Nikon officially announces D3 and D300, lenses
D3
- 12.1 megapixel, full-frame friggin sensor! (23.9 x 36mm) Finally. ISO up to 6400
- 3-inch VGA live view LCD
- Two (count 'em, two!) CompactFlash card slots for overflow, backup, or copying
- New EXPEED image processor
- 9fps in full frame, 11fps in DX crop; 51 point autofocus (with "3D focus tracking")
- HDMI out with optional cable
- $5000, November release
- 12.3 megapixel DX (1.5 crop) sensor
- 3-inch VGA live view LCD
- New EXPEED image processor
- 51 point autofocus
- $1800, November release
- AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
- AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
- AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
- AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR
Gallery: Nikon D3 press shots
Gallery: Nikon D300 press shots
Read - D3 press release
Read - D300 release
Read - Pro zoom Nikkor lens release
Read - Super telephoto lens release
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Eric @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:14AM
Actually, ISO goes to 25,600! Woo hoo! I'm gettin' one!
Andrei Vassiliev @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:51AM
I must admit, that is an insane ISO level.
t-bone @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:35AM
A full-frame Nikon? Surely you jest. I thought they were completely dedicated to APS-sized sensors.
Bogdan @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:56AM
Full frame! Uoh!
If only that camera was a bit smaller...
VJH @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:59AM
The D3 is a nice looking camera, and seems to have pretty nice specs. I don't think it's enough to make we want to abandon Canon, but it should be a nice step up for Pros and high-level amateurs already in the Nikon world who want something with more power than the D300. Unfortunately for Nikon, I can't imagine the D3 will dispel the idea that people tolerate their camera bodies so they can use Nikon glass.
The D300 kind of leaves me underwhelmed. Again, it's a nice camera, and a natural step up from the D40/D80, but I think the Canon 40D has a price/performance edge.
still.reprise @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:20AM
Actually, if you look at the major review sites (i.e. DPReview, etc.) ergonomically most people prefer Nikon bodies. The D3 is packed to the hilt with features and the fact that ISO goes to 25,600 indicates this should be a very low noise camera (the very idea of 25,600 ISO is almost beyond my grasp; couple that with a nice f/1.4 lens and you can nearly take photos in an unlit cave). It's FF to satisfy that part of the camp and has a DX crop mode to satisfy the other part.
Funny thing is neither of these are actually flagship cameras. We'll see what happens when the D3X comes out. The D3 is meant to compete directly with the 1D MkIII which I must say is heavy competition even if it has been getting flack over the AF system issues. This new model blew almost everyone out of the water with features, etc. Even pricepoint-wise. Either way, it's a wonderful time to be a serious Nikon or Canon SLR shooter.
craig @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:29AM
I can't imagine any basis for either of your statements. On paper, the D3 outperforms the 1D3 and the D300 outperforms the 40D.
"Unfortunately for Nikon, I can't imagine the D3 will dispel the idea that people tolerate their camera bodies so they can use Nikon glass."
That idea is apparently held entirely within the Canon commumity. Odd that they would feel that way since they believe their lens lineup is superior as well. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter whether a camera "dispels" ideas, it matter how well the camera works, and it appears that the D3 will be more than a match for the 1D3.
"The D300 kind of leaves me underwhelmed. Again, it's a nice camera, and a natural step up from the D40/D80, but I think the Canon 40D has a price/performance edge."
Can't imagine why unless you aren't reading specs. There is nothing but the price and the weight where the 30D looks better than the D300.
ekwmin @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:27AM
It's pointless to switch from Canon to Nikon or from Nikon to Canon. Despite what some people say I think they are pretty much equals and it's your preference. Wouldn't make sense to ditch what you already have and re-buy all your gear. A few megapixels, slight color shift, or FPS wont's make you a better photographer.
NikonHag @ Oct 27th 2007 10:12AM
No the Cannon 40D just has a price advantage. The Nikon D300 (which I have already previewed) is highly comparable to the Cannon and will blow out the water!
baz.karim @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:12AM
I'll tell you what--above $300 for a camera and I'm lost when it comes to functionality. No wait---when a camera is "attachment-ready" and I have to consider buying different lenses..well, that's where I stop.
Give me a camera--with an lcd 2.5 or larger, image stabilization, 7.1 megapixel or higher (most of us don't even need that much), a few different options besides auto, and one cool and unique feature.
