All D3 Rumours in one place

[Grev]

Is anybody else excited about the nearly 1mp back-of-cam-LCD-monitor development?

[Heath Bennett]

Is anybody else excited about the nearly 1mp back-of-cam-LCD-monitor development?

Of course - gives you the feeling you're getting an Epson P2000 screen. Almost print res.

[gstark]

This is a double edged sword, I think.

On the one hand, it will be great for checking focus.

But what else will this be good for? Will we be able to calibrate it and use it to correctly and accurately judge wb, saturation and exposure? I hope so, but I've seen nothing said of this, and my gut feel is that these won't (yet) be facilities that will be available.

So ... while checking of focus, and at this resolution, is a great step forward .... I fear that this is more of a marketing tool than something that will be of immediate benefit to us.

[Reschsmooth]

...I fear that this is more of a marketing tool than something that will be of immediate benefit to us.

Cynic

Having read a few reviews and reports on the D300, it doesn't seem like a huge upgrade from the D200, particularly considering the D3 vs D2x/h comparison. Granted, I am not 100% what the 14 bit thing does (and this could be a big issue), but bigger LCD, more AF points, a couple of million more pixels and a better noise handling are not going to make me lose $1000 on the D200 I already have. (I still get some pretty good prints from my f90x!)

Upgrading to the D3, however, is a completely different story, one that I will try to avoid telling Mrs Reschsmooth about for a while.

[ATJ]

Having read a few reviews and reports on the D300, it doesn't seem like a huge upgrade from the D200, particularly considering the D3 vs D2x/h comparison. Granted, I am not 100% what the 14 bit thing does (and this could be a big issue), but bigger LCD, more AF points, a couple of million more pixels and a better noise handling are not going to make me lose $1000 on the D200 I already have. (I still get some pretty good prints from my f90x!)

Ah... but for those of us that don't yet have a D200 and were thinking of getting one, the extra features for not a lot more money may make the wait worth it.

I believe the 14 bit thing will allow for better dynamic range - something I have found lacking with me D70. It is frustrating taking a photograph of a black and white fish and having to choose between losing highlights or losing detail in the black.

[Reschsmooth]

Ah... but for those of us that don't yet have a D200 and were thinking of getting one, the extra features for not a lot more money may make the wait worth it.

I believe the 14 bit thing will allow for better dynamic range - something I have found lacking with me D70. It is frustrating taking a photograph of a black and white fish and having to choose between losing highlights or losing detail in the black.

I accept that - my cynical swipe was at those seeking to move from D200 to D300 for the purposes of upgraditis.

Nice change to your signature line as well.

[gstark]

...I fear that this is more of a marketing tool than something that will be of immediate benefit to us.

Cynic

Having read a few reviews and reports on the D300, it doesn't seem like a huge upgrade from the D200

Actually, and on paper, D200 -> D300 seems like a far more significant upgrade than did the D70 -> D200 upgrade.

On paper.

Having a D200 in your hands is an entirely different ballgame though, and changes one's perceptions.

Speed, AF points, the new processing engine, and particularly AF calibration I see as the big pluses. The live screen will be useful, and I do see some benefits in the hi-res playback.


FF in the D3 is something that will be very welcome, simply because ....

Ah... but for those of us that don't yet have a D200 and were thinking of getting one, the extra features for not a lot more money may make the wait worth it.

Exactly.

And to help confsue matters, the D200 will be continued alongside the D300, giving Nikon a very interesting DSLR product range. They're clearly aiming to cover the whole market place now with a model to fit every pocket, pulling in people from the PHD market, and locking in those who may wish to extend the interest further.

I see a further couple of D3 bodies coming out ... a higher res body for studio/wedding work, and perhaps one that's even faster than the D3, targeted at the press end of the food chain.

[losfp]

Actually I think there's a SIGNIFICANT upgrade going from the D200 to the D300.

