DSLRUsers.com

Hey ...

Well i must say i am miffed 'again' at Nikon with that D700 release after i paid $7,000 less than 8 months ago for my D3........and now with Canons 5DMII i am feeling nervous and have that twitchy feeling again....all the prosumer DSLRs that Nikon are releasing says to me YET again that they are going to drag the guts out of the D3 and not give Pro DSLR users a new model for sometime....wake up Nikon...the tables have shifted again....lets not get too smug!

Dan

Dan, try Vanbar, they already have the D3X listed!

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=34037&p=368222&hilit=vanbar#p368222



http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/inde ... m3=DIGITAL

maybe the 5D II will the AF problems of the 1D III?

I can see where your coming from Dan, the EOS 50D and the EOS 5D II sure do look good and I guess it was only a matter of time before the tables turned back. I am with you, I hope that Nikon does not get complacent and continues to produce the goods to keep in front of Canon.

The D90/D300 has forced Canon to bring out the EOS 50D six months early (traditional 18 month cycle on the EOS XXD series) so maybe Canon is feeling a little threatened. It could have been the case that the 5D II (being so overdue) went back into development to counter the D3/D300/D700.

AND yes, I feel a little annoyed that the D700 came out and is currently unjustifiable due to my relatively new D300.

aim54x wrote:maybe the 5D II will the AF problems of the 1D III?

We should be so lucky

The AF problems in the 5D/5DII are all about the tiny cluster of focus points in the middle of a really big frame, and how the outer ones are not cross-type and don't benefit much from fast lenses.

With the 1DIII it's all about Rob Galbraith not knowing how to do a reproducable test and report the results. Or perhaps just communicate the test setup... it's significant that in order to see the problem Canon had to actually visit Rob, rather than just duplicating the tests he wrote up. Sure, there are problems, but there are also expectations that are not ever going to be satisfied - some people demand that 100% of the shots be within 1/3 DoF of the selected focus point, regardless of conditions (or published specs). In an indoor velodrome with uneven lighting I was getting >80% in focus at 10fps, and at least half the duds were me not holding on target.

I'm just hanging out for the Nikon pro camera with the 25MP Sony sensor in it so we can see what the sensor is actually capable of.

Dan - what's wrong with your D3?
If you don't want it, I'll PM you my address

With the greatest of respect Dan but have you gone stark bollocking mad!! Are you trying to tell me that your curve of experience and excellent photographic results are purely from a piece of metal, plastic and electronics + lenses. . . There is an old adage that says “It’s not what you’ve got but how you use it”. A true professional has the eye to produce beautiful images, the camera is an extension of the eye and your eye has grown exponentailly in the past year.

Extremely well said Chris!

moz wrote:With the 1DIII it's all about Rob Galbraith not knowing how to do a reproducable test and report the results. Or perhaps just communicate the test setup... it's significant that in order to see the problem Canon had to actually visit Rob, rather than just duplicating the tests he wrote up. Sure, there are problems, but there are also expectations that are not ever going to be satisfied - some people demand that 100% of the shots be within 1/3 DoF of the selected focus point, regardless of conditions (or published specs). In an indoor velodrome with uneven lighting I was getting >80% in focus at 10fps, and at least half the duds were me not holding on target.

Since when did it becomes a customer's responsibility to do the manufacturer's testing for them? It is bad enough that we get that sort of arrogance from software companies (e.g. Microsoft or Adobe) but for a hardware manufacturer to produce a faulty piece of kit and then expect one of their customers to do all the hard work for them is plain ridiculous.

There are loads of people that went from a 1DII to a 1DIII and got worse results - significantly fewer in focus shots. I can't see why people shouldn't expect a supposedly more advanced camera (costing a lot more) to at least produce as good results as its predecessor.

aim54x wrote:The D90/D300 has forced Canon to bring out the EOS 50D six months early (traditional 18 month cycle on the EOS XXD series) so maybe Canon is feeling a little threatened. It could have been the case that the 5D II (being so overdue) went back into development to counter the D3/D300/D700.

