DSLRUsers.com

When you think about it... what do they really need to do to the D3 to upgrade it to the D3X .... my thoughts are almost nothing. There will be some changes... the most obvious being that the maximum shooting rate will be reduced to about 5 FPS but aside from that not much needs changing. The D3 is the closest we have come yet to the perfect DSLR camera, no matter what your actual style of photography.

The only thing they might need to add to cope with all the data is a third CF slot!

D300 sensor density in a full frame sensor? Not at all surprising to me.

The Sony 24MP sensor as the upgrade to the D3 ??? Not at all surprising to me.

So, what else is new?

This is a rumour, so that's not new either. But this does appear to have some basis behind it.

Mind you, what sort of a person looks into the firmware upgrade to try to find a D3x string? The phrases "getting a life" and "too much time on one's hands" come to mind for some strange reason.

The sony 24mp full frame sensor is only a 12bit sensor, not sure if Nikon would go a step back like that.

If Nikon try to push a measly 5 FPS rate out of their upcoming flagship body, then they deserve to be dumped by every pro shooter. 5 FPS for fast actions sports would be a farce, might as well shoot with a D70!

Alan,

actually, Nikon will more then likely have two flagship models, just like Canon has. They will have the D3 for fast action and photo journalism and then they will have the D3X for studio, fine art, where ever else you need full frame with more then 20Mb. The D3X would be competing against the Canon 1Ds MkIII and the D3 will continue to compete with the Canon 1D MkIII.

Cheers,

André

Raskill wrote:If Nikon try to push a measly 5 FPS rate out of their upcoming flagship body, then they deserve to be dumped by every pro shooter. 5 FPS for fast actions sports would be a farce, might as well shoot with a D70!

Alan, that is an odd comment, Canon only get 5fps out of their 1Ds Mk III, do they deserved to be dumped by every pro photographer? As I understand they use dual processors to achieve that. I would have thought they would leave the D3 as the sports body and the D3X as the studio or landscape body?

Glen wrote:

Raskill wrote:If Nikon try to push a measly 5 FPS rate out of their upcoming flagship body, then they deserve to be dumped by every pro shooter. 5 FPS for fast actions sports would be a farce, might as well shoot with a D70!

Alan, that is an odd comment, Canon only get 5fps out of their 1Ds Mk III, do they deserved to be dumped by every pro photographer? As I understand they use dual processors to achieve that. I would have thought they would leave the D3 as the sports body and the D3X as the studio or landscape body?

I'm almost of the opinion that we're a long way from the end of the Nikon model line here.

The D3 is the current flagship model, and we have the high probability of a D3x coming down the line, as a high resolution, 24MP FF camera intended for studio use. Yes, FPS may be slow-ish, but you don't often get F1 cars racing around inside a studio, do you? Its DX mode, if supported, is likely to be something similar in resolution to that of the D300.

The D3 of course sets new standards for speed and high ISO performance. Its DX mode may only be 5+MP, but that's better than a 25% improvement on the D2H, which is a very capable camera. The goal here, as with the D2H, is PJ and sports photography, where performance, rather than outright resolution, is the goal. Often, images will not be enlarged all that much, and thus ultimate resolution does not become an issue. That said, the pixels are very fat - they're luscious - and it's capable of helping one to produce some really very highly detailed images.

But given the nomenclature that Nikon have been using in the past for their flagship lines, there remains room for a D3H as well as a D3X, with the H designating even higher performance ....

DPreview Forum seems obsessed with gear. Having bought a D3 the very last thing I want to think about is a new camera, as this one is pretty bloody good.

IMHO Nikon already lag behind canon in the pro body field. They can't bring out a body that merely copies what is already on the market, it has to be cutting edge to bring back the professional shooters, also, they need to push their brand more. Canon have it over them in promotions, professional services and user opinions.

Sure the D3(x) has better ISO handling than the D2x(s) but, you cant sacrifice FPS just because the opposition has less, this body needs to have the high iso handling and fast FPS, 8 fps or better. Cropped back to DX, maybe upwards of 16 FPS.

Nikon cant bring out the D3x and not have it blow the Mark III out the water. There needs to be a reason for pro shooter to return to the light side, otherwise they will stay with Canon for another generation of bodies.

Raskill wrote:If Nikon try to push a measly 5 FPS rate out of their upcoming flagship body, then they deserve to be dumped by every pro shooter. 5 FPS for fast actions sports would be a farce, might as well shoot with a D70!

Sorry, but this kind of comment is rather pathetic and reflects a rather limited knowledge of market demands for different camera types.
Both Canon and Nikon have gone about producing two model streams for two different markets. They have created cameras for photojournalists and sports photographers (of which I am certain fewer than a half ever really rely on 9 fps performance anyway) and then they have higher resolution cameras aimed at the commercial photographers... most of whom I doubt ever use the motor drive at all (let alone the fact that most flash packs would never manage 9 fps).
Sure, I am looking forward to owning a 24 mp Nikon camera however I do not need one that shoots at 9 fps. I prefer my photos to be more considered than that. As a motor sport photographer, if you think you need a 24 mp camera to shoot at 9 fps then my guess is that you are have too much time on your hands to edit and process that much data (or you are having troubles getting a decent image quality out of the gear that you have for the moment).
Gone are the days when one camera like the F3 or F5 or the Canon EOS-1 represented the peak of performance from a camera. It is the sensor that defines the camera now and if you want high ISO / high FPS performance you use a lower pixel count while if you want a higher pixel count you have to sacrifice some of that performance. Canon can cope with the idea, Nikon can cope with that idea ..... so can I and most other serious DSLR shooters I know.