I avoid the cameras that have like the 30+ options on the wheel--that's crazy. Ok enough--I was just in the mood to comment on something and picked this.
Now that I have commented---good night.
zargon @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:08AM
Which would be exactly why these cameras and all SLR for that fact are geared towards photo hobbists to professional photographers. Not the average Joe that just needs a point and shoot or even the slightly above average Joe that would go with one of the larger body units with built in lens.
I don't even know why the average person would consider a D3 or D300.
Leo @ Aug 31st 2007 2:00PM
What, you don't need to the ability to adjust ISO, or white balance?
jason @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:16AM
VJH:
care to explain why you think the 40d has the edge? i'm a nikon user but am thinking of switching to canon since the 40d is really appealing and i think canon's upgrade options are way better and their selection of lenses is great.
VJH @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:00AM
Well, my reasoning is like this:
They are much more similar than they are different: The 40D has an ISO up to 3200 and I assume the Nikon is similar (though, I haven't seen that spec). The canon supports 14 bit color while the Nikon 12 bit. The 40D has a sight advantage in maximum shot rate (6.5 to 6 FPS), while the Nikon has more AF cross type sensors (15 to 9 for the Canon). The Nikon's 3D AF system and on board color correction sound nice, but who knows if they're really useful to you...Both have 3" LCDs with (supposedly) good color depth. Both have some type of Live view system and sensor cleaners, "critical" weather seals, etc, etc. I think if you go down the list of details, you'll find a lot of similarities.
The biggest difference is a 12 MP APS-C versus a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Unless you're planning on making A2 size prints, I doubt you'll ever notice the difference between those two sensors. Of course I assume that those two sensors have an equally good noise control, which seems fair enough.
So, after looking at the specs for the D300 and the 40D, I see me paying and extra $500 for 2 MP that I'm not likely to miss. So, I would choose the 40D over the D300, based on what I know at this moment.
Anyway, the point isn't that one is better than the other, because they both sound like great cameras, especially for the price. But I just don't think the specs on the D300 are enough to draw people to the brand over a $500 cheaper 40D.
VJH @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:09AM
Ahh...the Nikon also uses a 14 bit a/d.
still.reprise @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:20AM
Sorry to jump in again but the D300 supports 14 bit A/D conversion with 16 bit processing, ISO 6400, 8 fps with optional battery pack, live-view autofocus, 45ms shutter lag, full VGA display, the AF is 51 point (with 15 cross point type sensors) usable with lenses f/5.6 and faster vs 9 points and with lower metering EV. So the Nikon has one or two advantages. Of course it costs more. Both are excellent cameras at their price-points.
All specs referenced from DPReview:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp
craig @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:41AM
If you haven't seen the D300 spec, why post such swill?
Nikon has 14 bit processing, not 12.
Nikon offers up to ISO 6400.
Nikon offers 8 fps with optional grip.
Nikon offers 51 point AF.
Who knows if any of the new 40D features are useful to you either?
Nikon's 3" LCD is 922K pixels vs. the 40D's 230K.
Yes, there are a lot of similarities, but not one that favors the 40D.
Yes, 12MP over 10MP, but also 1.5x crop over 1.6x crop.
There are many reviews demonstrating that 12MP offers advantages over 10.
OK, so you'd save your $500 based strictly on retail prices. That hardly supports your claim that the 40D will outperform the D300 or that the D300 is underwhelming. If the D300 underwhelms you, and I doubt it really does since you didn't bother to read its specs, imagine how disappointing the 40D would have to be!
Actually, I do think the point is that one is better than the other. The problem is that it's not the one you want it to be.
Canon Shooter @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:29AM
OMG - this is just some crazy specs for the D300! The 40D is definitely no match now for the D300 - this puts Canon is a nasty position - they are being crushed by Nikon atm. Who the hell would want to pay for a 1D -MK3 or even a 1DsMK3?? No frickin' way! For the price of a D300, you get so much more - even the LCD is close to 1mp! I know one thing is for sure: Canon is having a meeting first thing in the morning discussing how they lose face to Nikon - especially when they are now officially in the FF market! This is just outrageously EMBARASSING for Canon - 2 new cameras from Canon - two new Cameras from Nikon - Both cameras from Canon are bleh - the D300 alone is aimed to kill off the new unreleased 40D, 1DMK3!
