Latest Nikon release rumours

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

(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.)

 

-> 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.

-
-

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Focal length. I naturally frighten birds away and don't have the patience to
sit in a blind all day ;-)

 

-> 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.

-
-

 

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 :-(

 

Eeeks ... I see you said you were in the woods on a sunny day. I assume that
is where you lost two stops.

 

-> 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 :-(
-
-