Here's a link making the rounds showing D3 ISO 5000 shots.
Opanda shows, on the one shot I checked out, the camera to be a D3 and the ISO to be at 5000 with NR off the aperture setting was 2.8.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Here's a link making the rounds showing D3 ISO 5000 shots.
Opanda shows, on the one shot I checked out, the camera to be a D3 and the ISO to be at 5000 with NR off the aperture setting was 2.8.
As hot a topic as these cameras are right now, and as easy as it is to falsify EXIF data, I'm going to wait until a reviewer posts shots in controlled conditions before making up my mind.
Unfortunately, the image has been processed in CS2 and the image size is only 1000 x 692, so we can't really tell what the original looked like. Still, that image is sharp and saturated and I wouldn't mind seeing one of these cameras in action.
As hot a topic as these cameras are right now, and as easy as it is to falsify EXIF data, I'm going to wait until a reviewer posts shots in controlled conditions before making up my mind.
Unfortunately, the image has been processed in CS2 and the image size is only 1000 x 692, so we can't really tell what the original looked like. Still, that image is sharp and saturated and I wouldn't mind seeing one of these cameras in action.
I don't put that much weight on these kind of shots. There's too much unknown about them to get excited one way or the other. The only thing I found of note was the noise levels of the shots with the NR off. They are a quantum advance past the noise handling of my current D2X and D200.
I am eagerly awaiting some objective and controlled testing of these cameras.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Funny how all the forum fanboys are raving over specs these days.
Anyone else thinking of building a 1200mm/5.6 L with styrofoam
and mount a Rebel on it? Just think of how this "mine is this much
bigger" specs circus would stop.
/afk buying foam
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Funny how all the forum fanboys are raving over specs these days.
Anyone else thinking of building a 1200mm/5.6 L with styrofoam
and mount a Rebel on it? Just think of how this "mine is this much
bigger" specs circus would stop.
/afk buying foam
What are you going on about? The specualtion here is a rather sedate compared to every other forum I've visited lately.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
What are you going on about? The specualtion here is a rather sedate compared to every other forum I've visited lately.
Yes, I'm refering to the the discussions on the internet in general and not
only to those on this forum. I prefer the cultivated and peacefull pace on
dgrin much more.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Just got a call from Adorama saying that they are now taking pre-orders for the D3 and the D300.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I am just so jealous. I got my D200 baby in October and I absolutely love it. The D300 is even better. I'd better wait a year or two before ordering it. Otherwise, my better half might get even more upset than when I brought my new computer home a couple of weeks ago.
Attached order confirmation from Ritz which includes the price. And I was told mid-November.
Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution.--
Ansel Adams
Funny how all the forum fanboys are raving over specs these days.
Anyone else thinking of building a 1200mm/5.6 L with styrofoam
and mount a Rebel on it? Just think of how this "mine is this much
bigger" specs circus would stop.
/afk buying foam
Too late, Mike beat you to this one he built that 2 years ago for Merritt Island.
Congrats all you Nikon shooters. I'm looking forward to seeing some sample pics. If all the hype is true it bodes well for all shooters, regardless of brand.
When I finally switched to digital, I went with Nikon. And after a year being serious with my D70 I'm ready for a serious upgrade.
I've thought about getting a D200 now since it's well-proven and prices look better every day with the D300 pending. But over a longer run, would it be wiser to wait for the D300?
I'm torn. Personally, after spending years shooting film (Canon), all the bells and whistles being added to digital cameras do nothing for me because no amount of technology can compensate if:
- you don't have a good eye for a shot
- you don't understand and can work with the (never-changing) basics of light to begin with
- you don't find your Self in the right place at the right time
Many Pulitzer prize-winning photos are taken with what some would consider quite "ordinary" cameras. Meaning, the basics of photography haven't changed so what does spending more money for "newer" really provide?
Comparing specs includes:
- An extra 2.1 megapixels with a new sensor
- 1 extra frame per second (specs don't indicate if only applies to RAW)
- About 400x300 extra pixels in large image size
- ISO 200 minimum instead of ISO 100 (ISO 100 "equivalent")
- One more white balance mode
Sure, the D300 improves a bit on auto-focus, but doesn't a good photographer already know how to properly focus manually?