Canon needs to WAKE UP - and include more features - stop jerking your loyal user base around and implement that awesome microadjustment in the 1DMK3 into the 40D already! If not for the $2000 lens collection I have that are all Canon, I'd jump ship - in fact, if I don't hear anything good coming from the Canon reviews, I'm just going to have to pawn off the lenses and jump over to Nikon - whoever says feature doesn't sell - you are full of it! It is the features and at the lowest price that makes Nikon a clear winner!
It's over - even as loyal as I am, I did not see this day coming for Canon =(
Sad sad sad day - but at least we consumers can eat it up!! Consumers win ;-)
Max Fun @ Aug 23rd 2007 5:01AM
Honestly, are you a gearhead or a photographer? The specs for the Nikons looks great, but the only real difference between the D300 and the 40D is the 2 extra MPs and the AF.
2 MP between the 30D and the D200 is already pretty much negligible, especially thanks to Canon's in-camera processing. But at 10/12MP, they're going to be virtually identical.
So for $500, you've got to decide whether the AF is going to be worth that much. I know that even with 45 AF points, I only use the center one, unless I use the Eye AF point selection. So for me, the $500 is much better spent on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, and this combo is going to be better and cheaper than a D300 combo.
craig @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:45AM
I agree that these specs aren't worth changing brands over, but I don't agree that 2MP is negligible, whether it's 8 to 10 or 10 to 12. Furthermore, if you shoot RAW, Canon's in-camera processing, if it is actually better than the D300, doesn't even come into play.
ekwmin @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:36AM
LOL, you crack me up. Nice to see that you are being honest. When something like this happens the guys naturally go into a denial mode. I don't think you should worry. I'm sure Canon will come back with something nice. I've been a Nikon guy for a long time and over time realized that the crown gets tossed around between Canon and Nikon, no need to panic. This is competition is healthy for the consumers.
tchiseen @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:41AM
that's not a bad looking full frame there in that D3. I like it. someone wanna buy me one?
js @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:45AM
51 point AF is crazy... and that new 920K pixel LCD is hot. Live view + dust reduction system?
I think I just PEED on my self.
eric @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:58AM
WOW!!!
this thing just stomped all over canon. I love canons stuff, but i own a nikon dslr and the d300 will be mine as soon as i can get my hands on it. It thoroughly just took out just about any other camera even close to that price range. The only thing canon has for them is..
1. there are some really crazy canon loyalists that would never believe a nikon is better.
2. so many people that already have camera systems (lens and body) from canon.
so sweet.. i just shat myself...squirt.....
Mjuboy @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:09AM
Wow, that just blew me away!!
If only the D300 was a little bit cheaper, I would've definitely got it instead of the 40D.
And the D3, I'm just too stunned for words. ISO 25600, 51-point AF, 3.0" 922,000 pixel LCD, Just WOW!
David @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:27AM
VJH:
Are you getting paid for that piece of misinformation ?
Here are the correct specs for the D300 (from dpreview.com):
1. Iso: up to 6400
2. Maximum shot rate: up to 8 frames/second
3. A/D conversion: 14 bit
4. Full weather sealing (as opposed to a sealed battery and CF-card compartment on the 40D)
I'm a Canon man but I just can't stand these posts...
And if you were a photographer you would have mentioned the viewfinder of the D300 which seems to be clearly superior. (100% coverage / brighter / larger)
Regards,
David
VJH @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:00AM
Well, it would be nice if I were getting paid. As it is, DPR hadn't posted when I wrote that, and I was going off of Nikon's press releases. Those do not explicitly mention full weather resistance, only weather and dust sealed at "critical areas". They also do not mention the maximum ISO of 6400. And say nothing about the a/d conversion bit rate. I tried to make it clear that those weren't included in the specs I had seen at the time, and I assumed that the two camera's would be comparable--for the most part, it looks that way.
As for AF points or max frame rate. I only compared the basic specs on the camera. For instance, I only mentioned the primary AF cross points (9 and 15, respectively) since Canon also seems to have other AF points that are dependent on the maximum aperture but do not specify exactly what and how many. Clearly the Nikon has a more comprehensive AF system, but it's not clear under what conditions you will have access to all 51 of those AF points. Similarly for the max frame rate, (6.5 and 6, respectively). I understand that the expansion grip will add 2 fps, but the specs on the camera are just that...6.5 and 6. Ultimately, if the difference of 1.5 fps, and say 20 AF points makes a huge difference to you, go for it. I still stand by my point that these cameras are more similar than different.
