[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Get a used D200 on the cheap. You are the master of deal finding, afterall. Otherwise, consider a used D80 on the dirt cheap. Unless you really need the weather sealing, and heavy ass magnesium body. The only thing I like better about the D200 is it meters a little better than the D80. But otherwise, I prefer the D80's smaller size and less weight. -Ed

Yeah, once I manage to get the drool off my face, I think I'll realize that the soon-to-be rock-bottom prices on D200's would be the smarter option.

I really do get the argument for the D80, in that it's very very close to the D200 in most respects. But the first time I held the D200, I knew it was something special. Perhaps I just have large hands, but it seemed to fit me and handle better than any other camera I tried (including the 5D). Of course the D80 seemed great compared to the K10D, but when I picked up that D200, it just clicked. It's probably a silly reason to spend a lot extra on a camera that wouldn't necessarily take better pictures (not to mention suck more battery and weight me down more when hiking).

Anyway used D200 + Tamron 17-50 F2.8 here I come sometime soon!

 

[SilverTrumpet999]

I don't regret buying the D200 at all - I wouldn't use Live LCD viewing, and rarely feel the need for additional AF points. I love the meter on my D200, and since I've put over 8000 exposures on it at this point I have no intent of trading it for a D300 - familiarity is often underappreciated.

As for the people wondering why the D3 would (and should) destroy the 21 Mpxl new Canon in noise performance (not necessarily other areas), think about where sensor noise comes from. Noise comes from crunching too many pixels into too small an area. Unfortunately, because each pixel is smaller, this also means each pixel has less photons available to activate it. To create the same brightness level, more amplification to the signal is required which creates more noise.

While I can't exactly afford it, the D3 will be a fantastic camera for handheld night work and low light sports, as well as everything else. In terms of noise performance, Canon does not have anything to compare to it right now. 12 Mpxl is more than enough to print huge (my D200 looks razor sharp at 16x20, and I have some 20x30 prints coming soon).

These resolutions are approaching or exceeding that of 35mm film, and some lenses don't have good enough performance to keep up - particularly away from the center or if your technique is slightly off, more resolution just exacerbates the flaws. I think Nikon went the right route with the D3.

 

[GlorytheWiz825]

Those cameras look incredible. The price tag on them is a little beyond my means.

 

[vibin247]

I like the D3 myself, and willing to spend the bucks to get one. But if I were on a budget, the D300 is the best choice. Heck, you can get two D200 bodies and vertical battery grips for less than a D2Xs body, so it'll most likely be the same with the D300 and D3. The new wide angle zooms look nice too. Better start saving...

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fureshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif wow! very impressive nikon! now i just have to wait a bit for the d200 to start coming down in price and in a few years i can consider getting a used one.

Hmm, hopefully the prices on the D200 will drop much sooner than a few years since that is quite a long while to wait! Prices on used D200 bodies seem to be around $1100 right now so if prices fall below $1000 used, I think I'll definitely be picking one up. I have a lot of manual focus AI/AIS lenses from my F2 so metering with these lenses would be a definite plus. The D300 is way out of my price range right now so the only decision I see that doesn't end up with the D200 is if D80 prices correspondingly drop or if the release of Canon's new 40D brings the 30D prices down to a little higher than the current 20D prices. Either way, its good to see Nikon finally giving Canon some competition. While I like Canon, they've had the majority market share for far too long these days. At every major event I go to, I see nothing but white lenses and red rings so hopefully Nikon will be able to gain some ground back with these two DSLRs.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverTrumpet999 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for the people wondering why the D3 would (and should) destroy the 21 Mpxl new Canon in noise performance (not necessarily other areas), think about where sensor noise comes from. Noise comes from crunching too many pixels into too small an area. Unfortunately, because each pixel is smaller, this also means each pixel has less photons available to activate it. To create the same brightness level, more amplification to the signal is required which creates more noise.

