We'll admit, we certainly like where all this is going, but until we hear anything official, you'll still have to restrain yourself and take this tidbit with a spoon of NaCl. Just days after getting wind of
D3 rumors galore, a "photo editor at a major newspaper" has tipped us on a phone call he received from
Nikon in which his presence was requested at a meeting where a "new professional camera that is leaps and bounds better than anything
Canon is offering" would be showcased. As expected, that's about all the details he could pry from the caller, but since the meeting is purportedly scheduled for June 26th, at least we've got some sort of timeframe to get our hopes up about.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Lee Roy Brandon III @ Jun 13th 2007 2:56PM
Could this be related to Microsoft's new photo format? I've heard that some current digital cameras aren't supported by Vista's new HD Photo format...
paloooz @ Jun 13th 2007 4:51PM
What? No.
No one cares about MS's photo format.
ineedtigetpissed @ Jun 15th 2007 12:07AM
Lmao? HD photo format? Anyone who thinks high definition photos is something special in photography and new - they are a noob and need to learn more about it.
Dustin @ Jun 13th 2007 3:03PM
I think it's at the point that Nikon pretty much has to introduce a new pro-level camera. The D2X was introduced in 2004 with a D70s-esque refresh a year ago. Pros will be chomping at the bit to see a new Nikon - especially with the crop-sensor gauntlet being thrown down by Canon recently.
However, D3 rumors and speculation have floated around ever since the D2 series cameras were released. I just hope whatever it is, it's full frame.
mrhammerstein @ Jun 13th 2007 3:20PM
this all means i can't afford it. i'm sure it'll be pretty, though. it must be full frame to even be considered for me in my rich future.
Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 3:28PM
Oh my god... the horror of cropped-sensors. I love my 20D, but it turns really nice 28mm lenses into crap-tastic normal lenses. In this day and age NOTHING involving camera sensors should be cropped.
Please Nikon, release at least ONE full frame shooter. Please?
Unmai @ Jun 13th 2007 3:46PM
Full frame + Live image ?
mm @ Jun 13th 2007 3:53PM
Let Nikon come out with a new camera so a month later Canon can come out with their new 1Ds Mark III and be miles of the competition again.
Grapefruiitx1 @ Jun 13th 2007 3:57PM
From what I have seen, image quality wise, the big sensor Canons are a class apart, Nikon need to address this or forget the pro market, The D3? and D300? need to be very good cameras, plus the pro/high end, lens range needs some work, Sony will be over the shoulder soon too,
Pat McKinley @ Jun 13th 2007 4:56PM
A spoon of salt? Personally I prefer a spoonful of sugar, but you can take that with a grain of salt...
Chas @ Jun 13th 2007 5:07PM
All you you clamoring for a full frame sensor are missing some key issues. The technology in photo-sensors is accelerating at a near Mores-law pace. There is no need to make the sensor bigger if the technology allows it to get smaller. All of the new Nikon DX lenses are off the charts, and in my opinion better than anything on the market. For one, the size is incredibly compact. Check the 17-55 2.8 or even the 18-200mm!! These lenses would be pounds heavier if the glass had to support a full frame sensor. No need. Make the smaller sensor 20 mega-pixels, and leave it small to cut out the vignetting and outer lens distortions. I love the smaller sensor and I love Nikons lenses. Thats my professional opinion. -Chas of chaselliott.com
Grapefruiitx1 @ Jun 13th 2007 7:17PM
I think Nikon have done just enough to support there APS sensor, but not with quite the industry of Olympus or Sigma and not enough to convince that they think it will be around in there next generation of pro equipment. After comparing my D200 with A D5, I was sold on big sensor, I think this rumor is on the money. Great website and photographs Chas.
mjt @ Jun 15th 2007 1:28PM
> There is no need to make the sensor bigger
if you're like me, who owns a boat-load of Nikkor pro lenses, then you'll want a FF body to exploit the real value of those lenses. (i have no DX lenses).
> All of the new Nikon DX lenses are off the charts,
> my opinion better than anything on the market.
not better than the pro-Nikkors i use: 17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR, and a multitude of prime lenses.