FWIW, Canon did have new full-frame cameras ready to go at the end of 2007, but they quietly disappeared and yes it does seem a reasonable assumption that this was because the D3/D300 had changed the market.
As for the D90/D300 forcing Canon to bring the 50D forward, I doubt it's that simple. There's more competition than just Nikon, and my expectation is that product cycles are accellerating across the board.

moz wrote:The AF problems in the 5D/5DII are all about the tiny cluster of focus points in the middle of a really big frame, and how the outer ones are not cross-type and don't benefit much from fast lenses.

What "AF problems in the 5D/5DII"???
If you peruse forums like DPR you'll certainly hear lots of people saying the 5DmkII AF is crap because it's "just the old 5D AF". Sure, I wish the AF had a wider spread of points (although it's only a slightly smaller pattern than say a D700) and having more "cross-type" sensors than just the centre point (and some of the AF-assist points active in AI Servo mode) would be nice, but I must say I'm not aware of any faults with the 5D AF. It might not be the automatically-fix-everything system that some people wish it to be, but that's not the same thing as it having "problems". It's a tool like any other, and you need to learn how to use it.

With things like the mirror blackout time on the 5D/5DmkII (145ms) it's not quite an action camera in the same way as the 50D/1D* bodies (the 40D/50D is 100ms, the 1-series are <90ms, the old 10D was 150ms). Keep in mind that the system can only AF while the mirror is down. When you hear people say it's not a sports camera, they're not kidding. That doesn't mean it can't take sports photos, but it does mean that it's not designed for the job in the same way as a 1D is. Incidentally, while the 5DmkII AF is the same basic design as the mkI AF, it is not exactly the same. The components are later revisions, the firmware is presumably tweaked slightly, etc. Whether that results in subtly "better" behaviour remains to be seen.
I maintain that there are more complaints about the 5D AF system on the 'net than there are problems.



Meanwhile, back to Dan's complaint:

Cre8tivepixels wrote:Well i must say i am miffed 'again' at Nikon with that D700 release after i paid $7,000 less than 8 months ago for my D3.

I did a double-take when I read this: it's now almost 3 months after the introduction of the D700, which was more than 10 months after the introduction of the D3. Was it not obvious to you by early this year that Nikon would probably move this technology into a lower-end model soon? Sure, they did it sooner than I expected (I had expected something for Photokina) and included more features than I expected, but we knew SOMETHING was coming. Spending $7,000 on a D3 had a "risk" that you should have been aware of.
It's not just Nikon: I'm sure some people who bought 1DsIII's recently are feeling miffed that the 5DmkII has such a similar sensor. The similarity between the D700 and the D3 is much closer, but they're still different cameras.
Why don't we hear so much about people spending $35,000+ on cars and having the resale value drop as soon as they leave the showroom floor? Computers are also worth a lot less as soon as you buy them.

It's important to realise that just because a new model has come out (for less money or not) it does not make your current camera any less of a camera than it was before. You paid "X" for the camera, so continue to get your money's worth!
I spent $6,000 in 2000 on a DSLR (a 3Mp D30) and after a year or so there was something along with twice the pixels. But I continued to use the D30, and it provided me with images that still sell today!

all the prosumer DSLRs that Nikon are releasing says to me YET again that they are going to drag the guts out of the D3 and not give Pro DSLR users a new model for sometime

Really? All the market activity (e.g. the 5DmkII, the A900) says to me that Nikon is likely to bring out something like a "D3x" sooner rather than later. As I said above, I think product cycles are accellerating across the board. They may slow down in a while, but I think there's a little bit to go before that.

canon and nikon will always outdo eachother and not necessarily within days of each release. if you're gonna look for the latest and greatest release constantly then you'll be switching every year. doesnt really make alot of sense to me.

not to mention the fact that i for one hope they dont release anything else until then update a few more primes.