That's an over generalization. You want to tell me that Canon's 5 year old 12MP FF (1Ds) has way less noise then their more current 17MP 1Ds mkII? Canon has been pushing pixel densities while still retaining the same S/N performance of having larger pixels. Sensors are effectively improving in sensitivity on the pixel level. Dynamic range of the digital camera hasn't really changed much because camera makers have been focusing on shrinking pixels for now. However, I do hope that Canon stops at 21 MP and then focuses on increasing overall dynamic range instead. They'll then whip Nikon's butt if they can get a camera that actually takes 16 stops worth of data (not the 11 that most all dSLRs take).

The only spec that concerns me about these new Nikons are the real ISO: 200-3200.....boosts to 25600

Common, we know that given Nikon's ISO record, 25600 is going to be unusable (lets just hope that they can produce good ISO 1600 and 3200). Instead of focusing on such high ISOs, I don't understand why Nikon doesn't have a native ISO 100......I use ISO 100 way more times then ISO 1600. It's also an indicator to me that their dynamic range is limited (100 would be the absolute minimum I'd want to have the largest dynamic range).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because ISO-200 is actually the "base" number, and ISO-100 is pushed (as is ISO-50). I almost never shoot at ISO-100 anymore as I find ISO-200 to be the sharpest.

For Nikons that's true.....but Canon's native ISO has been 100 for quite some time. I wonder if your sharpness issue is due to diffusion from the lens (which smaller sensors have greater diffusion).

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2/

 

[nogrot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only spec that concerns me about these new Nikons are the real ISO: 200-3200.....boosts to 25600 Common, we know that given Nikon's ISO record, 25600 is going to be unusable (lets just hope that they can produce good ISO 1600 and 3200). Instead of focusing on such high ISOs, I don't understand why Nikon doesn't have a native ISO 100......I use ISO 100 way more times then ISO 1600. It's also an indicator to me that their dynamic range is limited (100 would be the absolute minimum I'd want to have the largest dynamic range).

I was sorta put off by the base iso as well, since the D2 bodies all had iso 100. My first DSLR was the D70, which starts at iso 200, and when I got my D2x, I liked the addition of iso 100, though i really doubt it makes a huge difference. I'm not a landscape guy though, so I'm sure that makes a difference.

I'm certain that Nikon will not release a new flagship that has poor dynamic range though, so I'm not really worried about that. My only problem now is finding a way to raise $5k for myself for Christmas.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nogrot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm certain that Nikon will not release a new flagship that has poor dynamic range though, so I'm not really worried about that. My only problem now is finding a way to raise $5k for myself for Christmas.

I dunno.....dSLRs have been up to 11 eV for quite some time. Lab tests of current production cameras indicate that the Fuji S5 has the highest DR at close to 12 eV. At least images I've seen of 14bpc cameras don't seem to have improved DR. Seems like the extra bits may just be good for less PP (Canon terms it Highlight tone priority).

I'm thinking I won't ever upgrade my 5D until there are real improvements in DR, or it breaks down....whatever comes first

 

[Edwood]

If the D300 was Full frame, I'd seriously consider getting it.

The D3 is just too much of a camera for me. (sizewize, mainly)

-Ed

 

[Eagle_Driver]

The new D3 actually has both full-frame and DX cropped-frame modes on its sensor. This allows you to use regular AF/AF-D/AF-S Nikkor lenses in full-frame mode, as well as the DX-format lenses (designed for other Nikon DSLRs) in cropped-frame mode. The cropped-frame mode will reduce maximum resolution to 5 megapixels (well, the APS-C size is only about 40 percent as large as a full 35mm film frame in square millimetres - duh!).

And the D3 has not just one, but two CF memory card slots (in contrast to the Canon 1D/1Ds Mk III having one CF memory card slot and one SD memory card slot).

 

[Isao]

Oh good... I can upgrade from my D50 soon.
I was thinking D80 a few months ago... now maybe the D200 will be within my reach.

Do you think the retail prices for the D80 and D200 will drop when the new bodies are released?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isao /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you think the retail prices for the D80 and D200 will drop when the new bodies are released?

Certainly, but if not, the street prices most definitely will.

 

[kugino]

i've been looking for a reason to upgrade from my trusty d70...and there's a d200 somewhere out there with my name on it...hopefully sooner rather than later, though!