ignorant suggestion that he (stupidly) chose Nikon for it's "better glasses". The one with more access to Zeiss lenses has "better glasses", end of story.

Nikon makes better bodies, which is reason enough to choose it and a wider selection of lenses. Not better lenses. There are lots of crap Nikkors and some excellent ones. There are only excellent Zeiss lenses.

Now go back and play with your SLR and pretend you know something about photography and cameras!

I would appreciate Simey's input in this discussion. He'd rip you a new one for even suggesting Nikkors are better than Zeiss. Some Nikkors approach Zeiss quality, but all Zeiss lenses are of professional quality.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Twilly Spree 

The OP made the ignorant suggestion that he (stupidly) chose Nikon for it's "better glasses". The one with more access to Zeiss lenses has "better glasses", end of story.

So your (everyone else) is saying the lenses on sony cameras, that are Zeiss are better then Nikon. That's just too mixed up. I'm sorry but you guys keep drinking the cool aid.

I'll keep shooting with my Nikon and Nikon glass.