Latest Nikon release rumours

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, Aug 19, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    From a poster on dpreview.

    Nikon will make an announcement on 8/23 1PM JST in Tokyo.

    Two new DSLRs.

    D3
    - FX format (Full frame) 12Mpixel CMOS made by Nikon
    - 9 fps in FF mode, 11 fps in HSC mode
    - HSC is done at 1.5 crop factor (meaning DX size)

    - ISO 200 - 6400 with LO (iso100 equiv), H1 and H2 (iso 12800/25600
    respectively)
    D300
    - DX format 12Mpixel CMOS (most likely same as D2X)
    - 6 fps and boost to 8 fps with power grip (no HSC mode)
    - ISO 200 - 3200 with LO (iso100 equiv), H1 (iso 6400)

    D3 and D300 share the same AF system. 51 AF points. 15 of them are
    cross sensor.
    Supports live view mode. Switch to contrast based AF in live view
    mode.

    Five new lenses.

    - AF-S 14-24/2.8 G
    - AF-S 24-70/2.8 G
    - AF-S VR 400/2.8 G
    - AF-S VR 500/4 G
    - AF-S VR 600/4 G
     
    RichA, Aug 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Father Kodak Guest

    Check out this one-month old web site:

    www.nikonwatch.com

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Aug 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Now I wonder where that date came from!?!? <vbg>
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 19, 2007
    #3
  4. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    LOL I want a D35jr

    :)
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 19, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Thom Hogans thoughts:
    http://bythom.com/2007comments.htm
     
    frederick, Aug 20, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I like the VR IV idea.
     
    RichA, Aug 20, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    What about ISO 50?

     
    Pete D, Aug 20, 2007
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    There is always neutral density filters.
     
    RichA, Aug 20, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Theres am alway neutrals densities philtre.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 20, 2007
    #9
  10. There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that is the
    case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer shutter
    speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and be
    counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100 anyway,
    it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be better to
    have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter [which
    also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 20, 2007
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
    extend shutter speed.
    In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
    more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
    quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
    there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
    more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
    be easier than using any filter.
     
    RichA, Aug 20, 2007
    #11
  12. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    I would give up the bullshit ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even give
    up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.
     
    Pete D, Aug 20, 2007
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
    who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
    venues because of the lighting.
     
    RichA, Aug 20, 2007
    #13
  14. RichA

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Actually -- I have one example where neutral density filters
    would work, and the camera (my D70) won't go to a low enough ISO to
    *allow* a properly exposed image. This is with the older version of the
    Medical Nikkor (200mm f:4 with close-up lenses and built-in ring flash).
    The closest shots, with the standard AC-powered flash power pack have
    too much light for anything above 25 ASA (this is an *old* lens --
    before they started calling the same system ISO). The slightly newer
    version with a flash power pack powered by twelve D cells, has a switch
    on the panel to drop the effective flash output by a factor of 4, so I
    can use that one with the minimum ISO 200 on the D70 without a neutral
    density filter.

    Of course -- the *ideal* neutral density filter for this would
    be one which fit *around* the actual lens, and dropped light from the
    flash ring instead, so the stack of "filters" (up to two close-up lenses
    expected in the design) would not be so extreme. And with the closest
    shots, the neutral density filter would have to be closer to the lens,
    because that close-up lens (the 2X from the set) has too much curvature
    to allow filter threads on the outboard end.
    Well ... there is the risk of overflowing the charge buckets
    with that much light, so there would be a lot of blown pixels.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Aug 21, 2007
    #14
  15. In larger sensor cameras, ISO 50 and the hypothetical 25 are meaningless.
    For them to be meaningful, each pixel would need twice or four times the
    charge storing capacity that's available in the current technology. In the
    Canon 5D, everything under ISO 400 is meaningless. But the meaninglessness
    of ISO 100 and 200 is due to the lack of bits (and perhaps excessive noise,
    but that can't be seen without the bits) in the AD converters.

    On the 5D, ISO 1600's real nice; 11x14s that look a lot nicer than 6x9s from
    35mm Tri-X.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 21, 2007
    #15
  16. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Just how many sports fotogs are they trying to support?
     
    Pete D, Aug 21, 2007
    #16
  17. I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
    ISO100.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 21, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Unknown.
     
    RichA, Aug 21, 2007
    #18
  19. RichA

    Pat Guest

    I've shot sports at ASA3200 with a 300mm f2.8 before. Sometimes
    that's just what you've got to do. One reason I switch to digital was
    that the film was getting increasing difficult to find

    Youth and high school football fields are pretty poorly lit around
    here. If you're not on the sidelines with a big flash, you need a
    big, fast lens. On the sidelines, sometimes I break out both EX580s
    and fire them both together to get some light on the field --
    especially if it's dusk. I'm thinking of making a new bracket to hold
    one flash above the camera and one below the camera to help illuminate
    inside the helmets when it's really dark.

    While some of you seldom shoot above ASA 200 or whatever, I seldom
    shoot below 400 because I shoot a lot of sports.
     
    Pat, Aug 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Whereas I rarely set my D200 below 400, and would really *love* to be
    able to use 3200, 6400, 12800.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 22, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.