- more resolution
- Bigger, sharper screen
- 51(!) AF points, better AF system by all reports
- More solid portrait grip
- scrolly pad thingie on the portrait grip - IMO very important!
- up to 8fps with the portrait grip and beefier batteries
- 100% viewfinder coverage
- Faster CF writing speed
- 14-bit NEFs
- Potentially better high ISO performance
- Reportedly double the battery life

Of course, if you already have a D200, it might not be worth selling and upgrading just yet.. However, if one were to hypothetically get a D300, and pass down one's D200 to one's wife to replace her D70s... then everyone might be happy.........

[olrac]

Much like losfp,

I will probably look to sell the d200 to my father inlaw who is constantly borrowing it anyway and get the d300.

[JordanP]

I see a further couple of D3 bodies coming out ... a higher res body for studio/wedding work, and perhaps one that's even faster than the D3, targeted at the press end of the food chain.

This is interesting and I wouldn't mind hearing more on your thoughts on this matter. My first impression is that the D3 was introducing a "one size fits all" mix in the market - thus the missing H or X. I take your point for studio (perhaps) and commercial markets but with wedding (and I'm just talking resolution) I am wondering if we need to print larger than the 12mp will comfortably go?

A shift from 12 to 20 wouldn't produce much more regarding print size but would certainly be more storage hungry. Would it reintroduce noise as an issue in high ISO regions? An issue debated with regard to the smaller censor Nikon has been using is that noise was inevitable as there were so many pixels being piled into such a small space. At what MP range does the FX censor get too crowded/noisey?

A faster one for press I'm not sure about. Granted I'm not in this demanding industry but I wonder what could be gained at higher speeds than 9 or 11 fps - aside from having the focus tracking right through the cycle. What would be fast enough? When does Hires video take over?

The D3 naming convention moves away from what we have seen in the D2 series (a D2x or a D2h but no D2) but then if we go back to the dawn of digital slr then there was a D1 before there was the D1x and D1h.

I'm keen to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,

[shutterbug]

Can't wait when my D3 arrives Will be a nice chrissy present.

[gstark]

Des,

I'm certainly impressed by the specs of both new bodies, and I think that my desire to have a FF DSLR is well known.

But let's look critically at this list of D300 improvements that you've drawn up ...

Actually I think there's a SIGNIFICANT upgrade going from the D200 to the D300.

- more resolution

Yes, but significantly so? Not really.

- Bigger, sharper screen

Yes, and as I've noted, this will be very useful for checking focus.

Will it be significantly better than the D200 in this task? I don;t know.

Will the new screen assist us greatly in assessing exposure, wb, etc?

Unless it's able to be calibrated, I don't see this.

- 51(!) AF points, better AF system by all reports

Yep!

- More solid portrait grip

At extra cost. Not actually a part of the body.

- scrolly pad thingie on the portrait grip - IMO very important!

Again, this is on the grip: extra cost, and not a part of the camera body per se.

- up to 8fps with the portrait grip and beefier batteries

See above.

- 100% viewfinder coverage
- Faster CF writing speed

- 14-bit NEFs
[/quote]

Definitely improvements, but mostly of benefit only in the marketingspeak sense.

- Potentially better high ISO performance

Has that been claimed of the D300? I know it has been of the D3, but that's a whiole different class of camera.

- Reportedly double the battery life

yes, an improvement. How much is it worth paying for, though?

Of course, if you already have a D200, it might not be worth selling and upgrading just yet.. However, if one were to hypothetically get a D300, and pass down one's D200 to one's wife to replace her D70s... then everyone might be happy.........

I agree that the D300 is a somewhat significant improvement over the D200, but I'm going to wait until I have a hands-on before I say whether I think it's a worthwhile upgrade from the D200.

As an upgrade from anything less than a D200 ... probably quite a worthwhile step though.

[losfp]

Gary, what I meant by "significant" referred to the package of upgrades as a whole, not that any one upgrade point warranted the description in its own right. I included the portrait grip improvements because I use the D200 with its grip anyway, and wouldn't not get the grip for the D300, if that makes sense.

