Nikon D3 review round-up: survey says you'll want one

We've already seen it previewed and unboxed, but now that Nikon's super high-end D3 DSLR has been out for a little while, we're starting to get some full-on reviews of the camera and, as you might have guessed if you've been lucky enough to get your hands on one, there's plenty of consensus going on. Indeed, the praise being heaped on the camera is among the loftiest we've seen, with Photography Blog calling it "pretty much peerless," Think Camera declaring that "the files coming out of the Nikon D3 look better than any camera we've seen to date," and Ken Rockwell flat out calling it "the best camera ever made by Nikon." Needless to say, the upsides to the camera are a little long to list here, but it particularly fares well when it comes to rapid-fire image capture and low light photography, which makes it especially well-suited to press photographers. The biggest single complaint the reviewers could find was a lack of any built-in sensor cleaning technology, with only a couple of minor design flaws (like a lack of a spring inside the CF card door) attracting their attention otherwise. There's also, of course, that nearly $5,000 price tag, but we're guessing anyone actually in the market for the camera make do with that in turn for the results they'll get.

Read - Photography Blog (5 out of 5)
Read - Think Camera (9 out of 10)
Read - KenRockwell.com ("the best camera ever made by Nikon")

[Alex @ Feb 18th 2008 3:14PM]

$5k? dang...

guess I'll just have to be happy with my lowly D80

[MikeLong @ Feb 18th 2008 3:20PM]

I would hardly call the D80 lowly...*rolls eyes*

[Joe_Templeman @ Feb 18th 2008 3:27PM]

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, or at least it is lowly compared to a D3.

[MikeLong @ Feb 18th 2008 3:35PM]

Ah good sir...mine too was sarcastic.

When in rome.

[The1 @ Feb 18th 2008 3:37PM]

I love my D80 too, so it can wait.

[Esat @ Feb 18th 2008 3:39PM]

MikeLong: "When in rome."

Yes? Please do go on. :)

[Mike Ishigaki @ Feb 18th 2008 5:44PM]

I love my D80, too! The D3 is the flagship, though. But man, don't think of your D80 as lowly. They're ridiculously expensive and ridiculously good.

After all, if you compare a Ferrari to a Bugatti Veyron, the Ferrari it will look cheap.

[Mike Ishigaki @ Feb 18th 2008 5:44PM]

Excuse my last comment. I murdered the English language in it. Haha. Well, you guys get the point. ;)

[Jesse S @ Feb 18th 2008 3:23PM]

"Needless to say, the upsides to the camera are a little long to list year, but it particularly fares well when it comes to rapid-fire image capture and low light photography, which makes it especially well-suited to press photographers."

Don't you mean,
"Needless to say, the upsides to the camera are a little long to list here, but it fares particularly well when it comes to rapid-fire image capture and low light photography, which makes it especially well-suited to press photographers."

Isn't that a run-on, too?

Then again, I probably fail at grammar.

[Joe_Templeman @ Feb 18th 2008 3:26PM]

These reviews annoyed me. They present it as an alternative to the D300.

This is a professional camera. The D300 is a pro-sumer and a professionals backup at most!

With low noise on high ISOs, and a frame rate that will knock ya socks off, this is a sports photographers dream!

[Yem @ Feb 18th 2008 5:20PM]

Depends how you define "professional", no?

[User @ Feb 18th 2008 7:44PM]

He means professional as in: Someone who makes money by selling very high quality photographs. (For example, of the newest Mercedes Benz model, of the olympic athletes in action, of Clinique's newest products, etc.)

Of course the $5,000 price for these professional users is quite low. (Especially compared to the price of the rest of the setup: lenses, lights, stage workers, etc.)

[Jesse S @ Feb 18th 2008 9:26PM]

Studios use $30,000 Hasselblads. This is for journalists, sports photographers, etc. People who leave the studio.

[phanbouy @ Feb 18th 2008 3:29PM]

what i really wonder is, how many midlife-crisis types in hawaiian shirts are running around with cameras 10 times more capable than what they need? i've taken 1000s of pretty decent pics on my 4MP canon point n shoot.

[Jeebus @ Feb 18th 2008 3:51PM]

My lens is longer than your lens.

[phanbouy @ Feb 18th 2008 3:52PM]

it's not the focal length that counts it's how you use it

[Jesse S @ Feb 18th 2008 4:00PM]

Cameras like these simply make it easier for a photographer to get good shots.

A great photographer can take great pictures on a decades-old P&S camera.

The most important part of a camera are the 10 inches behind it.