Everything else seems geared to those things I do now on my computer, i.e. post-processing. Which isn't going to really change no matter how much smarts are built into a camera.
So what's a girl to do? (No, going back to Canon isn't an option...haha....) I want something I can keep for a few years since this is going to be rather an investment for me and I just don't see it taking me longer to outgrow a D300 versus a D200 right now unless I'm missing something?
So what's a girl to do? (No, going back to Canon isn't an option...haha....) I want something I can keep for a few years since this is going to be rather an investment for me and I just don't see it taking me longer to outgrow a D300 versus a D200 right now unless I'm missing something?
PJ.
Hey PJ,
You can't go wrong no matter what you do. By the end of the year they will be a bunch of used D200s. D2Xs, and D2hs for sale at reduced prices. Also you will have the D3 and D300 on the market.
Everyone is a good camera and you will get good results from any of them. It comes down to $. Can you afford one of the newer cameras. If yes they should give you better performance at higher ISOs with a faster AF. Emphasis here on the 'should'.
If $ is an issue any of the older cameras will do fine for you and will be a step up from your D70.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I found this report on the D3 and D300 from IFA in Berlin interesting.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I found this report on the D3 and D300 from IFA in Berlin interesting.
Quite interesting, indeed! Makes me think I should wait until I can afford a D3 or go with my first reaction and get a "workhorse" D200 as the price comes down. But I'm sure that as stated there will be further, more detailed comparison reviews to come.
I guess I'm still "old school" in some ways because I just don't see the point of big LCD screens and ISO 25,000. Well, maybe the high ISO for capturing things that move in the dark but at least for me, most of the time, like 99% of the time, a long exposure at ISO 200 works just fine. And when you think about it, our eyes don't see "properly" in the dark anyway....
Quite interesting, indeed! Makes me think I should wait until I can afford a D3 or go with my first reaction and get a "workhorse" D200 as the price comes down. But I'm sure that as stated there will be further, more detailed comparison reviews to come.
I guess I'm still "old school" in some ways because I just don't see the point of big LCD screens and ISO 25,000. Well, maybe the high ISO for capturing things that move in the dark but at least for me, most of the time, like 99% of the time, a long exposure at ISO 200 works just fine. And when you think about it, our eyes don't see "properly" in the dark anyway....
Way to much for this tired brain to consider.
I would wait until the reviews and some controlled testing of both cameras is done before I made my final decision. The article was interesting but the dude was reviewing the shots on the LCD.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Out of all the features presented by the two new cameras, and the one that my D70s doesn't have that I really want, is ruggedness. I want something that is tougher so I can be more places camera-out and ready to shoot. Not that I'm really afraid of busting a body, I just don't want to miss that next shot right after that with no back up body.
I also really like the higher dynamic ranges supposedly offered by the D3. (and by the D300 - because of CMOS??) THAT makes me drool. A billion FPS, 51 pt AF, yeah yeah. $2000 CDN vs $6000 CDN at one CDN retailer...
I want to see some comparo shots between the D3 and the D300! :jfriend
VI
dgrin.com - making my best shots even better since 2006.
I carry two D70s when I shot; I had two D200 ordered when they came out but it took to long and my season was going to started and I needed to get use to the camera bodies
So getting the D300 mid November will give me about a month before "THE TULSA SHOT OUT"
Just went to the local camera shops in my area today; D300 has the most pre-orders by far. 16 at one and 8 at the other (this is two small towns in Washington State)
Just went to the local camera shops in my area today; D300 has the most pre-orders by far. 16 at one and 8 at the other (this is two small towns in Washington State)
The D300 should be a hot selling camera.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Reading some of the posts after this one, the most important factor in whether you should go for the D200 vs. the D300 is if you think that the difference in the price is worth the upgrade from the D200. Below, however, you make a lot of comments that are similar to what I thought before I finally went digital in 2002. I have a closet full of Nikon film cameras (FG, my favorite, N90s, F100, F4). Yes, there are things that one would expect converted filmies to know how to do that pure digitales can't do or don't understand, but going digital should only be that much better if you have that film experience...
