Nikon D2x(s) Owners Are Kicking And Screaming!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 6, 2007.

  1. It doesn't compare, the D3 is marketed to PJ & Sports photographers, which
    is same market as the 1Dmk3 not the S. Nikon has yet to release a high end
    studio camera.
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Douglas Guest

    Of course a $7k camera is not in the same market segment as a $12k one so
    how could it compare?
    It does have some remarkably good features that may tempt people to make
    such a comparison but seriously, it may be an exceptional first effort at a
    FF camera but it's not, in any way shape or form able to produce images of
    the same quality as the big Canon - or a Medium format digital.

    I suspect it will blow away 5D performance and build quality and produce a
    lot of thought in Pros who are fed up with Canon stuff. The D3 is the first
    camera I have ever ordered before considering comparative reviews and what
    people like Mick have to say about it. I can only hope mine (when it
    arrives) is equal to (or close to) the Fujifilm s5 Pro's dynamic range I
    have come to like.

    Douglas, Dec 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Well it does kinda compare if you want to look at the best each
    company has to offer.... or if the local Nikon troll makes claims
    referring to the two.

    What I don't get is the "studio" camera term?? Is high resolution the
    domain of studio photographers only? Is it wrong to use high res at a
    sporting event?

    There are plenty of sports togs that shoot high res, just look at F1
    where 1DsMkII are common place.
    PixelPix, Dec 10, 2007
  4. Actually they are using the 1DmkII not the 1DsMkII, the big difference is
    the file handling and speed.

    I have never seen any pro shooter using the S version on any of the
    sidelines I have been to. (I'm not saying that none have BTW)

    1DMkII = 8.5 fps < faster frame rate better for sport
    1DsMkII = 4 fps

    1DMkII = ~8Mp < smaller file sizes for transmitting
    1DsMkII = ~16Mp

    Believe it or not, sports PJ's and other PJ's prefer the smaller size,
    mainly due to the time it would take to upload images to the wire services.
    The bigger file sizes would kill them. Also there is no need for the bigger
    files for use in most media, like papers etc.

    I probably shouldn't have used the term "studio", I meant more for studio,
    wedding, commercial etc etc.

    And hey, while I am a Nikon user, I would love to have one of those bad boys
    (the S model) to use for my weddings, they give out an exceptional image
    quality. (though the D3 is looking good enough)

    Mick Brown

    Just a note, the 1DsMkIII has now been boosted up to 10fps, but I would
    doubt that any PJ's would want to fork out the extra cash for it as they
    would still have to resize the images down to transmit, they will still go
    for the non S version (once the AF probs are fixed)
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2007
  5. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    I understand all that, but not all sports shooters are under the pump
    of the wire and I would suggest that you have another look at the F1
    circuit. Even at our own V8 Supercars 1DsMkII are common.
    it's 5 fps.
    PixelPix, Dec 10, 2007
  6. OOPS So it is.

    I will have to wait until next year to see the 1DSMk3 or 2's, I must say
    that surprises me seeing that they are so slow in the fps.
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2007
  7. You're not telling me you are getting sucked into that slick advertising
    campaign and numbers game race known as the megapixal wars?

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 10, 2007
  8. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Well 5 aint slow in the old measure, but by today's standards I guess

    You gotta remember that it's pulling 21mp of data off the sucker
    PixelPix, Dec 10, 2007
  9. We've been down this road. In an earlier post I did say that the comparison
    is apples to oranges. Had the D3 sported a 20+ MP sensor the 1Ds Mk III
    would have its tail between its legs like a scalded dog limping home. As it
    stands, the D3's image and build quality are leaps ahead and you or anyone
    else can't deny that. Of course, no 1D s Mk III owner will admit that since
    they are still trying to tell themselves they got "a lot more" for that
    extra $3,000.
    Well, the 1Ds Mk III is a slug and moves like one. You're not going to race
    a slug against a hare, are you? Maybe you would use a turtle?
    Yes, taking pics of tires stacked in the pit area. God forbid if one of the
    pit crew rolled one out to the car.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 10, 2007
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    In an earlier post you also said that "The D3 Seals The 1Ds Mk III's
    Fate!" So it's ok to put apples and oranges together when it suits
    the purposes of your pathetic trolling, but not when it actually comes
    down to the real McCoy.

    ....and then you have resort to comparisons with non-existent
    cameras!! God you are getting more pathetic with every post!!
    Actually people can make up their own mind.... keep posting your links
    & claims, as they will only help display how much of a troll you
    really are.
    Funny, but it only takes one frame to get "the" shot and many of the
    good togs don't need to go blazing away at 10fps... or even 5fps for
    that matter.
    Time for you to go back under the bridge....
    PixelPix, Dec 10, 2007

  11. I just spoke to a fellow sports shooter in the US, he told me that there are
    indeed a few SI shooters that use the S version, so there you go I stand
    corrected :).