Nikon has shut me out with their non-FF digital bodies (i have the D80/D200/D2x/Fuji S5) ... if you do not understand what is being missed by using non-DX glass on a non-FF body, then i suggest some research is in order.
i've solved the problem with respect to "waiting on Nikon" (for a FF pro body) by adding a Mamiya MF to my gaggle of gear.
regards, michael
Chas @ Jun 15th 2007 2:45PM
You missed my point. All of those lenses work great on my d200/d2x and I use them frequently. But like I said, the DX lenses I have are smaller and deliver the quality I need. I've never been bothered by the 1.5x factor, and I haven't had many issues with high noise that would have been solved by a full frame sensor. I'll aggree, we may finally be at the limitations of the smaller sensor, if the posts about high noise increasing only on the smaller sensors are correct, and can't be compensated by newer technology. Maybe the D3 can auto detect what type of lens your using and "scale down" which part of the sensor is being used. That way, the DX lenses I have will still work at say 12 MP, and all the FF nikon lenses would work as well at 19 MP?? :D
-Chas
EnhanceYourCalm @ Jun 13th 2007 6:52PM
Chas,
Your suggestion of a 20MP cropped sensor ignores the laws of physics. The physical dimensions of the photosites on such a sensor would be so small that the signal-to-noise ratio would be through the roof. Noise would be apparent at ISO100, and would render ISO ratings above 200 near-useless without MASSIVE noise reduction, which would of course remove all detail and make the photo look like a watercolor painting.
As someone who shoots large format film - how does 8x10 INCHES sound for an image plane? - it's my opinion that digital sensor design still has a LONG way to go, and increased sensor sizes are certainly a valid, even necessary path towards improving image quality.
max @ Jun 13th 2007 7:24PM
i hope they make it somewhat durable, unlike canon fanboys nikon shooters actually use there cameras and not just epeen about the sharpness on there 2,000 dollar 1.2 lense.
seanC @ Jun 13th 2007 7:53PM
I hope it comes... if only for the trickle down effect to happen quicker. I got my D200 last fall, and love it (18-200VR, ironcially use a 1.4 50mm as much). proabably time for something new in a year or so (I like to buy things - haha)
However, I don't really agree that it's going to be a full-sized sensor - if EnhanceYourCalm's ideas would be the reason for that push. From what I understand, it's heat that creates the noise - and like with Intel and AMD they (CMOS/CCD makers) are succesfully packing more and more pixels into the same size package, lowering heat and lowering power consumption.
I think that image quality and larger sensors do go hand-in-hand, hence the popularity of digital backs on medium format cameras, but as the bell curve peaks you will see smaller sensors with image quality that shows the limits of the glass, cameras that can take 1000's of shots on a charge all mounted inside extremely compact cameras.
Mr. B @ Jun 13th 2007 9:57PM
Better than anything Canon is offering means Better than their new EOS-1Ds mkIII, quite a claim.
craig @ Jun 14th 2007 1:24AM
Canon does not have a 1DsMkIII, and yet your comment is highly rated.
Mr. B @ Jun 14th 2007 1:30AM
Oops, I guess most people aren't aware of the difference between 1D and 1Ds... my mistake.
t-bone @ Jun 13th 2007 11:23PM
I doubt Nikon will come out with a full-frame camera. When was the last time they did that? A film camera? I find it hard to imagine anything being better than Canon's 1D MkIII. That camera is all anybody should want for the next several years.
tarscher @ Jun 15th 2007 8:29AM
Have you actually ever used a Nikon camera? I have used both Nikon (D70, D200)and Canon (400D, 5D) and I'm always amased how unergonomic Canons are compared to Nikons. The user interface of the Canons is realy horrible. They always want you to use 2 buttons at the same time especially frustrating when you look thruogh the viewfinder taking that shot.
Nikon also has way supperior flashin system and metering.
t-bone @ Jun 15th 2007 12:33PM
Yes, I have used a Nikon before. I didn't like the way it felt in my hands but I did like the way the Canon felt. Therefore, Canon makes superior cameras.
Do you see how stupid that argument sounds? BTW, the first two statements are true.
Sneak @ Jun 18th 2007 1:44PM
Anything that canon makes isn't that hard now making anything better than Hasselblad http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d
Come on they make a 39 mp full frame 48mm sensor. Why can't the rest catch up. My girlfriend is a photographer and prefers the Nikons and Hasselblads and hates the canons, but I know a lot of wedding photographers who likes canons and I know those who prefer the nikon. It's all preference and your digital camera will be out of date in a year or 2 anyways so who really pays attention to whats new. If you want image quality stick to film!
purezerg @ Jun 14th 2007 12:47AM
from what i heard last, D3h should have a 18.7mp at 1.1x that does 8fps and 1.5x that does 12+fps
and d3x is 24mp at 1.1x 5fps, at 1.5x 16Mp, it does 8.5fps, new AF engine also
craig @ Jun 14th 2007 1:34AM
I see you've refined your BS, purezerg.