[EddieW @ Feb 18th 2008 4:22PM]

I have to say, I went from my Sony P&S to an entry level Nikon D40 (low of the lows) and my picture quality improved significantly (not just the image quality but the quality of the photos). I love to take night photos so that alone makes a huge difference, and the wide angel lens (18mm from the default kit) is awsome for cityscape.

[MikeLong @ Feb 18th 2008 3:37PM]

I know my dad is one of them...

[Liam @ Feb 18th 2008 3:37PM]

A little too long to list HERE.

Wonder when all this stuff will filter through to the 'entry' ranges...? Of course, if you're making your earnings off of it, well it's a different story.

[fashionista @ Feb 18th 2008 3:51PM]

Why do you link to Ken Rockwell? You are just driving more traffic to his pathetic site. "SUPPORT MY D3 PURCHASE! DONATE TODAY!". Ugh, what a creep.

[Jesse S @ Feb 18th 2008 4:00PM]

What's wrong with Ken Rockwell?

[phanbouy @ Feb 18th 2008 4:07PM]

wonder if he's related to Norman. or Sam.

[fashionista @ Feb 18th 2008 5:00PM]

Nothing is wrong with Ken Rockwell. Everything is wrong with representing him as a relevant source for photography news. Here are the reasons off the top of my head that he should not be linked to from this post:
1. He doesn't shoot RAW format and is therefore unable to accurately review cameras, especially pro cameras.
2. He advocates not using a tripod, ever. WTF??
3. He is an amateur. If I want to hear amateur opinions of gear, I will talk to myself in the mirror.
4. He posts a picture of himself on the front page using a gigantic lens, then writes that gigantic lenses are useless. Again, WTF??
5. He solicits donations, yet provides nothing more than his opinion. While this is an ingenious business model, I find it distasteful and it detracts from his credibility.

He should be politely ignored when looking for reliable information on photography equipment.

[stephen @ Feb 18th 2008 6:46PM]

to Fashionista:

Ken Rockwell is very much a relevant source for information as he is not on the payrole of any camera manufacturer. He has a wealth of knowledge that I have not seen from any other reviewer. He has a much deeper understanding of how things work that I, and I'm willing bet on this, or you have. And his site is more than just reviews. There are loads of articles on technique that have helped out hundreds of thousands of people world wide.

Now to address all of your points:

He doesn't shooot in RAW for the mere fact that due to the volume that he shoots, it would take up too much space and he doesn't want to have all the excess peripherals to store all of that RAW data. And 9 times out of 10, you can't tell a different from RAW and JPEG. The trade-off of storage space for a single image, and quality of the image, is not worth it. He also at all times has a complete backup of his work stored away from his home, on a single external hard drive. If he were shooting RAW this would take FAR more drives than just one... and it's a large drive...

I'm a big advocate of not using a tripod unless you're doing long exposures. Otherwise, a tripod is too confining and restrictive for my needs. When I DID use a tripod, I would be on vacations and setup my rig to take a picture, and all the tourists around would see my setup, deduce that I was a pro, and then come over and get in my shot. Also, it's one less thing to carry.

He's anything but an amateur. He has a much deeper understanding of the engineering that goes into these cameras than either you or I could ever imagine. And he's been shooting since the dark ages of photography when you learned by shooting a roll of film, trying to remember what you did, wait for the prints and negatives to get back, and see what worked and what didn't. I think his site is a great tool for people who actually want to learn a thing or two. Have you read any of his articles that aren't reviews and are on technique? They've helped my business out a great deal and have challenged me to get outside of my "comfort zone" and try new methods, and they've improved my work 10x over.

If you've actually read his site, you'd know that he put that picture there so people who wandered onto his site would automatically know that it's a photography website. You don't see amateurs with lenses like that. Also, if you'll take a longer look at it, he's shooting with a left handed Nikon film camera that was only a prototype... I don't think that Nikon hands out prototypes to amateurs to test out for them.

His site is his job. His employers are other photographers who are benefiting from his writings, if not just for a hobby, it's benefiting them financially with their own businesses. Those who appreciate are free to donate and help continue the effort. So what that he solicits donations. His site saved me thousands of dollars in college courses to learn everything I know now. To the people in similar situations who appreciate what his site is, they are free to pay him back for the time and money that he spent purchasing equipment and testing out that equipment. Yes, his reviews are his opinion, but they're also based on DECADES of experience that neither I nor (and i'm 100% sure) you have. I'd much rather read his review and get some good insight on equipment before making a several thousand dollar mistake on purchasing the wrong equipment.

