Latest Nikon release rumours

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

  1. You're the perfect candidate for the Mk III and six Nikkor to EOS adapter
    rings. The old Mk III has been hovering in the ISO 800-1600 range since I
    got it.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 22, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    And most of the time, my D70 is set to "auto-ISO", so I have to
    look at the EXIF data to see what I actually used. I do a lot of
    available light shots, and taking time to determine what ISO is best can
    often lose me what I want to capture.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Aug 23, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    george Guest

    I, too, would find ISO 25 & 50 very useful. For me, 25-800 would be about
    ideal...in 30+ years of having SLRs, I've never had need to use ISO
    1600-6400, but would welcome not needing a bunch of ND filters to tame the
    light.
     
    george, Aug 23, 2007
    #23
  4. I think the Nikon D3 is right up there above the Mk III as it will use the
    Nikkor lenses natively and is probably cheaper than the Canon body.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 23, 2007
    #24
  5. List price seems to be $5000 for the D3, which means, short of a
    lottery win, not my problem.

    But the low-light performance may well be superb; the pixel pitch is
    certainly generous.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 23, 2007
    #25
  6. (DoN. Nichols) wrote in
    I do use the auto ISO setting on the D200 some, but turns out I change
    position a fair amount which changes what minimum shutter speed I can
    tolerate, so I end up running exposure and ISO mostly manually.
    (Bracing against a door frame is often better than resting my hands on
    a chair back, for example.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 23, 2007
    #26
  7. RichA

    crownfield 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.
    ->
    -
    -I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
    -ISO100.

    in a studio with strobes, right. available light is different.

    so you are unlikely to shoot moving children in dimmer light.

    either less than bright light
    or fast action are not of interest to you.

    -
    -
     
    crownfield, Aug 23, 2007
    #27
  8. Yep. Here's what it will look like at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600.

    Note that only at 25,600 is the noise really out of control.

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

    (Do I need to rub it in that (a) Canon users have had this for two years
    already and that (b) Canon users get it for less than 1/2 the price?)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 23, 2007
    #28
  9. So with the benefit of an extra two years development in sensors, signal
    capture, and processing, it's likely that Nikon will provide a more usable
    high-ISO than Canon.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 24, 2007
    #29
  10. I shoot mostly outdoors. I do do candid shots of friends and family or some
    indoor events, but mostly, I survive on ISO400 or better with use of my
    SB-600. As I move towards bird shots, I may revise my opinion on this a
    little, but currently, the best I can do is use an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with a
    1.4x teleconverter, which isn't really sufficient for most birds.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 24, 2007
    #30
  11. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Because the focal length is too short? If it's because the flash
    isn't powerful enough at your bird distances, check out the Better
    Beamer.

    http://www.naturephotographers.net/tdg0502-1.html
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
     
    ASAAR, Aug 24, 2007
    #31
  12. Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 24, 2007
    #32
  13. RichA

    crownfield Guest

    -> In article <3yByi.1078$>, veldy71
    -> @yahoo.com says...
    -> -> 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.
    -> ->
    -> -
    -> -I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
    -> -ISO100.
    ->
    -> in a studio with strobes, right. available light is different.
    ->
    -> so you are unlikely to shoot moving children in dimmer light.
    ->
    -> either less than bright light
    -> or fast action are not of interest to you.
    -
    -I shoot mostly outdoors. I do do candid shots of friends and family or some
    -indoor events, but mostly, I survive on ISO400 or better with use of my
    -SB-600. As I move towards bird shots, I may revise my opinion on this a
    -little, but currently, the best I can do is use an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with a
    -1.4x teleconverter, which isn't really sufficient for most birds.

    apparently I often work at much lower light levels than you. 400 is
    pretty good, if you can. at lower levels, i would rather use higher iso,
    more noise, and get more natural lighting.

    that said, the d2 and the sb 800 together are nothing short of amazing.
    last night, at a stage performance, (iso 800) I was set to 1/80 sec.
    I ended up with 2 pix within a second, both properly exposed by the
    flash fill, using hi speed auto. so fast it is uncanny.

    you got me curious.
    in the woods iso 100 / f2.8 gave 1/60, on a sunny day.
    that would mean no real motion, tripod required.
    at 200 mm, 60 would be about 1/4 of th minimum for hand held.
    and that bars any subject action.

    what part of the world is home to you?
    I am in MA.

    -
    -
     
    crownfield, Aug 24, 2007
    #33
  14. Hmm ... isn't "sunny 16" going to be 1/100 at ISO100 at f/16 on a bright sunny
    day? So, with the 1.5x crop, you can expect about 1/60. Now, f/2.8 is five
    stops brighter than f/16. 1.5/100/5 ~= 1/250 or 1/500. Consider it is
    probably not quite full sun and 1/250 is a more conservative result. Where do
    you get 1/60?
    I live in a suburb of Minneaoplis, MN. No, I haven't gone down to take any
    pictures of the bridge :-(
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 24, 2007
    #34
  15. Eeeks ... I see you said you were in the woods on a sunny day. I assume that
    is where you lost two stops.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 24, 2007
    #35
  16. RichA

    crownfield Guest

    -> you got me curious.
    -> in the woods iso 100 / f2.8 gave 1/60, on a sunny day.
    -> that would mean no real motion, tripod required.
    -> at 200 mm, 60 would be about 1/4 of th minimum for hand held.
    -> and that bars any subject action.
    ->
    -
    -Hmm ... isn't "sunny 16" going to be 1/100 at ISO100 at f/16 on a bright sunny
    -day? So, with the 1.5x crop, you can expect about 1/60. Now, f/2.8 is five
    -stops brighter than f/16. 1.5/100/5 ~= 1/250 or 1/500. Consider it is
    -probably not quite full sun and 1/250 is a more conservative result. Where do
    -you get 1/60?

    measurement.
    "in the woods iso 100 / f2.8 gave 1/60, on a sunny day."
    literally. (shade)

    more interesting lighting.
    sunlight is very harsh and usually not well controlled.


    -
    -> what part of the world is home to you?
    -> I am in MA.
    ->
    -
    -I live in a suburb of Minneaoplis, MN. No, I haven't gone down to take any
    -pictures of the bridge :-(
    -
    -
     
    crownfield, Aug 25, 2007
    #36
    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.