I don't disagree that for the most part, the improvements are either incremental or unconfirmed in the real world, however if implemented correctly, it all adds up to a significant upgrade

As mentioned though, is it worth selling your D200 and buying a D300, particularly if you have only had the D200 for a few months? Probably not.

[PiroStitch]

I take your point for studio (perhaps) and commercial markets but with wedding (and I'm just talking resolution) I am wondering if we need to print larger than the 12mp will comfortably go?

With a 12Mp camera, you can comfortably print at 20" x 30". Usually that's enough to cover the majority of couples who want large prints. To go larger, I think it would still be fine taking into account that on a 6Mp camera, you print at 20" x 30" as well.

An issue debated with regard to the smaller censor Nikon has been using is that noise was inevitable as there were so many pixels being piled into such a small space. At what MP range does the FX censor get too crowded/noisey?

No idea about that but a valid point. Considering Canon's 1ds Mk III is 21.1Mp and still low noise at higher ISO, I don't see why Nikon couldn't figure it out since they finally released a camera with a larger sensor. Albeit, it has less Mp in terms of resolution but things can only improve.

A faster one for press I'm not sure about. Granted I'm not in this demanding industry but I wonder what could be gained at higher speeds than 9 or 11 fps - aside from having the focus tracking right through the cycle. What would be fast enough? When does Hires video take over?

that speed and faster would be useful for the sport and nature photographers. 11 fps is pretty quick but it's not constant 11 fps for all shooting/crop modes.

[Heath Bennett]

Wouldn't it be nice if you could plug in some kind of calibration tool for the monitor...

From what I'm expecting, the new screen will just be prettier to look at - which helps to show the model how things are looking and to put them at ease.

[gstark]

Hi Craig,

I see a further couple of D3 bodies coming out ... a higher res body for studio/wedding work, and perhaps one that's even faster than the D3, targeted at the press end of the food chain.

This is interesting and I wouldn't mind hearing more on your thoughts on this matter. My first impression is that the D3 was introducing a "one size fits all" mix in the market - thus the missing H or X.

I'm thinking they've gone the other way - more like when they originally brought out the D1. Thus at some point we'll see a studio model (x) and a high performance (h) model.

I take your point for studio (perhaps) and commercial markets but with wedding (and I'm just talking resolution) I am wondering if we need to print larger than the 12mp will comfortably go?

I believe so. These cameras are not cheap, and their prices wander into the territory enjoyed by MF cameras.

It used to be the case that there was no substitute for size, and thus LF was better than MF which in turn was better than 35mm.

Now, there are other technical benefits that will keep the LF flame burning for a few years yet, but what's the difference in size between, for instance, a D3, and a Bronnie?

Not a lot.

There's a huge difference in price, though, but the quality gap - for digital versions - is quickly disappearing.

For studio work, are you going to be wanting to use 21MP from a Canon, or maybe just a few more px from a Phase back?

I think that we're getting to a point where we're seeing lo cost, high quality px coming from cameras that traditionally have been seen to be inferior due to the medium in use.

Remember we're no longer talking about film grain, but pixels, so the playing field is being changed, and as I've just stated, the medium is less likely to be considered to be inferior.

A shift from 12 to 20 wouldn't produce much more regarding print size but would certainly be more storage hungry.

Depends upon ultimate print size. At the pointy end of the wedding and portrait type of market, big prints represent high value individual sales, and mounting, framing, etc are seen as adding value (and profits) to the product.

While I agree that, numerically, the improvement isn't that much of a difference, those numbers could be very useful in the hands of a skilled operator.

Would it reintroduce noise as an issue in high ISO regions?

That's a good question. My feeling is that for the studio camera, the answer would be "who cares?". The camera will be being used in controlled conditions, mostly at its base ISO, and thus this question is moot.

For the high performance camera ... this could become a critical issue.