Having said that, it's too bad that I didn't seem more of the details before I posted here. Overall, I'd say that both the D300 and D3 are better endowed than the press releases go into. If I were cross shopping the D300 and the 40D, I'd really have to look more carefully at the Nikon. I think I'd ultimately go with the Canon, but that's only because I don't think the higher specs would add much to my art, but the $500 might snag me a lens off of Canon_Shooter when he parts out.
As for the D3...well, that's a different ball of wax. I'm guessing that there is renewed pressure at canon to fix their AF problems in the 1DMK3 and to make sure that there are no problems with the new 1Ds when it comes out. Otherwise, they very well might start losing customers to Nikon.
craig @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:49AM
Actuall, VJH, you said "Again, it's a nice camera, and a natural step up from the D40/D80, but I think the Canon 40D has a price/performance edge."
Hardly the same as "these cameras are more similar than different." That was your backpedaling version.
I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Aug 23rd 2007 4:17AM
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm
Canon Shooter @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:23AM
difference between D300 and 40D is the 2 extra MP's and the AF??
Hello mcfly!
First:
D300 AF is 51 point AF with 15 x-type, 36 horizontal. If you want to bust out the 1DMK3 (now 1ds3 as well), they are crappy buddy - ever heard of the 1D MK3 AF problems? Canon didn't want to hear it at all!
second:
2 Extra MP is not as significant - but 23.6 x 15.8 mm LARGER SENSOR and ISO6400, 14-bit A/D, MultiCam3500DX, 2% spot metering?! come on, the spec list is too much for the 40D!
Sure it's $500 more - I'll gladly pay that difference for something this superior! Think about it - the 40D isn't out yet, why are you so set on inferior features to the D300 when the D300 is just another 2 months away? It's as silly as going out to buy the 30D now when you know the 40D is around the corner!
They put PRO features (especially the 51pt AF) on this pro-sumer body - upped the MP, ISO, basically EVERYTHING. Just the LCD and AF is easily worthy of the $500.
$500 is also warranted because the D300 actually has the lens microadjustment feature! THis is only in the 1-series of Canon cam's! They left it out of the 40D because Canon is really taking 2 steps BACKWARDS! What good is a new $500 lens you saved from not buying the D300 going to do for you when it needs calibration!?!? And you have to send it into Canon to get it fixed for $300!!!??
As much as you canon loyalists (myself included) would not like to acknowledge, this D300 is really something and I cannot wait to see the review of IQ on this cam. Canon is going back to the drawing board this time - they need to! Old culture of one company should not be kept! Go with the new times - people buying camera's these days (especially DSLR's) have the $$$$ and these "tools" makes everyone a PRO.
That's right - all you pro photographers out there - watch out! Sooner than later, your jobs are at stake - many who are big hobbyists can buy a $1800 D300 and pretty much shoot PRO level stuff. Worried?! Hell yes if I am an old man /old school "film" guy - let it go, let it in - the times are changing and either you ride with it or you get trampled like the D300 stomps on the 40D and the overpriced 1DMK3!
Alexis @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:07AM
Wow! This looks good.
I think I'll either have to say goodbye to canon or wait for the 5d MarkII (if it ever comes out).
jeroen @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:22AM
Well, if this means the price of the D200 goes down... I'm definitely in for that one.
Canon Shooter @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:23AM
difference between D300 and 40D is the 2 extra MP's and the AF??
Hello mcfly!
First:
D300 AF is 51 point AF with 15 x-type, 36 horizontal. If you want to bust out the 1DMK3 (now 1ds3 as well), they are crappy buddy - ever heard of the 1D MK3 AF problems? Canon didn't want to hear it at all!
second:
2 Extra MP is not as significant - but 23.6 x 15.8 mm LARGER SENSOR and ISO6400, 14-bit A/D, MultiCam3500DX, 2% spot metering?! come on, the spec list is too much for the 40D!
Sure it's $500 more - I'll gladly pay that difference for something this superior! Think about it - the 40D isn't out yet, why are you so set on inferior features to the D300 when the D300 is just another 2 months away? It's as silly as going out to buy the 30D now when you know the 40D is around the corner!
They put PRO features (especially the 51pt AF) on this pro-sumer body - upped the MP, ISO, basically EVERYTHING. Just the LCD and AF is easily worthy of the $500.