Buy the camera you need from the models currently on the market. Enjoy it's superior features and quality compared to your old one until it no longer works, or features you need become available on a new upgraded model.

Apart from the crazies on dpreview, who gives a rats if Nikon and Canon are "keeping up" with each other's future models?

Internet-fuelled buyer remorse. You bought a camera, not a company...

Michael

photohiker wrote:You bought a camera, not a company...

You mean for five thousand dollars all I get is a camera?

Ripp Doff

Dan,

What, specifically, are the problems you are seeing with your D3, and why are those issues suddenly manifesting themselves today?

In what way would your purchase of a D700 address those issues?

In what way would your purchase of an unannounced, unavailable, possible future camera with unknown specifications address those issues?

And that you paid PP7K for a D3, when they're selling through the forum's resources for PP5.5K, is entirely a choice that you made. It's a choice that we all make, knowing that it doesn't matter two hoots what we buy or when we buy it, but it will, at some point, be replaced with something that is better, faster, cheaper, and more feature-rich. That's how things are, and you just have to deal with it.

Please read DaveB's message several times: he makes a number of excellent points.

And this is a prime example of why you spend on lenses and not chasing the bodies.

PiroStitch wrote:And this is a prime example of why you spend on lenses and not chasing the bodies.

This with!! That is why I am building the lens kit and worrying about the bodies as I need to. My D300 will be as good as it was 9 months ago, 3yrs into the future. It will be the competition that has gotten better.

And this is the eternal issue I am having to deal with ATM.

The D200 is good - but the temptation of a D700 + 14-24 is very high...... Sell the D200, sell the DX glass I have and buy more new stuff.....

I would probably just buy a 70-200VR - but again - don't need it now really (have 80-200 f2.8 AF-D) + upgrade rumours.....

Maybe I should just buy the popular Nikkor 200 f4 Macro lens and use that.

But then I don't use the gear that often, due to study commitments on top of work.

who wrote:And this is the eternal issue I am having to deal with ATM.

The D200 is good - but the temptation of a D700 + 14-24 is very high...... Sell the D200, sell the DX glass I have and buy more new stuff.....

I would probably just buy a 70-200VR - but again - don't need it now really (have 80-200 f2.8 AF-D) + upgrade rumours.....

Maybe I should just buy the popular Nikkor 200 f4 Macro lens and use that.

But then I don't use the gear that often, due to study commitments on top of work.

EASY! hold off buying until the next generation, in the mean time buy FX glass when you do feel the need to purchase new glass. Your right, you dont need the 70-200VR if you already have the 80-200 f/2.8 (people are saying that this is better on the FX anyway). The Micro-Nikkor 200 f/4......*dreams* I have never come across one, so I guess i am unaware of what I am missing out on, I am pretty happy with the Siggy 180mm, but if you are looking to buy a long macro, or any macro have a read of this:

http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html
Interesting read, suprising results! Too bad the Micro-Nikkors weren't tested!

aim54x wrote:EASY! hold off buying until the next generation,

Of course, at that time, there will be more and better featured cameras due in the next generation, so you may as well hold off again.

And again ...

AFAIC, the only way to deal with this is to decide what you want and just go and buy, content in the knowledge that it's already obsolete, but still both vary capable, and eminently serviceable.

Chasing the very latest technology is a no-win situation; don't even bother.

how about enjoy and appreciate what you have? Enjoy life and keep on shooting.

My issue with Nikon's product intro strategy is slightly different from Dan's... agree that Nikon needs to bring out new, better models at smaller & smaller intervals, but to me it's all about transparency [excuse the pun].

In terms of digital bodies, I have owned a D70, D200 and D300. I bought in the D300 6 months ago, and would have preferred the D3, but couldn't justify it price-wise. However, I have to say, had I known the D700 was coming out, I would definitely have waited for that as my FX, and have picked up a D90 as a back-up DX body. I realise that there are commercial considerations for Nikon in terms of keeping things quiet, but know of several other people in the same situation - so I question the way they are balancing commercial secrecy with the need to give current customers some idea of their future product paths.