[quote]A faster one for press I'm not sure about. Granted I'm not in this demanding industry but I wonder what could be gained at higher speeds than 9 or 11 fps - aside from having the focus tracking right through the cycle. What would be fast enough? When does Hires video take over?[quote]

The D3 has some compromises in its design, and slows down under certain shooting conditions and/or when set to certain modes. Are the design constraints imposed by the engineers specifying the camera, or are they restrictions imposed by the technical limitations of the hardware, as it's currently able to manifest itself?

I suspect the latter. This question I believe isn't one of where does HiRes video take over, but more along the lines of what are the limits of the technology and our (Nikon's) ability to utilise it, and how far can we extend it.

Cheers.

[gstark]

Heath,

Wouldn't it be nice if you could plug in some kind of calibration tool for the monitor...

I would like that ... or some way to do this internally. I expect that over time it will happen.

From what I'm expecting, the new screen will just be prettier to look at - which helps to show the model how things are looking and to put them at ease.

AFAIC, that's about it, really.

I suspect that it's going to acquire a stench of marketing, in a similar way that pixel counts do.

[chrisk]

assuming everything works the way they say it will i think its definately a significant improvement. what more could they have included to make it significant ?

[sirhc55]

After 50 years of photography under my belt I have read the past 18 pages and come to this conclusion, it’s all a load of bollocks

I have seen many people on this forum advance their photographic capabilities, not through having the best camera with all the bells and whistles but through having eye and finger coordination. I will name two who IMO have advanced their skills tremendously - Wendell and Alpha7 (Craig) - in both cases it is their eye(s) that have come to the forefront to produce memorable photographs.

Basically the camera has taken over from the car in the penis envy stakes

[Reschsmooth]

I am not suggesting that, based on my on-paper understanding of the D300 improvements, they are not significant, but for the D200 owner (who has somewhere between an 1-18 month investment in the body), the changes don't appear updrade worthy (specific examples of passing the D200 body to one's inferior relative aside )

more resolution
- Bigger, sharper screen
- 51(!) AF points, better AF system by all reports
- More solid portrait grip
- scrolly pad thingie on the portrait grip - IMO very important!
- up to 8fps with the portrait grip and beefier batteries
- 100% viewfinder coverage
- Faster CF writing speed
- 14-bit NEFs
- Potentially better high ISO performance
- Reportedly double the battery life

From MY perspective (as I can't speak for anyone else's), these improvements all seem nice, but I honestly don't believe I am taking inferior shots now because I have the D200.

A larger LCD is nice but not necessary.
11 AF points seem reasonable now - I don't feel I have missed the other 40 before.
8fps (with attachment) is ok, but for my needs (which don't include selling sports photography), don't make a huge difference.
Viewfinder coverage - one adapts to 95% (or whatever the D200 is).
Faster CF write speed - I haven't noticed the D200 being slow.
14bit NEFs - I don't understand this aspect.
ISO noise - if true, fair enough.
Battery life - for less than $150 or so, you can double your battery life by buying two more batteries (assuming you use 2 batteries in the grip).
The MB-D200 grip seems solid enough to me.

In the end, these are all relatively personal points of view, and I am not going to criticise anyone for upgrading from the D200 to the D300 - hey, good luck to them.

As I said, I am happy with the shots I am getting with the f90x - and that has no LCD, 48 hour CF write speed (film development), 0bit NEFs, etc Even my FE allows me to take pretty good photos, and that is very ergonomically inferior to the D200 (apart from being a lot easier to carry around).

[Killakoala]

[Thread Hijack]

Basically the camera has taken over from the car in the penis envy stakes

I've got two cars. What does that say about me Chris?



Then again, I've got two cameras as well.

[/Thread Hijack]

I agree though. The preceding 18 pages have been an interesting read.

As an upgrade to my D2H i think i will buy a D300. I wanted a FF camera but i will wait until the FF camera is at the same price point as the D300.

For me, the upgrade IS significant. (Or rather, the addition as i am reluctant to sell the D2H which i still like.)