And yeah, they are just his opinions. He states that. He also says on his recommendations what he would recommend instead of certain things and in most cases these are directed towards amateurs, but says "you know who you are if you need this" and this is usually directed towards professionals who have the money to spend on big and expensive equipment.

[uhh @ Feb 18th 2008 8:23PM]

stephen: Only a Nikon fanatic would write up an essay to defend Ken Rockwell as a viable source. I'm tired of people saying Nikon products are top-tier just because the godly Ken Rockwell says it's so. He's a hypocritical amateur who hasn't used anything BUT Nikon in the past 5 years, so go figure. I bet he'd promote Nikon bottle caps if it started making them. He'd probably sleep with Nikon if it could fit in his bed.

Anyone who slams tripods, the interchangeability of an SLR system, chooses to shoot JPG over RAW, and/or chooses to oversaturate every single color in every single photo can hardly be seen as seasoned.

[Balls @ Feb 19th 2008 1:47PM]

You guys do know that most of what Ken Rockwell posts is fake right?

Like saying JPEG is better than RAW, and that sRGB is better than Adobe?

[Beanie @ Feb 18th 2008 3:56PM]

Being at a publication that just started using the D3, I can whole heartedly agree with all of the reviews. This is Nikon's best camera, this camera is what kept us from switching to Canon, now, Canon has to keep people from switching to Nikon. The improvement in the high ISO noise is worth the extra money alone.

[AdibTowfiq @ Feb 19th 2008 12:01AM]

Stephen... you seem to know Mr. Rockwell pretty good, you are a freaking n00b, just the same as Rockwell.


you say:

"he's shooting with a left handed Nikon film camera that was only a prototype."... uhhh yeah.. regardless of nikon making a left handed camera or not, if it is true, ken also wears womens shirts (buttons?)" http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/KenLens3k.jpg " (photo of "lefty nikon")

Also, Kens articles on technique are not ALL bad, but shit, sometimes i wanna think, what is he smoking, example: (quote "Tee Why")

1. "I'm using a full-frame digital camera, so my 14mm lens is equivalent to 14mm."
So, no crop factor in a non cropped sensor camera. Got it.

2. "My 14mm ultra-ultra wide angle lens makes the sand look like you're right on top of it, because you are."
I thought Ken can float on air and walk on water?

3. "If I wasn't' so lazy I would have 'shopped down the brightness of the upper right corner. I may have turned up the contrast on my 5D to bring out the texture; I forget."


4. "I exposed deliberately for the orange-lit hill on the upper left. I had to use manual exposure mode because my 5D only allowed -2 stops of exposure compensation, which wasn't enough."
Apparently, Ken has not discovered the spot metering in the 5D

5. "Mushroom Rock has been cleansed from today's Death Valley maps. Apparently many stupider people didn't understand that its name refers to its shape, not its composition."
Yes, that's what he wrote.

6. "I'm an idiot: I used ISO 100 instead of ISO 50." "Canons don't have Auto ISO, so after I bumped up ISO for the previous shot in the shade, I forgot to pull the ISO back down to ISO 50."
Gasp, and his images turned out Such noise at ISO 100 compared to the 50. Maybe Ken has Alzheimers.

7. "These indoor and night shots are hand-held. Tripods are for the weak. I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later..."
Nothing like a little spray and pray heh? so i pretty much just hate n00bs like you. go die! kthnksbye

8. "The low magnification of an ultra-ultra wide 14mm lens allows longer speeds than a normal lens."
Since when does the magnification ratio determine exposure?


there are lots of other things he just is a retard and wish he shot canon, actually i feel bad for canon folk, i wish he shot himself in the head.

[Alex @ Feb 18th 2008 4:23PM]

Ken Rockwell....now there's a trusted source...amoung newbs and idiots alike. Way to go Engadet. You guys figure out DOF yet in the photos you guys are taking? Brilliant...
Also, is 5K a lot for a camera? I don't understand, pro cameras are normally around 5K, so whats the big deal? The 1ds MKIII is 8K. Hasselblad's are 30K. Large format scanning back are in the 6-figure range. I don't get the point in pointing out the "5K price", are we supposed to be shocked or something? Pff, Engadget, stick to gadgets, give up on the camera stuff, you guys are making yourselves sound like fools to the photographer community.

[jonouk @ Feb 18th 2008 4:53PM]

damn, you beat me too it. Rockwell is widely known for being a completely useless reviewer, at least that's the impression i got from his "reviews" and people through photography forums many years ago.

