Nikon getting set to unveil next-gen professional DSLR?
By Darren Murph 
posted June 13th 2007 2:48PM
posted June 13th 2007 2:48PM
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.
So what does it all mean in reality?? Should I dump my Canon D30 because the Nikon D40 has better image quality? The Canon D1 Mk III must have better image quality at regular ISOs than the Nikon D40 but if it is not at least 50% better should I avoid buying it since its 9 time more expensive? Buy what is fit for your purpose. Better pictures at ISO 6400 than the competition does not mean a thing if the quality of the picture is below what you need it for.
Wow a NEW NIKON PRO Camera?!? Is anyone still shooting Nikon out there? As far as I remember my D2Hs and D1H were expensive pieces of crap. They do make great door stops.
-A Happy Mark IIN user
C'mon people, this is Nikon we're talking about.
They've sunk everything into the DX format and will not bend from it.
Their next camera will be an as-usual cropped D3H. Probably 10.2 megapixels, 8 fps, 100 frame burst, 200-3200 ISO.
It'll be followed by a slew of cheap point-and-shoots and then either the D30 or D50 (depending on which direction they decide to go.
After that comes the D90 (following the D70/D80 line), more Coolpixes and then maybe, just maybe, a D3X just before the end of the year.
The D300 will be announced sometime around now next year.
And these are all *announcements*, not releases. If they announce the D3H next week, it won't actually be available until November.
I don't understand all the fuss about FF sensors. A year ago I was buying my first DSLR. I did a very thorough analysis and comparison of the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 as well as a lot of study on the issues relating to DSLR design (I am an electronics engineer and understand the design and manufacturing process of chips etc.). To cut a long story short my findings were...
Digital sensors are different to film. An emulsion accepts light fairly evenly over a wide range of angles of incidence but camera sensors do not. The sensor is a three dimensional device - it has depth and light gets scattered off the little buckets containing the individual photo diodes. Light also gets bounced off the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. The results are significant light fall off and a greater loss of edge/corner sharpness compared to the same lens on a film camera.
CONCLUSION - For optimum performance Digital cameras need lenses designed for digital cameras. The so-called 'Telecentric' design that produces a near perpendicular angle of incidence. As far as I can determine there is no such device available for a FF sensor DSLR. They all use lenses designed for film. It would also appear that a Telecentric lens for an FF DSLR may not be possible to produce because the lens mount is not big enough to provide a big enough hole at the back of the lens. You can't compare a digital back for a medium format camera with a FF DSLR because the medium format camera uses a larger lens mount.
The problem is not confined to wide-angle lenses. In its testing of the latest Canon EOS 1d Mk III, the prestigious 'British Journal of Photography' showed just over two stops of light loss in the corners when used with a Canon 50mm macro lens (it may have been 60mm but I can't remember). This is significant. Whilst the vignetting can easily be corrected in Photoshop (you might even want some for some images) or a RAW processor, you can't so easily correct the loss of sharpness on wide-angle lenses. A number of Web-based tests of the (12Mp) D2X showed it to have superior edge and corner sharpness compared to the (16Mp) Canon EOS 1ds.
Incidentally my research taught me not to trust the reviews in magazines, particularly the competitive reviews. The wide range of contradictory information and wishy washy wording led me to believe that many were written by people with insufficient knowledge or they had one eye on their advertising revenues so didn't want to upset anyone.
In the better reviews the 5D just pipped the D200 on image quality. To paraphrase, the comments went something like..."on an A3+ print (13" by 19") careful inspection revealed the the 5D was marginally better...". To me, if you have to look that carefully they are as good as the same. In all other respects the D200 outperforms the 5D so that's what I bought.
I am not a professional photographer, I am an enthusiast - but I wanted the best outfit I could get (as a retirement treat) within a reasonable budget. The APS sized sensor enbled be to cover my ideal range of focal lengths (18mm to 300mm in equivalent 35mm terms) with the best glass available for less than half the cost of doing this with a FF DSLR (and with fewer gaps in the coverage range). Surely such economies have to be considered.
WOW!
This article is so full of mistakes I am over-whelmed!
If so much as half of you've said is true, why is the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon (a film lens) the King of wide-angles lenses? One would think it would be whatever the latest and greatest digital, right? So why does the old, no-longer-in-production model Zeiss win?
I can make any test show me anything I want to see by introducing excessive variables to skew results. Geeze, it's like testing worn out tires on a Ferrari against new tires on a Yugo, and then saying that the old worn out tires are clearly better... Make sure the test duplicates every aspect; because I'll lay money down that they didn't use the same lens to test the corner sharpness on the Canon; and with adapters, it's easy enough to do.
Less than 1/2 the cost of FF? I can play this game too! :) I can get a FF Canon system for half the cost of a Nikon system. I just have to pick the right things to compare against.
So if your article is to make you feel better about your purchase... good job. I'm sure you feel great. If, however, there is the slimmest of chances that you actually want to learn something *gasp* then keep reading.
You clearly need to go back to the drawing board as far as your research is concerned.
For unbiased tests try:
h**p://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html
they aren't hotlinked.
I evaluated the 5D and found it cumbersome and clunky, suited to the studio and staged/planned shots, but little else. The D200 is twice the camera ergonomically when compared to the 5D and the images are every bit as commercially viable...maybe more so considering the number of missed shots I'd have to endure if I were using the Canon.
For those Nikon bashers in the crowd, when I shoot an event, no one asks what kind of camera I'm going to bring.
OK, I am sitting here with my Nikkor 15mm lens in hand dreaming of a day when I can mount it on something better than this POS Kodak DCS Pro/14n. Something that gives the wide angle image that the lens was designed to produce on film. Please! Please!
I can't wait for the D3x to be on the shelf and in that case, for about £1k the d2xs will become available to those of us who believe in dx format (and full frame as well).
Does anyone know which company is producing the D3 sensor? I've heard Sony makes all the sensors for Nikon but do they have full-frame production abilities? I thought that was the reason Nikon didn't produce a FF sensor, because they couldn't get one from Sony.