[Heath Bennett]

I've gone from being caught up in the excitement to questioning why I need this. The camera I've got does all I need it to! I have just paid all my credit cards off! I could start investing again!

I expect to change my mind a few times on this topic though.

[Glen]

Basically the camera has taken over from the car in the penis envy stakes

I've got two cars. What does that say about me Chris?



Then again, I've got two cameras as well.

Steve, diphallia?

[gstark]

Glen,

That's really hitting below the belt.

[padey]

Basically the camera has taken over from the car in the penis envy stakes

I've got two cars. What does that say about me Chris?



Then again, I've got two cameras as well.

Steve, diphallia?

blahahahaha

Well with the 1Ds mark3, the 'Ds' and 'Mark III' nameplates are gold plated.

We are still awaiting Nikons response to this key feature. Nikon has obviously dropped the ball....

[sirhc55]

I've got two cars. What does that say about me Chris?

Did I not use the word bollocks as well

[Killakoala]

Basically the camera has taken over from the car in the penis envy stakes

I've got two cars. What does that say about me Chris?



Then again, I've got two cameras as well.

Steve, diphallia?

I had to Wiki that one

[gstark]

Steve, diphallia?

I had to Wiki that one

Too much information.

[Glen]

I had to Wiki that one

Once or twice?

[marc]

Basically the camera has taken over from the car in the penis envy stakes

Spoken by a true D2Hs owner.

[Jeko70]

blahahahaha

Well with the 1Ds mark3, the 'Ds' and 'Mark III' nameplates are gold plated.

We are still awaiting Nikons response to this key feature. Nikon has obviously dropped the ball....

I agree, but.....
.....I like the 1ds 21mp and the concept behind the camera (research, improvement, investment, quality, gold plated.....) but the major issue with the 21mp are the quality/performance of the lenses.
And imho and at to date Canon doesn't have any valid to push the 1Ds MKIII to the limit.
At least Nikon is more coherent with own philosophy...best camera, for the best price, for the best lens....
Thats why it's out with 5 new lenses.....



And I agree with sirhc55 too.
It's not the camera to make the difference between two or more photographers, but is the photographer to make the difference between two or more cameras.
My concept is: we can buy the fastest car, but if we are unable or we have the inability to drive it properly, it will be just an expensive toy to show at the kindergarten having the WoW effect......(in other word, useless)

[glamy]

A link to pictures, some from Canon, some from D3:
http://www.athle.com/asp.net/main.medias/medias.aspx?section=52
Cheers,
Gerard

[Jeko70]

A link to pictures, some from Canon, some from D3:
http://www.athle.com/asp.net/main.medias/medias.aspx?section=52
Cheers,
Gerard

Merci beaucoup.

[PiroStitch]

The canon pics were taken on a 20D. INteresting to see the D3 pics tho

[moz]

It's not the camera to make the difference between two or more photographers, but is the photographer to make the difference between two or more cameras.

Maybe I work in a different part of the system to some of you, but I'm used to the tools making a huge difference. Even with simple stuff - trying to cut straight with a blunt saw is extremely hard to do, but with a well-sharpened saw it's relatively easy. Likewise right up the scale, using a good quality version of the right tool makes the job significantly easier. It's why I get the local bike shop to assemble my bikes. Just because I built them doesn't mean I have all the specialised tools to put them together, and doing it without those tools ranges from tricky to nearly impossible. Since I only built one or two bikes a year it's not worth buying $5000 worth of tools to do something the shop charges $100 for. But I will be paying $3k or so for a TIG welder this year rather than buying a $300 one off eBay. Cheap tools just do not cut the mustard.

So blather on all you like about the camera not making the photographer, unless you're taking great shots with an Aldi camera I don't believe you.

[Jeko70]

It's not the camera to make the difference between two or more photographers, but is the photographer to make the difference between two or more cameras.