$500 is also warranted because the D300 actually has the lens microadjustment feature! THis is only in the 1-series of Canon cam's! They left it out of the 40D because Canon is really taking 2 steps BACKWARDS! What good is a new $500 lens you saved from not buying the D300 going to do for you when it needs calibration!?!? And you have to send it into Canon to get it fixed for $300!!!??
As much as you canon loyalists (myself included) would not like to acknowledge, this D300 is really something and I cannot wait to see the review of IQ on this cam. Canon is going back to the drawing board this time - they need to! Old culture of one company should not be kept! Go with the new times - people buying camera's these days (especially DSLR's) have the $$$$ and these "tools" makes everyone a PRO.
That's right - all you pro photographers out there - watch out! Sooner than later, your jobs are at stake - many who are big hobbyists can buy a $1800 D300 and pretty much shoot PRO level stuff. Worried?! Hell yes if I am an old man /old school "film" guy - let it go, let it in - the times are changing and either you ride with it or you get trampled like the D300 stomps on the 40D and the overpriced 1DMK3!
Eric @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:08PM
Being a pro, I'm not shaking in my boots. You can put all the features in the world in a camera, and an amateur is not going to produce pro-quality images. It's like saying some paint is better blue than a previous version, so Van Goh, watch out for that paint-by-numbers guy.
Canon Shooter @ Aug 23rd 2007 6:30AM
I need to also add this:
1Ds3 - you should worry - reaching close to MF now - and seriously, the market for these 35mm dslr is for real specific - who needs 21mp? 16mp is great, 18mp is alot - 21mp is extreme for 35mm dslr. Why pay $8000??
This is in consideration to the Nikon D3X when it arrives - FF with the works - don't know yet but Canon should be worried -
The 1DMK3 is really overpriced - dropped the price - you will realise how fast the D300 will sell if everything on paper matches real life samples! The 40D is now compared to the Nikon D80 - sad but true and you will see an upgrade to the D80 soon enough. I fear Canon is really going to lose some market shares - especially in the sports segment - 8fps w/extra battery grip, 1.5x crop vs. 1.3x, and best of all, $1800 vs. $4499 (that's msrp before jack up margin!)
No longer is Canon king of anything - well, except their FF 21mp - they can have it - $8000 vs. the D3? I think we have a clear choice here - and it's not CANON!
MR @ Aug 23rd 2007 7:08AM
Dude you're really a Canon shooter/basher.
Neither of the cameras are available for sale and we don't even have any hands-on preview. Yet you're already declaring a winner? What a bunch of BS you have there.
Gary @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:06AM
Canon Shooter....you have to be the worst spec sheet racer ever.
Nikon makes fine cameras, but if you know anything about the industry in general, the two giants tend to leap frog each other throughout their respective generations.
Think about it, since the introduction of the 20D, Canon has had the dominating hand (in features and sales) in this arena. It took Nikon several generations of its D line to catch up. Awesome. I am happy that competition is moving this industry forward. There is really no reason to come on here declaring a winner in a battle that is yet to be fought. I am sure dpreview.com will have a great review of the production version.
That said, if you like the lens lineup of a certain system (canon, nikon, leica, etc) you really should not be worried about the body unless you need a specific feature set. For example, if I need a full frame camera on a pro studio or sports level, the MKIII is hands down my only option. I shoot with a 20D and am skipping this generation all together. At the prosumer level you really can't go wrong with either....just get what feels better in your hand when you shoot (if you do).
Homer J @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:01AM
Nice to see the new bodies and lenses, but frankly I am a little dissapointed. I was hoping to see a replacement for the Nikkor 80-400 which with its slow autofocus / 1st generation VR seemed like a good candidate for upgrade.
Oh well, guess I will have to wait a bit longer before I take the 200MM+ plunge.
Nikon: If you read this I own the following Nikkors: 10.5, 12-24, 17-55, 70-200. Make something of similar quality / size in the 100-400mm range with a fast autofocus system.
Yoshi @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:51AM
Now the Nikon came to even with it's full frame censor.
When it is full frame AND with the wide angle lens, Nikon got the edge.
As anybody knows.
After spending money and effort, what you came back with, is the product of
the lens. This is the reality.
Matt @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:20AM
CANON SHOOTER...
I don't think with a million dollars worth of equipment and
knowing how to use the settings I could take pictures as good as a
pro photographer... I think having a professional eye and knowing
when and from what position to take a picture is more important than
the camera. Like most things I don't think equipment can make up for
skill and talent. Think Golf, Painting, Cooking, Computer work etc...