Raskill wrote:Sure the D3(x) has better ISO handling than the D2x(s) but, you cant sacrifice FPS just because the opposition has less, this body needs to have the high iso handling and fast FPS, 8 fps or better.

Alan,

The D3, in FX mode, shoots at 9fps. The D300 shoots at 8fps with the battery grip and AAs loaded. That seems to answer that objection of yours.

And the D3 is being acknowledged as having the best high ISO processing of any camera, from any manufacturer.

Period.

I'm not sure I understand your concerns.

Alan, I would probably agree to disagree with you there, I think 8fps is a big ask of a 24mp camera, by the fact Canon need dual processors to get 5fps on the 1Ds Mk III I am thinking a D3X would need quad or faster dual processors, probably not much point when I doubt too many sport guys wants files that size. More processors mean a bigger body as well. They would also need a Cray supercomputer in a laptop to process them! That was why many kept with the D2H/D2HS because of the small file size. I would have thought the 9fps of the D3 compares pretty favourably with Canon's 10fps.I just cant see sports guys being the target market for a D3X. I would agree with you about every other aspect of Canon's aftersales versus Nikon in Aus.

Raskill the word from the trade in Brisbane is that a significant amount of Canon gear is being traded in by the pros, so I find it hard to understand your statement that Nikon bodies are lagging well behind Canon.

If Nikon can produce a camera that focuses consistently, there are already streets ahead the Mark III bodies.

As a motor sport photographer, if you think you need a 24 mp camera to shoot at 9 fps then my guess is that you are have too much time on your hands to edit and process that much data (or you are having troubles getting a decent image quality out of the gear that you have for the moment)

No, not really. As a motorsport photographer I have not enough time on my hands and have very tight deadlines to get articles and images to the editor, often shorter than 1 hour following the conclusion of a race.

More pixels are better because current practices are to shoot wide and crop. Asking for a 24 mp at 9 fps (or there abouts) allows for this practice to be maintained. Personally I don't, I frame and shoot, so no problems getting decent images out of my 2004 D2h. But thanks for the insinuation anyway.

As far as people trading in their canon gear for nikon, I can only go on what I see trackside and in the media room, that being most, and I mean nearly ALL, pro shooters are using canon gear. Last major event I attended I counted 4 Nikon shooters out the entire media room. As far as I know, there is only 1 other D2h shooter on the V8 circuit, the other Nikon shooters typically use D2x(s). That being the pro body brought out for those studio types.

They have created cameras for photojournalists and sports photographers (of which I am certain fewer than a half ever really rely on 9 fps performance anyway)

I agree that you dont always shoot at 9FPS, just a sort 'blat' as the cars or bikes go by. That being said, when something happens, every shutter is firing at maximum FPS. The more the merrier.

I also feel that Canon recognises the marketing value of having it's products used by sports photographers at high profile events such as the olympics, f1 gp, Moto GP etc. Their white lenses are the best maketing tool ever. They are marketed directly at sports shooters to get maximum public exposure, not some guy trapped in a studio.

The D3, in FX mode, shoots at 9fps. The D300 shoots at 8fps with the battery grip and AAs loaded. That seems to answer that objection of yours.

At 5.3 megapixels, not much better than the D2h. Not a huge benefit in the image size or megapixels. I agree that the D300 is a very attractive proposition, but it is not a pro body, not weather proofed. It's got environmental seals on compartment doors, but not weatherproof. They are two significant points, so I feel my objection is valid.

(I also fail to understand why it's restricted to 6 FPS without the battery grip, I gather it's to do with battery life. This camera is on a very very short list of replacements for my current bodies.)

I'm still a nikon shooter and will continue to be, my comment was basically that instead of bringing out new products (and this is hypothetical still, based on something that none of us has actually seen, held or laid eyes on or even know exists), that Nikon really need to leap in front of Canon, and the D3 is the ideal place to start. Don't see why this appears to be such a heinous comment.

Its worth noting that a lot of shooters who contribute to Getty Images have been told that by some contractual agreement they are not allowed to be seen with Nikon cameras, even if it is their own gear!! I have friends who have gone out and bought the D3 and been told they are not allowed to use it! Thats the reason why we might see a lot of Canon gear about sports events for a while.

As for the shoot wide and crop theory .... sports photographers have been doing that for decades .... but I would challenge you to check out the quality of the D3 files in DX mode before begging Nikon for a 24mp in a 9fps camera. The Nikon D3 is being considered by all of those in the know to be one of the best DLSR cameras ever on a range of different counts. I am sure Canon will try work hard to beat it and Nikon will work hard to improve on it but for now it is an exceptional camera.