Maybe I work in a different part of the system to some of you, but I'm used to the tools making a huge difference. Even with simple stuff - trying to cut straight with a blunt saw is extremely hard to do, but with a well-sharpened saw it's relatively easy. Likewise right up the scale, using a good quality version of the right tool makes the job significantly easier. It's why I get the local bike shop to assemble my bikes. Just because I built them doesn't mean I have all the specialised tools to put them together, and doing it without those tools ranges from tricky to nearly impossible. Since I only built one or two bikes a year it's not worth buying $5000 worth of tools to do something the shop charges $100 for. But I will be paying $3k or so for a TIG welder this year rather than buying a $300 one off eBay. Cheap tools just do not cut the mustard.

So blather on all you like about the camera not making the photographer, unless you're taking great shots with an Aldi camera I don't believe you.

It makes sense, and maybe I'm not .

Too many people are thinking, around the world, that they can't take great pics because it's the camera to not take it....
But it's the photographer that has to observe the world through the viewfinder.

Ps: I saw pictures taken by Michael Coyne and Steve McCurry using a point a shoot..... And I compared the results with mine using a F100 and D2X......!


Do you think if I'll buy today a D3 o 1Ds I'll improve and so be part of Magnum?
Or do you think Leonardo has been so great just because he was painting or using colours?

[Killakoala]

It's not about a better camera making you a better photographer. It's about a better tool allowing you to do things that the lesser tool cannot do.

For me, a 12.1 MP D300 will allow me to capture more resolution, better tone and colour in my images than my current 4.1MP D2H.

I'm looking forward to exploring the possibilities of a new generation DSLR.

[glamy]

It's not the camera to make the difference between two or more photographers, but is the photographer to make the difference between two or more cameras.

Maybe I work in a different part of the system to some of you, but I'm used to the tools making a huge difference. Even with simple stuff - trying to cut straight with a blunt saw is extremely hard to do, but with a well-sharpened saw it's relatively easy. Likewise right up the scale, using a good quality version of the right tool makes the job significantly easier. It's why I get the local bike shop to assemble my bikes. Just because I built them doesn't mean I have all the specialised tools to put them together, and doing it without those tools ranges from tricky to nearly impossible. Since I only built one or two bikes a year it's not worth buying $5000 worth of tools to do something the shop charges $100 for. But I will be paying $3k or so for a TIG welder this year rather than buying a $300 one off eBay. Cheap tools just do not cut the mustard.

So blather on all you like about the camera not making the photographer, unless you're taking great shots with an Aldi camera I don't believe you.

My pictures did not improve the day I got the D2X

[Matt. K]

Very interesting thread and it's great to read everyones comments on this. I suspect that the cameras will be very well recieved because Nikon has a lot riding on these models...namely, their reputation. I am eagerly looking forward to seeing a full review.

[padey]

I can see slight improvements in my work with each generation of camera that i've upgraded. But more so with glass that i've upgraded.

It's not that the camera+glass make a photographer, just that it gives a greater opportunity to capture what a photographer wants to capture but couldn't capture with older generation DSLRs or slower or poorer quality glass.

I'm sure people picking up a D3 or D300 will have better quality high iso images and people with a D3 will get greater subject isolation at wider apertures due to a FF field of view. I can't think if a nikon DSLR that can do either of those.

[Nnnnsic]

I've been told I will be able to stick my CF card in the cameras so... hopefully there's no NDA...

[moz]

Do you think if I'll buy today a D3 o 1Ds I'll improve and so be part of Magnum?

If the camera is what's holding you back then definitely. If it's not, then it might help you by letting you do things that currently you struggle with. But if you're still wondering that all the other modes and controls on your camera do... perhaps not.

For me, low light focus is especially problematic. I get a bit frustrated at times when the 30D just won't hold focus in low light, and a better camera would definitely improve my photos in that situation. Even a Canon 1D would be better, although I wonder if that would just mean more noise... perhaps a 1DII or 1DIIN. But either way, better tool=better photos.

But sure, if your camera does what you're currently doing without problems, probably better to stick with what you've got.