-F

I wish someone told me it's my D200 that is taking crap photos, and not me!

With all due respect, Ashley, whilst you are saying you would have bought the D90 AND a D700, my guess would be that companies like Nikon assume that, if you had known about the D700 months before its release, you would not have bought the D300 or any other camera at that time, meaning a deferral of a sale. I would bet that Nikon will have many more sales of D300s & D700s compared to just D700s alone, given a pre-announcement.

Cre8tivepixels wrote:Hey ...

Well i must say i am miffed 'again' at Nikon with that D700 release after i paid $7,000 less than 8 months ago for my D3........and now with Canons 5DMII i am feeling nervous and have that twitchy feeling again....all the prosumer DSLRs that Nikon are releasing says to me YET again that they are going to drag the guts out of the D3 and not give Pro DSLR users a new model for sometime....wake up Nikon...the tables have shifted again....lets not get too smug!

Dan

I’m sure Nikon will release there hi-MP full frame soon enough, and I bet it will perfectly complement your D3. Personally from what I've seen on the net, the Sony a900 sensor needs some work if Nikon were to use it.

feldy wrote:My issue with Nikon's product intro strategy is slightly different from Dan's... agree that Nikon needs to bring out new, better models at smaller & smaller intervals, but to me it's all about transparency [excuse the pun].

In terms of digital bodies, I have owned a D70, D200 and D300. I bought in the D300 6 months ago, and would have preferred the D3, but couldn't justify it price-wise. However, I have to say, had I known the D700 was coming out, I would definitely have waited for that as my FX, and have picked up a D90 as a back-up DX body. I realise that there are commercial considerations for Nikon in terms of keeping things quiet, but know of several other people in the same situation - so I question the way they are balancing commercial secrecy with the need to give current customers some idea of their future product paths.

-F

that is not a nikon monopoly, (40d ---> 50d)...nor is it a commerical monopoly. that kind of strategy has been around ever since ther was a way to make a quid. not only has it been around but its clealry the only possible way a company can make money, be competitive and be flexible enough to innovate.

i wonder...is the problem with the companies or is it with us as consumers who ONLY want the latest and greatest and have a serious case of upgrade-itis ASWELL as anything-thats-old-is-shitis. if you ask me, nikon, (and canon), would be stupid not to ride this frenzied wave and take us all to the cleaners. lol

You;re right Rooz; Pat, not sure about your logic though - in either case i'll now be waiting for a 24 MP FX, but now I've paid Nikon approx $2.5K for D300 body vs approx $5K [$3.5 for D700 + $1.5 for D90] - pretty much double their revenue, and a happier customer.

That is right, hold off buying as you already have a really good camera, no need to upgrade with the cycle and be wise with what you buy now in the interim. My D300 will last me another 3-4 years before I start looking, and by that time hopefully i will have the 14-24, 70-200VR and the 85fmm f/1.4 (AF-S fingers crossed). Who knows what will be out when I am looking next, all I know is that I'll be going FX and probably at the D700 level, and if there is a Fuji alternative (S6/S7 Pro) then I would consider that as well.

Upgrade to medium format...then you can start whining about how quick the digi backs get upgraded...or how many houses you need to own/sell

I think it's good that they bring out new models sooner, might be a way to deter people that buy cameras and think they're pros. And the mindset of people needs to change, digital cameras =/= long term investment, it depreciates like a car nowadays.

Grev - you seem to have missed the point - I would have happily paid twice as much - what I'm talking about is transparency, and giving users enough information that they can make an informed decision about their upgrade path.

I guess none of the camera companies are doing that really, Canon don't do that either. Try and tell the 1ds3 users about the 5d2, they'd be angry as well, although the time is a bit longer than what Nikon did. This behaviour has been adapted by Nikon for ages I thought. Release higher end models then trickle the features to lower end models.

