Nikon D3 - the real thing...

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mark.thomas.7, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. 12Mp Full Frame ("of course they won't ever do it..."), 8.45 µm
    pixels, 51pt AF, 9fps with AF tracking, 3.0" 922K (!) LCD monitor with
    Live View, even a levelling function...

    Noice. Will the reality meet the specs?

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp
     
    mark.thomas.7, Aug 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I guess Canon might be worried now they are no longer the only "full frame"
    player!
     
    Adrian Boliston, Aug 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. mark.thomas.7

    Paul Furman Guest

    Their summary is good for a quick overview of the 2 bodies & several
    lenses: http://www1.nikonusa.com/announcement/index.html

    Note that almost the only difference between D300 & D3 is sensor dust
    thingy versus longer shutter life, and of course sensor size.
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 23, 2007
    #3
  4. mark.thomas.7

    Gary Seven Guest

    wrote:
    : 12Mp Full Frame ("of course they won't ever do it..."), 8.45 µm
    : pixels, 51pt AF, 9fps with AF tracking, 3.0" 922K (!) LCD
    : monitor with Live View, even a levelling function...
    :
    : Noice. Will the reality meet the specs?
    :
    : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp

    Geez, FF for "only" $5000, more or less. :-( I'm STILL waiting for either
    Canon or Nikon (or anyone else for that matter) to release a FF DSLR body
    for under $1500 U.S. Guess I'll have to keep waiting. <sigh>

    G7
     
    Gary Seven, Aug 23, 2007
    #4
  5. 12Mp full frame is really really ho-hum ... unless, of course,
    Nikon makes only crappy lenses that can do no better (not!).

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Aug 23, 2007
    #5
  6. mark.thomas.7

    acl Guest


    Actually, most lenses I've tried on my D200 soon run into trouble,
    especially in the corners (and they're not zooms). Either CA, or they
    get unsharp etc. CA, especially, is very visible. Of course it depends
    on how critical you are.

    Since this pixel size corresponds to around 22mp for full frame, I'm
    very curious to see what people will get on their canon 1ds.

    I guess Nikon worked this out for themselves and decided to put
    software CA removal in the D300 :)
     
    acl, Aug 23, 2007
    #6
  7. I think 12MP is an excellent compromise, and should make for excellent
    noise performance.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 23, 2007
    #7
  8. Hmm ... doesn't the Canon 5D have 12MP? You can pay a lot more to get 21MP on
    Canon if you want, but I know that wouldn't be me ;-) I won't be paying $5000
    for the D3 either? Maybe the D400 will end up in my hands.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 23, 2007
    #8
  9. I am no expert on CA, but I have only really noticed it to be lens related and
    not so much sensor related. I have noticed CA from a given lens on both my
    D70 and D200. The 18-200 is notorious for some CA at certain focal lengths,
    but it has proven easy to fix in camera RAW (Adobe Lightroom).
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 23, 2007
    #9
  10. mark.thomas.7

    frederick Guest

    I gather that the 12mp Nikon design (made by ?) sensor is "stage 1".
    The D300 sensor is Sony design - presumably to be used in the Sony
    "advanced amateur" camera coming soon, then later an 18mp or so "Pro"
    model from Sony. I guess that 18mp sensor will find it's way to a
    second Nikon full frame body at about the same time. It wouldn't
    surprise me in Nikon and Sony struck a deal on this - Nikon
    release/announce the D300 sensor first, Sony announce the 18mp ff sensor
    first.
     
    frederick, Aug 23, 2007
    #10
  11. What makes you think that the D300 has a Sony made sensor? I haven't found
    any reference that indicates that this is true. It was true for the D40,
    D40x, D50, D70, D70s, D100, D200 and it wasn't true for the D2x or D2xs. I
    suspect Sony is NOT making the sensor for the D3 or D300. I don't recall if
    the D2H used a Sony sensor or not.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 23, 2007
    #11
  12. mark.thomas.7

    Paul Furman Guest

    Sensors can exaggerate some lenses CA. That must have to do with the
    angle of the light delivered by that design, especially noticeable in
    the corners of FF sensors.
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 23, 2007
    #12
  13. mark.thomas.7

    frederick Guest

    Here's the Sony sensor:
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082012sony12mpcmos.asp
    But specs are slightly different from D300, so perhaps the Sony camera
    and D300 won't have the same sensor.
    Rob Galbraith states (about the D300):
    "Plus it can shoot at up to 6 fps (or up to 8 fps with the optional
    Multi-Power Battery Pack MB-D10 attached), has a 45ms shutter lag,
    contains a larger, 100% coverage viewfinder than the D200, uses a
    Sony-made, self-cleaning, DX-size sensor that delivers 12.21 million
    pixel photos, has an ISO range of 200-3200 (plus 100 and 6400) and has a
    full-featured Commander Mode for controlling and triggering flashes in a
    Nikon iTTL wireless setup"
     
    frederick, Aug 23, 2007
    #13
  14. Indeed ... that is good evidence of a Sony made sensor. My attempts at
    searching that page for the word "Sony" result in nothing, so I am rather
    surprised. Hmm ... must have been some sort of user error on my part.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 23, 2007
    #14
  15. Another source is IR. If a sensor is fairly IR-sensitive, you are more
    likely to get the "purple fringing" that is so typical of CA.

    I suspect that this is the case the CA in this example:
    http://hannemyr.com/photo/defects.html#ca
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 23, 2007
    #15
  16. mark.thomas.7

    acl Guest

    Yes, but if your pixels are 9 microns it'll be less visible than if
    your pixels are 6 microns...
     
    acl, Aug 23, 2007
    #16
  17. mark.thomas.7

    acl Guest

    Oops, I just noticed that you said you have both a d70 and a d200. Do
    you find the difference in visibility of CA between the two
    noticeable? I am asking because I've tried my lenses on a film body (I
    don't have a Nikon mount film camera, so I just did it out of
    curiosity), and the CA was much less annoying on film. So I assumed it
    was merely because you can easily zoom in, plus no noise at all
    (compared to the ektachrome I used). Maybe my assumption was wrong and
    it has something to do with digital sensors?
     
    acl, Aug 24, 2007
    #17
    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.