FWIW, I think almost any of the great master painters would do significantly better given access to modern tools. In many cases, just having antibiotics would work wonders, but better paints would also help. Do you really think Ansell Adams would have taken the same photos with a 1DsII or H2 as he did with the plate cameras? Or that he would have taken so few photos of such a narrow range of landscapes?

[Mr Darcy]

Maybe I work in a different part of the system to some of you, but I'm used to the tools making a huge difference. Even with simple stuff - trying to cut straight with a blunt saw is extremely hard to do, but with a well-sharpened saw it's relatively easy. Likewise right up the scale, using a good quality version of the right tool makes the job significantly easier.

My take on this is that "a poor workman always blames his tools". But part of what makes a good workman good is that he chooses and uses good tools. So when he is forced to use poor tools, he knows what should be happening, and can compensate. However, the worker also needs the skill set and mindset to get the best out of those good tools.

IOW if a tradesman turns up armed with a "$50 special" circular saw rolling around in the back of his uste, get another tradesman. If he turns up with a Festo in its box and with the portable dust extractor, odds are he will do a good to great job, but check his work anyway. He may simply be a gear freak.
Similarly if the photographer for my daughter's wedding turns up sporting only a Kodak P&S, I will be looking for a new one pretty quickly. If she turns up with a couple of DSLRs, lenses & spare batteries, I will be reasonably confident the results will be OK. Perhaps not Cartier-Bresson standard, but I can live with that.

[Grev]

I see everytime there are new camera announcements, there will be these philosophical themes.

[Reschsmooth]

Even with simple stuff - trying to cut straight with a blunt saw is extremely hard to do, but with a well-sharpened saw it's relatively easy.

Agree with your sentiment (to a point) generally, but, to use your analogy, a well sharpened saw in the hands of someone with poor skills or attention to technique will only allow them to cut easily, but potentially in the wrong spot.

A lot of the comments I have read (not necessarily here) raise points that the new breed of cameras can achieve over the older cameras seem, to me, to be the 1%'ers that don't impact on most of your photography or paid work, like saying you can now shoot a bat in a dark cave at 1/200 at ISO 25600 where you couldn't before. That's all well and good, but if you are only going to try to shoot that bat once every 10,000 shots, does it really matter? (Obviously, for the Nat Geo photographer who may get paid $50,000 for that 1 shot, it may).

My bottom line point is that, yeah, these cameras are an improvement on the last model, but the need to upgrade one level at a time may not be there and may represent unnecessary monetary expense. Upgrading from a 4.1 mp model (which was, what, 4 generations ago?) is a different story for some.

All of that said, it shouldn't bother anyone if someone chooses to upgrade - good luck to them Peace be with you!

[ATJ]

A lot of the comments I have read (not necessarily here) raise points that the new breed of cameras can achieve over the older cameras seem, to me, to be the 1%'ers that don't impact on most of your photography or paid work, like saying you can now shoot a bat in a dark cave at 1/200 at ISO 25600 where you couldn't before. That's all well and good, but if you are only going to try to shoot that bat once every 10,000 shots, does it really matter? (Obviously, for the Nat Geo photographer who may get paid $50,000 for that 1 shot, it may).

I wonder how many bat shots Wayne has taken with his Canon gear which has better high ISO performance than any currently available Nikon gear.

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=24585

What about all the others that switched from Nikon to Canon for better high ISO performance? Are they all "1%'ers"?

I do think it is amusing that the "camera is just a tool" crowd all seem to have upgraded their cameras and have something somewhat better than a basic DSLR.

[Reschsmooth]

I wonder how many bat shots Wayne has taken with his Canon gear which has better high ISO performance than any currently available Nikon gear.

I have no idea, I haven't asked him

Is there a definition for "out-of-context"?

What about all the others that switched from Nikon to Canon for better high ISO performance? Are they all "1%'ers"?