When I finally switched to digital, I went with Nikon. And after a year being serious with my D70 I'm ready for a serious upgrade.
From the D70, or anything built off the D100, there is a major jump in quality that you won't realize until you get at least the D200 in your hand. It's much more tightly built, has much better auto focus in speed and accuracy, and for indoor stuff like theatre and concerts, the noice at ISO1000 is so much better. All of this is supposed to be even more improved in the D300.
I've thought about getting a D200 now since it's well-proven and prices look better every day with the D300 pending. But over a longer run, would it be wiser to wait for the D300?
Depends on the money. For me, where I shoot mostly outdoors, I have three D200s in my lineup, and I look forward to the price on it going down so I can have a few more. The D300 is only of primary interest for doing theatre stills, at least right now.
I'm torn. Personally, after spending years shooting film (Canon), all the bells and whistles being added to digital cameras do nothing for me because no amount of technology can compensate if:
- you don't have a good eye for a shot
- you don't understand and can work with the (never-changing) basics of light to begin with
- you don't find your Self in the right place at the right time
Just think of what you could do with the technology if you really have those three things!
Many Pulitzer prize-winning photos are taken with what some would consider quite "ordinary" cameras. Meaning, the basics of photography haven't changed so what does spending more money for "newer" really provide?
- An extra 2.1 megapixels with a new sensor
- 1 extra frame per second (specs don't indicate if only applies to RAW)
- About 400x300 extra pixels in large image size
- ISO 200 minimum instead of ISO 100 (ISO 100 "equivalent")
- One more white balance mode
Sure, the D300 improves a bit on auto-focus, but doesn't a good photographer already know how to properly focus manually?
Everything else seems geared to those things I do now on my computer, i.e. post-processing. Which isn't going to really change no matter how much smarts are built into a camera.
The D300 probably has more options in there than most know what to do with, but have we all really mastered all that the D200 has to offer yet? I venture that most photographers these days no longer know how to focus properly. Lenses are no longer split-image, the focus rings are not where you would want them, and the new systems do it far better anyway. (With my eyesight, I had to learn to trust the autofocus long before I went digital!)
So what's a girl to do? (No, going back to Canon isn't an option...haha....) I want something I can keep for a few years since this is going to be rather an investment for me and I just don't see it taking me longer to outgrow a D300 versus a D200 right now unless I'm missing something?
PJ.
Yes, what is a girl, or a guy, to do? As if going back to Canon was ever an option
To pay or not to pay... That is the question... You are, afterall, a photographer, so why not just go for it!
I own a D50 and I am quite happy with it. However, I would LOVE to have a 3 inch LCD. Also, if the noise is much better with the d300, I would get it over the D200 as I like walkabout photography and never know when I need fast shutterspeed in low light. I think it would help out. I also read the D300 has a better battery life. Thats a plus for me as I don't like carrying extra gear or bags.
A new camera with better bells and whistels can't take the place of the basic principles of photography. It can sure make it easier though.
Well, apparently the stars aligned last weekend and I ended up buying a new D2Xs. It's to arrive today.
With another trip to the U.P. planned for later this month, knowing it will be replete with splendid photo ops, I'm almost literally drooling over the advantages the D2Xs will give me over my D70 now that I have the 80-200mm AF. Sure, last trip I got some good photos with the D70 but that trip is what finally made it quite clear the time had come to upgrade. And in talking to the folks at one of the camera stores here over the weekend, getting a D2Xs now made more sense than waiting a year or so for the inevitable update of the D3. Not to mention the D2Xs came at an excellent price as most folks are focused on obtaining the bells and whistles of the D3 and D300.
I'm standing on the edge of a big learning curve, but gosh, it's so bloody exciting!
Well, apparently the stars aligned last weekend and I ended up buying a new D2Xs. It's to arrive today.
...