Has he redeemed himself in the last 2 years?

[tamoghno @ Feb 18th 2008 4:58PM]

++1 for you alex . great point .

these nerds are the reason camera maker run after megapixel without actually making them better. these nerds are the reason why we have 5mpix cameraphone without optical zoom or good flash & crappy lens.(i know there are N93/95 but those are exception)

by the way , has no one seen the gallery photos of engadget ? seems like they dont even know about DOF of Macro mode.should we really expect more from e'gadget ?

[Yem @ Feb 18th 2008 5:25PM]

Be real - for every pro who buys a D3, two will be bought by wealthy amateurs. So what if Engadget talk about the price? Pro's don't get purchasing advise from Engadget - the editors are addressing the rest of us.

[M @ Feb 18th 2008 4:49PM]

The thing about camera reviews is that while they are great and stuff, for beginner or people who are thinking of buying it, what's most important (to some of us) is the quality of the pictures that'll come out in various settings e.g. regular shots, low lights, twilight etc. Why dont you get these reviewers or engadget commenters to submit photos that they've taken to share with us all?

[jodosh @ Feb 18th 2008 10:17PM]

Thom Hogan is IMO the best reviewer of Nikon gear. He is spot on with what he says, and he puts pictures to show you what he is talking about. His D3 review is not quite finished (he is out in the field right now) but in march he will post it.

As far as cred, he is an engineer by trade. And has taken up photography full time and makes a rather good living at it from what I can tell. If you want to know about a nikon purchase, look at his reviews first. I do and he hasn't steered me wrong yet.

http://www.bythom.com/

[phanbouy @ Feb 18th 2008 4:52PM]

nikon is not plural, spammer.

[dmckay83 @ Feb 18th 2008 5:08PM]

I played with one of these a couple of months ago. It was a demo that someone had at a work session. Let me tell you what this thing is sweet. I didn't want to hand it back to them but sadly they gladly took it back after i got to play around with it for 10 mins.

[Richard @ Feb 18th 2008 6:11PM]

I heard Ken Rockwell got all his gear from Nikon for free.

If that's true, no wonder it's "the best camera ever made by Nikon."

[Julian @ Feb 18th 2008 7:18PM]

haha there's no spring in the door? :O
thats hard to believe...

[spin @ Feb 18th 2008 8:46PM]

Here's a tip: If you want people to actually take a camera meta-review seriously, DON'T refer to Ken Rockwell's "review" in your writeup. He's univerasally regarded as a (bad) joke amongst Nkon folks who know anything.

[Rob @ Feb 18th 2008 9:15PM]

I had sex with Ken Rockwell and he was a dead fish. Ignore anything he says about cameras, he knows less than ANY of the commenters above.

[clubsiam @ Feb 18th 2008 9:39PM]

Ken Rockwell is a good resource for people switching from P&S to a DSLR.
Not much on his site for advanced shooters.

...and yes, that D3 is awesome.

[Joe @ Feb 18th 2008 9:45PM]

I for one am glad you included Ken Rockwell in your review round-up. The fact that the guy is known for not adhering to what the other so-called pros say, and makes a living giving an opinion on how he prefers to take pictures is impressive in itself. Not once does he say in any of his writing that his way is the best, he always says things like "I prefer" or "The way I like to do it". He constantly states that he likes over-saturated colors, but some moron with their own opinion will say he sucks because it doesn't fall in line with what they prefer. He shoots in JPEG because he doesn't Photoshop the hell out of each shot. Not one of the haters would be able to tell the difference either way anyway. I don't think he is a joke to the photographic community because it's not a competition and there is no right way to do things, just do it your way.

For the record, I'm not a fan of Ken Rockwell's photography, but I do enjoy his writing style (even if I don't agree with everything he says).

[uhh @ Feb 18th 2008 10:27PM]

Moron with his own opinion... Hmm, sounds a lot like the guy you're sucking off in the back alley.

ZING!

If you're going to buy a DSLR for 8 large, you're an idiot if all you take get out of it is compressed JPEGs. It's like throwing out the negative after you've made a 4x6 print.

[F3 @ Feb 19th 2008 10:54PM]

Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one, thats how Pentax was born

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts

[sharpie @ Feb 29th 2008 3:31PM]

Drool, I can wait to hold one of these. 5g's is too rich for my blood, I'll wait till it hits ebay, I love my D-Hundi

[Jeff @ Mar 23rd 2008 7:01AM]

Can I get a free one????