18.7 at 8 fps would be a 50% faster data rate than the new 1DMk3. That's highly unlikely and particularly so considering your claim of superior battery life. I find it curious that your D3x has a 20% lower data rate than your D3h. Why does it only do 5 fps when it can clearly do 6?
I suppose anyone can make up numbers but it takes someone special to make them make sense. Why so insecure about your Nikon?
purezerg @ Jun 14th 2007 1:37AM
well, i hope that they do put it into production, these are info from a beta tester of nikon who has physically handled the prototype. i'm not the one who has handled the prototype. i am sure the handler can tell more but under NDA.
but it's dead sure it's 18.7mp and 24MP at 1.1x
craig @ Aug 24th 2007 10:47AM
So much for being dead sure it's 18.7MP and 1.1x crop, eh purezerg?
purezerg @ Aug 24th 2007 10:51AM
noticed i said D3h and D3x. of which D3 is neither of both.
purezerg @ Jun 14th 2007 12:57AM
as for buffer, battery and AF speed wise, nikon had always the lead over canon. it takes 1Dmk3 now to do 2200 shots per battery when d2x is already doing 3000, i believe d3h/x will have a even more shots per battery.
as for battery wise, with jpg large fine and 16Gb CF, i can already do more than 2000 shots per batt with my d2x and d2xs.
Ryzi @ Jun 14th 2007 7:43AM
Why does everyone want full frame?? I don't think it has all that many advantages...unless you like vignetting around the edges of EVERY image you take...unless you enjoy carrying bigger heavier lenses...unless you can't add up enough to work out the 1.5 by crop factor with the DX sensors. Full frame is over rated!! The only potential problem with the DX crop is that with smaller sensors you tend to get more noise. That, however, is becoming less and less of an issue. More megapixels are also over rated. I, for one, hope Nikon stick to their guns with the DX sensor size rather than give in to the uninformed popular viewpoint that one needs a full frame sensor. A full frame sensor in the D3 would rather annoy all of those loyal Nikon supporters who have bought into the DX range of lenses....
Wilvery @ Jun 14th 2007 9:14AM
Because while some people like telephoto lenses, some people like wider and wider lenses.
And those who liked Nikon since the film days and have always had, lets say a 28mm lens, would certainly love a full frame sensor.
If you want a close up photo, you COULD take a large photo and crop out the useless parts, but if you want a wide photo, what can you do?
Some people just aren't satisfied with the angle of view that is given by the current DX sensor.
Ryzi @ Jun 14th 2007 9:41AM
Ok, lets say someone has an older retro lens that they favour or enjoy or what not. In such a case I can see why the DX crop might not be so popular, but what I can't also see is why someone would want digital in that case. Retro lenses go with retro cameras...not the newer digital cameras. Nikon are designing their DSLRs for the future first and foremost...not so as they can be compatible with the past, although, with a tiny bit of math (x by 1.5 any lens) you can work things out! With the future lenses in mind, and if you want WIDE lenses, then you have a selection (that is growing) of DX lenses. See here - http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/index.htm
Ryzi @ Jun 14th 2007 9:49AM
One further point. If Nikon does go full frame then they will suffer the same problems Canon does. Full frame digital SLRS have vignetting...and it gets worse with wide lenses. So you have a choice between two problems with DSLRs, on one side you can upgrade some of your wide angle lenses (that are smaller, lighter, cheaper, just as good!), and on the other side you can keep the wide angle lenses you already have and enjoy the vignetting...
Mojo_Yugen @ Jun 14th 2007 9:51AM
My two main reasons for wanting a FF sensor are 1) a shallowed DOF and 2) better viewfinder.
Emile G. @ Jun 14th 2007 10:15AM
Heck, I'd better sell my 5D, reading that I have a serious vignetting issue that both I and my clients failed to notice these past 12 months...
Wilvery @ Jun 14th 2007 12:13PM
By saying retro lenses, do you include lenses such as 24mm 2.8D, 28mm 2.8D, or even lenses such as 17-35mm 2.8D(Okay, this can be pretty wide even with the DX sensor), 28-70mm 2.8D? They seem like pretty good lenses even today.
I don't know the exact count, but are there more DX lenses than 35 mm lenses? Do DX lenses provide a much more wider choice in terms of variety?
If there was nothing but the DX sensor, people would just think that the angle of view it provides is the right one.