I really think they should make their own sensors so they're not dictated by what Sony does.

since cameras have become very advanced within the last 10yrs as they have transitioned into the computer realm, isn't it expected that our computers with lenses are going to follow the technology rule of being obsolete as soon as its released? i thought it was a given.

feldy wrote:Grev - you seem to have missed the point - I would have happily paid twice as much - what I'm talking about is transparency, and giving users enough information that they can make an informed decision about their upgrade path.

While that is a noble cause, the problem with unreleased products - of any kind - is that they're unreleased. Frequently products that have been announced never make it to production, or are significantly delayed, and that would probably piss us off just as much.

As unpalatable as it may be to us, from the manufacturers' PoV, it's probably best that they don't announce product until they can see its clear path to production. I don't know that if that may have been evident to Nikon 12 months ago WRT the D700, and it's somewhat surprising to me that they've announced, separately but over a relatively short space of time, the D700, the D90, and then the new 50mm.

And my play with the D700 and the 45PC was most enjoyable yesterday afternoon.

No doubt there are many interests/hobbies for which this is also true, but photography would
appear to me to be one of the most extreme money pits imaginable. The combination of
exponential improvements in technology and features, and the keen competition among the
big camera manufacturers creates am almost irresistible urge to buy new/more stuff. "If only
I had a (insert new model here), I could really take some decent photographs." "I could get
this shot if only I had a (insert nifty lens, tripod, flash, etc here)"

Don't get me wrong, I am as obsessed as everyone else (currently, I am lusting the D700 and
looking at my beloved D200 with scorn).

At least those of you who shoot professionally have cash flow and taxation benefits to soften
the blow (and justify buying more stuff), for the amateurs among us, if we ever stopped to
actually think about what we are spending, we could well require medication (or more
medication as applicable)

Ashley, what I was saying is that I expect Nikon would assume that, with the knowledge of a soon to be released camera (based on a 3-6-9? month pre-release), the average punter would defer purchase of any camera. Whilst your actions may differ as you indicated, consider the person who was about to buy a D300, then Nikon announce, in Jan 08, the release of the D700 for Jul/Aug 08, then, just as they are about to purchase the D700, Nikon announce the DX00 for release 6 months in the future which has additional features. Given the number of people who ask "should I buy this currently available bit of hardware or should I wait 6+ months for a yet-to-be released camera?"

Secondly, if Nikon announced the D700 6 months before release, this would give Canon opportunity to try to bring forward the release of the 5DII.

Reschsmooth wrote:Secondly, if Nikon announced the D700 6 months before release, this would give Canon opportunity to try to bring forward the release of the 5DII.

I think this is an important aspect. I think the D90 is a seminal model, just as Canon's 300D and A1, and Nikon's D100 and D3 were. When a new standard is set ....

D100 > D200 > D300

D1 > D2 > D3

D700 > D???

The D700 really is the oddball in the Nikon progression.

There will probably not be a D4 series as the pronunciation of 4 in Japanese is the same as death. The same with 9 as this, when pronounced, sounds the same as agony or torture.

But, 7 is a holy number in Japanese. A rebirth, the beginning of a new era and hence the D700.

sirhc55 wrote:But, 7 is a holy number in Japanese. A rebirth, the beginning of a new era and hence the D700.

lol the thing i love about this chris is that the d700 was a rebirth for nikon. an answer to a few years of getting bashed by canon. but its so easy to forget that canon had this type of camera almost 3 years prior with no answer.

Rooz wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:But, 7 is a holy number in Japanese. A rebirth, the beginning of a new era and hence the D700.

lol the thing i love about this chris is that the d700 was a rebirth for nikon. an answer to a few years of getting bashed by canon. but its so easy to forget that canon had this type of camera almost 3 years prior with no answer.

The Russians were first into space but where are they now

sirhc55 wrote:There will probably not be a D4 series as the pronunciation of 4 in Japanese is the same as death. The same with 9 as this, when pronounced, sounds the same as agony or torture.

