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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!