But that isn't the case. Canon's got three, Kodak and Contax also made full frame DSLRs, and Sony's new flagship DSLR is also rumoured to be a full frame DSLR.
When you know what you could get, is it wrong to crave for it?
On the other hand, I admit your point on the vignetting stuff. It can happen, and I have seen it happen sometimes. So the rumoured 'nearly' full frame sensor might be a good idea.
Ryzi @ Jun 15th 2007 7:01AM
Yeah, by retro lenses, I meant lenses designed for film cameras (probably not the best word to have used...). And yeah, I still stand by it. I will admit all those lenses you mentioned are FANTASTIC lenses, but they are designed for film cameras. As it happens, you can use them on DSLRs with the 1.5 crop if you so desire. If they were somehow attached to a 5D, there would be vignetting!!! Even if you can't see it Emily G, nor your customers, there is vignetting...just needs some processing for it to show. And that vignetting, no matter if you can't see it, or if you don't push your camera to its limits to find it, is still there. Which in my mind makes it a flawed design. Nobody seems to care though...whatever....I do...Nikon seem to...Canon don't...??
Alastair @ Jun 14th 2007 4:52PM
I think Nikon's lenses will have some serious trouble resolving 19 or 24MP. The current 1DsII at 16.7MP is right on the edge of what the glass can resolve. In other words, put more pixels on there if you like, but you're not going to see anything else because the glass can't offer that sort of resolution.
It's another reason why the high MP chips are bigger and a lot more expensive and go on medium-format cameras. The bigger the chip, the bigger the photosites, the better the resolution from the lenses. If Nikon goes to 19MP, (let alone 24MP) they'll have to offer a whole new set of digitar lenses, and they'll be EXPENSIVE.
Dave @ Jun 14th 2007 8:53PM
Can I ask that it has some sort of sensor cleaning system? I still have Mexican dust on my D70's sensor from over a year ago.
wavelength @ Jun 15th 2007 7:25PM
visible dust, copperhill, your local camera shop. the Canon dust systems are apparently as useless as the other ones. you still have to clean the nasties.
Eric Welch @ Jun 15th 2007 1:32AM
As a user of a Canon 1Ds Mark II at work (and the owner of a Nikon D200) I think I can point out the flaws in the logic against full frame. Everyone talks about vignetting. I use the 24-70 2.8 L series lens and the 24mm 1.4 L series lens, amongst others. I have no problem whatsoever with vignetting. In those few situations where's it's apparent (very even tonality to the corners, focused close, etc.) it is very easily correctable with ACR 4.1. As for sharpness, I can assure you, this camera to the edges is sharp as all get-out.
I was looking at photos I shot yesterday at ISO 640, and they have a smooth tonality and sharpness that the D200 doesn't even have at ISO 100. And I've come to the conclusion that if Nikon does not produce an affordable professional camera in the near future that gives me much better performance than the D200 or D2X and compares reasonably with the 1D Mark III and the 1Ds Mark II then I'm going to sell all my Nikon stuff and go Canon at home too.
Chas @ Jun 15th 2007 4:44AM
Eric,
Those are some valid points, and if there is a noise factor on the smaller sensors, then I'm all for the switch. I'm surprised at you liking the 1Ds so much better than the d200. Granted the cannon is a more powerful camera, but in most cases the d200 is all I need. What lenses are you shooting with on the Nikon side? Aside from the lack of sharpness you've noted, how do you find the general use of the cameras. I've always found Nikons button and menu system much more logically laid out and accessible. After using both, what are your thoughts?
Chas
Chirag @ Jun 25th 2007 5:43PM
Eric,
Thanks for neutral comments. After being faithful to Nikon for 15 years, I (and many others like me) may consider switch to Canon for many factors.
1. Efortable range of camera and lanses
2. Brighter viewfinder in Canon (I used AE1 in old days and it was way much brighter then all my Nikons)
Also I heard about fake brightness. Is it true?
I'm not sure about image quality of Canon Pro models in compare with nikon Pro models but there should be some difference between CMOS and CCD. Looks like COMS is much better then CCD since most of the Canon models are havind it while only Nikon D2X and D2h (I guess) has it. Rest of all Nikons are using CCD.
Anyone knows about the technical difference between CMOS And CCD?