Not sure about that Chris - Nikon doesn't seem to be affected by tetraphobia as other organisations. Nikon has released the F4, the coolpix P4 and coolpix S4. It seems only the other camera companies will skip the number 4 (Canon skipping with the G series going from G3 to G5 (they also skipped 6 for some reason, going to G7) and Fuji going from S3 Pro to S5 Pro)


Anyway Dan, you might want to check back in early November for something official - perhaps earlier from leaks.

sirhc55 wrote: A rebirth, the beginning of a new era and hence the D700.

Really, I think the rebirth was with the release of the D3. After 4+ years of FF denial.
Thanks be to <diety> that they finally came in from the desert.

The D700 is a progression.

Michael

I hope that MX format they're bringing out is as good as it saids and don't forget the 35mm high resolution body too.

And oh, BETTER primes, geez. Really liking the bokeh on this Canon lens, the 200mm f1.8: http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages ... G_0470.jpg

While that is a noble cause, the problem with unreleased products - of any kind - is that they're unreleased. Frequently products that have been announced never make it to production, or are significantly delayed, and that would probably piss us off just as much.

- Gary, agree absolutely with this - what I'm talking about is being clearer on product streams, for those who want to plan their upgrade path.

sirhc55 captured this perfectly with:

D100 > D200 > D300

D1 > D2 > D3

D700 > D???

- which is something you and I had joked about a couple of weeks ago ["the next model being the D145.9", or similar ]

Actually, the people I feel sorriest for are those who shelved out around 6K for the D3, and then see their investment completely eroded, with a $3.5K model with almost parity performance!

-F

feldy wrote:

While that is a noble cause, the problem with unreleased products - of any kind - is that they're unreleased. Frequently products that have been announced never make it to production, or are significantly delayed, and that would probably piss us off just as much.

- Gary, agree absolutely with this - what I'm talking about is being clearer on product streams, for those who want to plan their upgrade path.

Ok, but the question I have is whether there was ever any doubt that Nikon would have produced a more compact FX body? To my mind, the D700 was inevitable. The only two things that were not clear were its initial model designation, and the timing.

The timing was sooner than I expected, probably by 8-12 months. The model name is irrelevant.

sirhc55 captured this perfectly with:

D100 > D200 > D300

D1 > D2 > D3

D700 > D???

- which is something you and I had joked about a couple of weeks ago ["the next model being the D145.9", or similar ]

But Chris has omitted an important model here.

He should have said D70 > D700, and if you look at these two models, you see the first stage in Nikon's "consumerisation" of their best technology.

I guess that means that I am almost expecting a D400 FX body, but with a pentamirror, AFS glass capabilities only, full video, lightweight d40 sized body, and PP999 entry point. PMA would be too soon; pre-Christmas 2009?

Actually, the people I feel sorriest for are those who shelved out around 6K for the D3, and then see their investment completely eroded, with a $3.5K model with almost parity performance!

There's still a number of areas where the D3 excels over the D700. None of those are relevant to me, but for a working pro, they could be significant. Those who have purchased the D3 for the right reasons should never be suffering buyer's remorse.

The Russians are the ones who will be supplying the space station when the shuttle is retired as they are doing now. They may not have got to the moon but they launch more vehicles and hold all the records for time in space- some times simple things work well and you do not always need a hollywood production about everything you do.

I find it amusing how Dan started the thread, let it spread like fire and hasn't said anything in it since his first post

Having said that, I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion heh!

for those of you that are interested. From NikonRumors who have been right on the money lately. i think this MX may be the real deal. i like where Nikon is headed here. bigger sensor for the bigger MP models. so maybe a 21mp for FX but the 30+ MP stuff for a much larger sensor to retain noise performance.

http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/26/nikon-mx-picture.aspx



i wonder if this was why they held out on some of their primes ? or if MX will have a new lineup of lens' as previously rumored ? Gary mentioned above the potential for a $999 FX camera "soon". while that may sound a farrrrrrrr away deal. consider where we have come to up to this point and potentially an MX format coming...interesting times indeed.