Again, I don't know because I haven't asked everyone. I know hi-ISO shots (above 400) are less than 10% and probably less than 5% of my photos.

I do think it is amusing that the "camera is just a tool" crowd all seem to have upgraded their cameras and have something somewhat better than a basic DSLR.

I haven't upgraded - I have only had the one DSLR. In fact, I have "retro-graded" - every camera I have bought since the DSLR has been older than the one before it. (You did say "all").

If you are taking my comments you quoted as representative of the "camera is just a tool" crowd, I request my comments are taken in the context they were written in, which is clear to see in my posts on this thread.

If you aren't, then that is fine.

I am not going to begrudge anyone's decision to spend their money how they see fit.

[PiroStitch]

Maybe I should post my bat pics up?

Seriously though, the reason why I switched over to Canon was because I was constantly hitting the limits of the camera because of what I shoot. Working in low light and at high ISO (800+), I had to make the switch as at the the time, the whole D3 being released with lower noise, etc was just a rumour. I don't believe in rumours and I wasn't going to wait and bank my next move on a rumour. In short, I switched because I had no immediate options.

With all this tech talk about what's better and whether it's a significant improvement, it means nothing unless you are constantly hittting the camera's limits based on your subject matter. If you shoot weddings or performances where only using available light is preferred then you have your answer in terms of cameras to use.

If all you ever shoot is in studios or you can be a flash bunny or if you shoot in daylight, then the noise at high ISO is a moot debate.

If I could, I would be using both Nikon and Canon - Canon for low light and Nikon for everything else as they tend to build more ergonomically correct cameras. I don't have that much $$ and even if I did, I'd invest it more wisely than chasing the gear

[jamesw]

I do think it is amusing that the "camera is just a tool" crowd all seem to have upgraded their cameras and have something somewhat better than a basic DSLR.

ummmmmmmm....

i fear that we have now well and truely gone off topic. but...

as a member of the 'camera is jsut a tool' crowd, i'd like to perhaps defend this move... upgrading camera.

i think you will be hard pressed to find anyone on these forums who will argue that there is no need for upgrading your camera body, ever.

your camera is just a tool, and it's likely that upgrading your camera will rarely ever take a 'better' photo for you. but a camera upgrade will most likely make your shooting experience more pleasurable, or easier on you.

for instance:
- the improved ergonomics of my d200 make my life easier shooting. i dont have to spend as much time fiddling with menus to achieve the outcome i want.
- rather than having to mess around with tripods, the high iso performance of this new breed of cameras may enable me to take a night sshot with a hand hold-able shutter speed.
- the auto focus performance of my d200 is far better than my d70s. less manual focusing, more auto focusing, more keepers.
- battery grip battery grip battery grip battery grip. i love my battery grip. it makes my tool more versatile.


now there are plenty more valid reasons you could use for upgrading, while maintaining that a camera is strictly a tool. when presented with the option of upgrading (due to an insurance compensation claim) i chose to upgrade to the d200, strictly because of the ergonomics of the body.

[ATJ]

Maybe I need to come up with a better categorisation than the "camera is just a tool crowd" because people have misunderstood my point. Some posters in this thread have suggested that (some) people are only upgrading or thinking of upgrading to show off or to have the latest and greatest or some belief that the latest and greatest will make them a better photographer. It is those posters that I am referring to.

I know with certainty that a camera is just a tool and that is not the point I was arguing against, but as Moz has pointed out, any tool needs to be appropriate for the job. Sure you can take great pictures with a very basic DSLR and even a point and shoot, but you may not be able to take the sort of pictures you want to take. You may be constantly hitting limits as Wayne points out.

If you are unable to do what you want to do, or you can't do it well, why wouldn't you move to a tool that allows you to do it, or do it better? It doesn't matter if it is only one model upgrade or skipping a bunch of models, you should use a tool that is appropriate to the job.

Upgrading is a decision each and every person has to make based on their needs and wants. It is not up to other people to make the decision for them or criticise them for making the decision just because they are happy with their camera.