Raskill wrote:(I also fail to understand why it's restricted to 6 FPS without the battery grip, I gather it's to do with battery life.

You gather incorrectly.

It's to do with battery power. The EN-EL3e provides 7.4V or somesuch. 8 AAs offer 12V, which allows more things to happen more quickly.

The added life (2K frames per 8 battery set) comes as a bonus.

I understand from where you're coming wrt shooting wider and cropping, but with respect, that comes across to me as a bit of a cop out. You're saying that you're relying upon a more accidental type of image capturing scenario than a more professional "this is the image I want" situation.

I know you're better than that, and save the "oh shit, a crash just happened over there, but I'm looking over here; let me get the remnants of the wreck as the rest of it unfolds" situation, you should know, and plan for, the images that you're wanting.

The D300 is very nice, and won't disappoint. The D3 only improves upon the "won't disappoint" factor.

What sort of Canon bodies are you seeing? MkII or MkIII ?

Hey Raskill, my other half and I have just finished painting the inside of our house ... if you want I can send you through some white paint for your lenses so that you can look so conspicuous amongst all those other shooters!

I understand from where you're coming wrt shooting wider and cropping, but with respect, that comes across to me as a bit of a cop out. You're saying that you're relying upon a more accidental type of image capturing scenario than a more professional "this is the image I want" situation.

Can't help it, thats what they do. I've watched countless pros shoot that way, generally panning shots. I guess it keeps the car away from the sides of the image. I was surprised to see it being done like that also. I guess it's making the most of the tools you have, rather than being restricted by them. I only have the 4 megapixels of the D2h, so I frame and shoot, old school

You gather incorrectly.

Yeah, but I was pretty close.

No white paint paint needed for my lenses thanks Antsl, it would cover my Sigma branding!

gstark wrote:It's to do with battery power. The EN-EL3e provides 7.4V or somesuch. 8 AAs offer 12V

Make up your mind Gary. Is it to do with power or other? you cite power, then quote volts. Watts is power not Volts.
I can generate a lot more volts than that by rubbing my feet on the carpet, but I won't (at least I hope not!) generate enough power to get even 1fps

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:It's to do with battery power. The EN-EL3e provides 7.4V or somesuch. 8 AAs offer 12V

Make up your mind Gary. Is it to do with power or other? you cite power, then quote volts. Watts is power not Volts.

To the greater unwashed (within which I include myself) it's the same difference. Yes, call me imprecise, but I have, earlier today, used the term precision guesswork.

More to the point, Alan was asking about whether it was related to battery life, which it is not.

Clear as mud? I hope so.

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:It's to do with battery power. The EN-EL3e provides 7.4V or somesuch. 8 AAs offer 12V

Make up your mind Gary. Is it to do with power or other? you cite power, then quote volts. Watts is power not Volts.
I can generate a lot more volts than that by rubbing my feet on the carpet, but I won't (at least I hope not!) generate enough power to get even 1fps

1 foot per sec

Antsl wrote:Its worth noting that a lot of shooters who contribute to Getty Images have been told that by some contractual agreement they are not allowed to be seen with Nikon cameras, even if it is their own gear!! I have friends who have gone out and bought the D3 and been told they are not allowed to use it! Thats the reason why we might see a lot of Canon gear about sports events for a while.

I agree and confirm it!

Raskill wrote:Cropped back to DX, maybe upwards of 16 FPS.

Why not shoot with Sony's prosumer HD video camera, the SR12 which takes 10mp stills.

Oneputt wrote:Raskill the word from the trade in Brisbane is that a significant amount of Canon gear is being traded in by the pros, so I find it hard to understand your statement that Nikon bodies are lagging well behind Canon.

Yes, lots of people are buying (and looking) at the D300s and D3s.

I'm selling Canon stickers that can be placed over the Nikon logos on the D3

Bring on the D3x I say! This will hopefully push a lot of D3's onto the 2nd hand market, which will then be my time to swoop

I realise that shortly after introduction of the D3x the D3 will be considered unsuitable for taking images by many, but I can live with that...

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:Bring on the D3x I say! This will hopefully push a lot of D3's onto the 2nd hand market, which will then be my time to swoop

Bring it on. But I do agree that the D3x will probably be slower, but at 24MP, and retaining the high ISO performance of D3 then they are in business.

The switching seems to be happening at the amateur and the enthusiast level as well. I have noticed a lot of Canon shooters coming in and looking/buying the D300 and the Nikon pro glass. If you really feel like you attract too much attention with your black Nikon glass, then opt for the light grey (white) version of it, I would proudly stick out with black lenses

I don't see why people want such high FPS for D3x since there is the D3 already. Wouldn't the Nikon line just be like the Canon line where there is a sports and a studio camera?

aim54x wrote:

Steffen wrote:Bring on the D3x I say! This will hopefully push a lot of D3's onto the 2nd hand market, which will then be my time to swoop

retaining the high ISO performance of D3 then they are in business.

won't happen