Eric @ Jun 19th 2007 7:53PM
Chas, the Canon is much better image-qualitly wise, which is the main reason to own a camera when it comes down to it. But I do like Nikon's flash system. Much more accurate than Canon's. And the ergonomics of the D200 is what caused me to buy one. Very nice. Much more logical than holding two buttons on the 1Ds Mark II. When I'm in the heat of battle, it's a major pain to change ISO. I shoot with the 17-35 2.8 AF-S, 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 105 Micro VR and 70-200 2.8 and 1.7X converter on the Nikon side. All amazingly good lenses. (I was a Leica user professionally for 13 years.) Bought my first camera in 1978 in Canada - a Canon AT-1. (Manual verison of the AE-1.)
The Nikons are easier to work with, the autofocus is more accurate on the D200. But the Canons are no slouches and get the job done. It's mostly in getting used to how whatever equipment you're using makes sense.
Chirag,
I find Nikon and Canon lenses and bodies about the same in affordability compared to my obsession for years - Leica. :-D
The D200 is much easier to focus manually with. The viewrfinder is wonderful. The 1Ds Mark II (an older camera) is not as easy to focus. But that's always been the case with Canon screens for some reason in my experience. But with careful adjustment of the diopter either is usable.
Right now CMOS does trump CCD. But Nikon might have a rabbit in their hat they can pull out by dumping Sony's CCDs and going wtih their own LBCAST sensors (which are CMOS in essence but different.) Nikon argues that Canon gets better noise performance by color smearing. Nikon doesn't do that, so their pictures are sharper out of the camera (RAW). I never shoot jpeg, so I can't tell you how they do there. But once you've used a 1Ds Mark II, everything else (but the new 1D Mark III) looks like junk in comparison. Seriously. I hate that I'm spoiled, I can't afford the camera I use at work for myself! :-/
revaaron @ Jun 15th 2007 10:15AM
as a person who used a D2x, D2H, D100, D70 and kodak SLR/n every single day, I can say without a doubt that for low-light work, I always borrow my gf's 5D when I can. The times when she's shooting and I can not borrow them, I am severely let down by my photos. If I don't have a solution for this from nikon by the end of the year (this is a tax-issue so I with have to put the money down on it by then), I will be the proud owner of a 5D and a 70-200IS L-series.
HSR @ Jun 16th 2007 8:56AM
I certainly wish Nikon comes up with their presidented models at the earliest...The wait is too long....;)Anybody having ideas of lenses what nikon is to offer along with the body???
Per @ Jun 19th 2007 8:33PM
I went Nikon D200 because I missed some snapshots from my former Canon 20D due to back focus. Im just blown away by Nikon ergonomics, metering, AF, build quality and the auto ISO setting. Lets be honest, canon has the image quality on their side. But the gap is getting bigger and bigger between Canon and Nikon to ignore, even for some of the hardcore Nikon fans. All we read these times on the forums are FF this and FF that. It would be a same if Nikon didn't go for it with the FF. Damn, I would love to try a Nikon 5D :)
Why can't Nikon and Canon just become friends and put the 5D's censor inside the D200. Now thats a perfect camera for me!
Nikon 5D200
Mike @ Jun 19th 2007 11:03PM
Everyone needs to remember what the advantage of a full frame sensor is and what it isn't. Here the trick about full-frame sensors: It is a crop factor, not a zoom factor. If you set up a Canon 10D and a 1D Mark II with 28mm lenses, you are still shooting at 28mm on the 10D, but the image is cropped to that of a 44mm lens. DOF and everything else are the same. For digital sensors, that is a good thing, because the sensors today are so good that they pick up all the flaw in a lens, magnifying the softness and vignetting at the lens edges. Cropped sensors basically just use the "sweet spot" on the lens. The real advantage to a FF sensor is that the sensor sites can be larger, and thusly record more light. However, even this can be worked around. Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp to see what Kodak has come up with. FF is not always the best solution. I want a camera that takes the best image, feels best in my hands, and is reliable in tough conditions. I can work around a crop.
Grapefruiitx1 @ Jun 30th 2007 2:45AM
Mike thats just using a lens designed for a larger format, with DX or APS lens that not the case, you use the edge and you need to magnify more for the same print size, therefore there is a payback, That said I use a Nikon 24-120 on my d200 and the DX crop flatters what has been regarded as an indifferent performer on 35mm . The kodak sensor will be coming to a mobile phone near you soon.
nevertheless;
To improve sensitivity and dynamic range you need bigger sensor sites, to improve resolution you need more of them and to help the optics you need smaller magnification, Do you see where i am going with this, sure there are some antagonistic factors particularly with current sensor design ie vignetting these can optimized out or controlled the others, the advantages, are just handed to you by geometry.
Regards
Andrew