of kids want an iPad
The Nielsen Company presented a cadre of individuals with a list of nice, shiny gadgets and let them cross off anything and everything they'd like to buy in the next six months, and 31 percent of kids 6-12 picked the iPad as one of them.
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.
Wow, so many things to cover. Full frame will always trump EF-S/DX bodies all other things being equal. You can crop the full frame image to the crop factor of the DX body and you'll get identical pictures give a similar pixel density. The mother of all cameras - a Nikon FX body at 24 megapixels would match an DX body at 12 megapixles even cropped. But then with higher pixel density, you're going to get more noise at higher ISOs. So even there are trade-offs.
A professional photographer - defined by most pro photo organizations as someone who derives at least fifty percent of their income from photography - will carry multiple bodies and use them as the tools they are. You need long reach? Get an Olympus E3 and glue it to a Sigma 300-800 zoom for an equivalent of 600-1600 zoom (compared to full frame). You need über-wide angle? Get a full frame body and shoot with a 14mm rectilinear (as opposed to fisheye) lens. Or dig up an old Nikon 13mm f/5.6 from the 70s. (Two existed in the US.)
Every camera is a trade-off. It's the eternal frustration of us pros that no one camera body or system does it all. So you pick the one that does what you want most. price is not a consideration for someone who makes their living with cameras. From the lowly weekly newspaper photographer who makes $300 a week to the New York fashion photographer who makes $15,000 a day, the tools they use are varied and pretty dang cool in the end. Because they all do magic. The let light into a box, and a picture comes out. That's been the attraction since Nicéphore Niépce took the very first fixed image in 1836. (Yes, before Daguerré).
So enough with the weenie-measuring contests! One camera is not superior to all others for every purpose and person. Get what you want and appreciate what other cameras have that yours doesn't. If you picked the wrong tool, get the one that's right and make someone on eBay happy.
That being said, this camera is amazing with the 1.5 crop factor. It does not have the "full frame advantage" but for the money, i think it is hard to beat (January 08, in case some revives this comment in the future.).
Great noise handling at high ISOs, to the point where people have a hard time telling the ISO.
~1,000,000 pixel screen in the back at 3" - makes it possible to proof noise and sharpness in camera. No more busting out the laptop to check your shots.
Lotsa megapixels.
I am a nikon man and i am contemplating adding this to my collection, or selling all of my gear and going used Canon 5D + 24-105 L. It is about $1000 cheaper for me to go used 5D+24-105L, but i will lose my fast lenses (F/1.8 & 2.8), but gain FF and wider angles. Tough choice and only time will tell, but I am really liking what i am seeing from Nikon right now.
Joseph,
It's a good time to be a Nikonite! I've seen the D300 in action. That LCD on the back is gorgous, just as nice as the D3's. In fact, way better than on the 1D Mark III or the 1Ds Mark III (though I only saw preproduction screens on the D3 and 1Ds/1D).
I would not switch to Canon from Nikon. In fact, I've been using Canon professionally for years, including a 1Ds Mark II. But about 18 months ago at a workshop Nikon people from NPS and one of their reps showed the workshop people ISO 6400 images from a prototype that would become the D3. We were blown away. At least I was.
I had been Leica man through all my film years. (With a few stints with Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Contax). And I'm very picky about image quality. So when I saw the direction Nikon was going with their new sensor technology (which they said takes a lot from LBCAST which itself is a variant of CMOS) I knew that it was time to by cameras for myself once again. I continue to use Canon at work. But my personal cameras (for fun and the odd freelance job) is Nikon. In fact, I'm so impressed with the D3, I don't think I even care about a 24 megapixel monster coming some day. If they come up with an answer to the Canon 5D all the better. But some day I'll have my own Nikon full frame bodies, and the reason is, as the end of the day, it is quality that counts. And the 1Ds Mark II I use at work is so much better than anything else out there (other than the newer high-end cameras) that I can't imagine settling for less in the long run.
Wow, I'm glad there was someone else here pointing out the lesser known Olympus E3. The last time I used anything by Olympus was before my Canon FT QL in photo school, but this camera makes me want to make the switch...or diversify a bit.
"Full frame will always trump EF-S/DX bodies all other things being equal.
...
One camera is not superior to all others for every purpose and person."
Nice contradiction, Eric.
"You can crop the full frame image to the crop factor of the DX body and you'll get identical pictures give a similar pixel density."
Possibly, for the rare times when two such cameras actually exist. If you wanted the crop though, you'd be better off with the cropped sensor because of the faster processing and lower costs. The smaller sensor would also require less power which might result in lower noise.
"a Nikon FX body at 24 megapixels would match an DX body at 12 megapixles even cropped."
No it wouldn't. An FX 24MP sensor would provide 10.6MP when cropped to DX. No such sensor exists either.
Thanks, though, Eric for proving that full frame sensors aren't better for all uses than DX ones even though you stated exactly the opposite.
Joseph, the D300 (and D3) do not have million pixel LCD displays. The have million element displays but each pixel consists of 3 elements. The 3" displays on these cameras offer VGA resolution.
Sorry Craig, but what I said was not a contradiction. You need to read more carefully what I said.
And the bottom line is a smaller sensor will always have more noise than a larger sensor if you're comparing state of the art technologies. Of course a new cropped sensor can be better than an old full frame sensor. But you won't be seeing anything from anyone that can trump the Nikon D3 or Canon 1D Mark III for noise any time soon. Maybe a new Canon 5D Mark II? 3D? But they'll be full frame too.
The Olympus E3 is great up to ISO 800 and then it falls apart, just like the 40D and D300. (Depends on your standards what falls apart means. As a professional, it's pretty obvious to me. I saw Jim Sugar's (former National Geographic photographer) photos with an E3. The camera is amazing. But put it too hard and the small sensor loses it, while the Nikon D3 is just getting started. Physics. Efficiency of the sensor is based on the size of the pixels. Nothing you can do about it. That's where the "all other things being equal" statement comes from. You can twist logic all you want, but the bottom line is all cameras are compromises. I shoot with a 1Ds Mark II. It's an awesome camera, but only goes to ISO 3200. I get great photos at ISO 1600 with it. But they're not even in the league with the new 1D Mark II or the Nikon D3. That's cool. Technology never sits still.
Of course full frame sensors aren't best for all uses. Sometimes a 4 megapixel PHd camera (push here dummy) is the best tool for the job. Tell us something less obvious. Like you get what you pay for.