    Gees the last SI shooters I stood next to were using the non S model, tricky

    Mick B
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2007
  12. Not really! One group was shooting for the cover, the other for half
    page or less in SI. :)
    John McWilliams, Dec 11, 2007
  13. I dunno about that "of course" statement. Many prepared to spend $7K for
    a body might well go the additional $5K. Probably not you or me, or Alan
    Browne, or ..... but to me, they *are* in the same market. Mileage
    varies, of course.
    John McWilliams, Dec 11, 2007
  14. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    John Sheehy Guest

    There's nothing wrong with the MP war, except that it's moving too slow,
    and that the manufacturers gauge the amount of NR that should be
    standard for their images based upon the fact that an optically naive
    public is going to look at the images either at 100% pixel view, or with
    a resizing algorithm that does not properly weight the original pixels
    (like Photoshop's pathetic on-screen resizing - some of the worst
    resizing you'll see anywhere, for $600 no less).

    If the MP war is a farce, for the sake of argument, then having 22 MP in
    a full frame should mean a tremendous loss of quantum efficiency, and
    more read noise, but the fact is, the 1Dsmk3 collects almost as many
    photons at RAW saturation as the D3 does, and has pixel read noise that
    is about the same as the D3 at ISO 100 (and almost every high-end DSLR
    these days has almost *exactly* the same relative pixel read noise and
    pixel DR at ISO 100 or base ISO), and slightly higher at high ISO, but
    not high enough that the 1Dsmk3 doesn't weigh in with less *image* read
    noise (the one that really matters) at ISO 1600 and above, due to the
    extra pixels.

    It matters not a whit that some of the lenses used are soft in the
    corners, the fact is that over-sampling an image means finer noise that
    is more easily removed or ignored, being in a shifted frequency spectrum
    from the signal, and finer bayer artifacts. An added plus is that if
    you *do* use a lens that isn't soft, then you can resolve it better.

    The idealized "big pixel" is a big lie. It's an illusion, just as the
    flat earth used to be an illusion. Get up in a space shuttle and see
    the big picture.

    John Sheehy, Mar 1, 2008
  15. This would drastically affect the 18-month rule to be revised to 12-months.
    Some of the camera buying public had a hard time accepting the 18-month
    rule. What makes you thing they will embrace a 12-month rule?
    So you are telling us that Roger Clark's math and theories about pixel
    density is all wrong?
    Well, I have always subscribed to using better glass so this really isn't an
    issue, other than to eliminate it from the equation. We all already
    accepted the fact that the dSLR body is a throwaway item.
    Yes, the D3 makes some really sweet images. Well, so does the Mk III when
    used with Nikkors.

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 1, 2008
  16. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    fac Guest

    Sad to say but my old Nikon 990 in the hands of someone with talent will
    create better images than a D3 or a MKIII in the hands of just about
    everyone writing or reading these postings.
    The best photos of the past, the ones that will be remembered, were made
    with truly bad gear.
    The vast majority of the images created today with the technically best gear
    are truly bad.
    fac, Mar 1, 2008
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    John Sheehy Guest

    Everyone already knows that hardware IQ alone does not make for a great
    photograph alone. Now, put different cameras in the same person's hands

    John Sheehy, Mar 1, 2008
  18. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Pudentame Guest

    There is no "bad" gear ... only photographers who don't know how to get
    the best out of the gear they have.
    Pudentame, Mar 1, 2008
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Pete D Guest

    No, No, No, must have better gear because I must have newer, later, faster,
    huger, more, bing, bing, bing,
    No, No, No, must have better gear because I must have newer, later, faster,
    huger, more, bing, bing, bing,
    No, No, No, must have better gear because I must have newer, later, faster,
    huger, more, bing, bing, bing,
    No, No, No, must have better gear because I must have newer, later, faster,
    huger, more, bing, bing, bing,
    No, No, No, must have better gear because I must have newer, later, faster,
    huger, more, bing, bing, bing,
    No, No, No, must have better gear because I must have newer, later, faster,
    huger, more, bing, bing, bing,

    Bit of a broken record isn't it? My 3 year old 6MP D-SLR takes excellent
    photos as long as I manage to point it in the right direction.
    Pete D, Mar 1, 2008
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Jeff R. Guest

    Stupid observation.
    Of course there is "bad" gear.
    Some camera / lens designs are appalling!
    Case in point: I once owned a Casio P&S. (POS, actually) A fresh set of
    top-quality alkaline cells would last for about 20-25 shots at best. How
    the heck is the photographer to blame for this design flaw? I lost a couple
    of good opportunities before I ditched this lemon.

    ....and what about when the "best" a camera can do is just not good enough?

    The quality and design of the gear counts. Of course it does. There'd be
    no market for good gear otherwise (even allowing for the hype-driven "boy's

    There's nothing wrong with a craftsman blaming poor tools - so long as he
    has the sense to ditch them afterwards.
    The only blame comes if he tries to continue to lay golden eggs with a rusty
    old goose.
    Jeff R., Mar 1, 2008
    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.