A camera is just a tool. I think the magic probably comes from the
photographer. I don't take more than a thousand photos a year and
I'm pretty sure that a $5000 camera wouldn't make my pictures much
better than my D40.Don't get too ahead of yourself, a camera is just
a tool. I don't know what others think, this is just my opinion.
Matt
Matt @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:28AM
And to add to that I doubt most landscapes and other "Print quality" photos are even made with a digital camera much less a 35mm. I wouldn't go around saying that these digital cameras are the future because they are just now attaining actual 35mm size sensors and the beautiful pictures you see in magazines of mountains and what not are made with large print film. I like Ansel Adams and I don't think he used 35mm. Dunno maybe some of you photo buffs can confirm this.
Long story short I don't think all the technology in the world is going to make professional photgraphers obsolete. It's just equipment...
Mutt @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:56AM
Most landscapes are shot with large format film cameras. You hit the nail on the head about the camera just being a tool... none of the pro photographers I know give a shit about this spec-sheet stuff unless it directly affects their ability to produce sellable shots. On the other hand, I am an amateur and LOVE to pore over the minutiae!
Matt @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:21AM
Yeah I hear you. The technology advancement is very entertaining and interesting to follow! I just thought that dude was getting a little ahead of himself. As for myself I think I need to save my cash and take some photography lessons or buy some books on photography theory and execution. I bought a D40 a few months ago and I think it will be way more camera than I can use for at least a year or two.
:)
Gary @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:25AM
some of the greatest photogs ive met treated their equipment like artists treat their brushes. If any poster is silly enough to suggest that it is the equipment that makes the photos they are smoking some serious crack. Anything at the ultrahigh level is done in digital medium format (30+mp for you spec lovers)anyway so I doubt you are dropping 30+ large on a camera system anytime soon given the fact that you think you can equal a pro just because you can afford a pro body. Photography is about knowing how light works, how to positions models, how to frame shoots, how to get that one shot thats just seems impossible because you know how to work you body with the shutter speed. The camera is a bicycle....gotta learn how to ride it.
And shooter, why are you talking about the D3x? All you've shown so far is that you just like to bash on canon for no apparent reason and that you know absolutely nothing about how real photographers work.
Comparing body price points is plain silly. You spend much more in lenses, flashes, support systems, and etc. A pro will have a collection of lenses with a specific mount and will go through bodies every few generations.
I have to commend the photo industries marketing machine. It has successfully convinced that anyone is a pro who spends enough money on a camera.
Chicksta @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:49PM
While I agree with you, from a devil's advocate viewpoint, remember that a lot of people can't really tell the difference between a 'pro' and someone w/the tools (or, more accurately, want to pay the difference). Just look at all of the Web sites made by 'my friend's daughter who's a senior in high school' and the guys who think that Paint Shop Pro makes them a graphic artiste. Anyone can call themselves a pro if they have the equipment; all it takes is one check from grandma and you're a pro!
ANgelo antonucci @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:18AM
Where does this leave the D80...are we seeing an upgrade anytime soon...maybe to make a Nikon sandwich with the 40D, with the D300 and the "D80s" as bread...so that leaves everyone thinking...why should i buy a camera, the 40d, that has so much less features than the D300 for so low diference...and why do i need to spend some extra dollars in the 40D if i can live with the "D80"...
any thoughts people...
(im thinking in getting a D80, but i'll wait for the "s"...or "x" maybe, like the D40)
Matt @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:30AM
Try the D40 I swear the pictures with it are amazing and I'm quite sure that it has all the same features at the D80 less the mechanical AF for the old lenses. I don't think you will regret getting one especially with the low price. I don't think you will miss the MP difference. Plus who knows what will happen in the next 2 years with the prices and what not. You might get to upgrade to a D200 for way cheap and that would be a very nice leap way past the D80.
craig2 @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:07PM
Let wait for the hand on, side by side reviews before we decide which camera is the best, 40d or the d300. But price wise, I can get the 40d and a midrange lens for $1800, compared to just the d300.
craig @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:58PM
Then why judge prices based on the MSRP of unavailable products? If you're gonna take those prices as gospel, then I seen no reason not to declare the D300 a winner based on superior specs. If you want to wait and see, then wait and see.
Remember, Canon raised their price on the 1D3 between announcement and ship.
Beer @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:42PM
I hope Canon still has a 5D MKII up their sleeves....!