Congratulations!
The Nikon D2X/D2Xs are gorgeous cameras to be sure, and you are right, they are a very good value now that they are close to the end of their production cycle.
Well, apparently the stars aligned last weekend and I ended up buying a new D2Xs. It's to arrive today.
PJ.
Congrats, I've been shooting with the D2X for awhile now and its a fine piece of equipment. This may be of help. I always get one from Thom when I get a new camera.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Bjørn Roslett impressions of the D3 and D300 are here.
In case you don't wnat to go through the thread he said:
"Shot another D3 today with the AFS 600/4 VR and 24-80/2.8 AFS. Both were production level items and both delivered astonishing results on the D3. The 600 focused swiftly even in dim llight. I did a series up to 25600 ISO to show the high-ISO performance to the public attending that event and had the strange experience of a camera telling me it ran out of shutter speeds in dim light: "HI" at f/4, @ 25600 ISO - I had to stop the lens down to get the speeds within the fastest 1/8000 sec. Now, that is a new dimension for most of us"
" The previous 24-70 I used in Tokyo was pre-production and showed severe flare issues, not so with this production copy. Images were crisp and clear across the entire frame, geometric distortion on the D3 looked minimal or negligible, and CA virtually non-existent. Sorry, embargo on D3 images so you need to take my words for this."
"I spent the better part of an hour with my old favourite AFS 17-35/2.8 on the D3 to see whether it behaved in a civilised manner. As far as I could ascertain, no severe issues with vignetting or CA occurred. I'll rerun this lens and a number of other again when I receive my personal D3 later."
"Still not have had the opportunity to run comparisons directly, but my impression is that 6400 on D3 is cleaner than 800 on the D2X, and 25600 looks more or less as 1600. All of this will be tested throroughly later, of course. For the D300, my guess at this time is that 3200 is on the level of 800 for D200, but take this statment with a big pinch of salt. Since we now use cameras with embargo on the jpgs and no RAW converter is currently available, too much remains speculative."
"The Nikon engineers stated in a Q & A session in Tokyo that the improvement of D300 was 300% (approx 1.5 stops), but it is a little unclear what this means in terms of total dynamic range or just better (read: lower) noise behaviour at base ISO. There is more to noise performance than just a number. Thus, the appearance of noise needs to be taken into consideration as well. After all, it is the interaction of noise with intended pictorial content that matters."
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Here's a very interesting report from a pro. Ed had been a Nikon shooter but switched to Canon when he was unhappy with the D2h's performance at higher ISOs.
Reading stuff like this is making the wait for the D3 seem longer and longer. :twitch
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Comments
Opanda shows, on the one shot I checked out, the camera to be a D3 and the ISO to be at 5000 with NR off the aperture setting was 2.8.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
As hot a topic as these cameras are right now, and as easy as it is to falsify EXIF data, I'm going to wait until a reviewer posts shots in controlled conditions before making up my mind.
http://cusac.smugmug.com
Thanks Harry!
This one, with the American flag, is also ISO 5000, and EXIF shows 600mm, f4 and 1/1000th.
http://www2.xitek.com/showpicture.php?action=http://image4.xitek.com/forum/200708/1651/165156/165156_1188313152.jpg
Unfortunately, the image has been processed in CS2 and the image size is only 1000 x 692, so we can't really tell what the original looked like. Still, that image is sharp and saturated and I wouldn't mind seeing one of these cameras in action.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That is always prudent advice!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I don't put that much weight on these kind of shots. There's too much unknown about them to get excited one way or the other. The only thing I found of note was the noise levels of the shots with the NR off. They are a quantum advance past the noise handling of my current D2X and D200.
I am eagerly awaiting some objective and controlled testing of these cameras.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Anyone else thinking of building a 1200mm/5.6 L with styrofoam
and mount a Rebel on it? Just think of how this "mine is this much
bigger" specs circus would stop.
/afk buying foam
― Edward Weston
What are you going on about?
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
only to those on this forum. I prefer the cultivated and peacefull pace on
dgrin much more.
― Edward Weston
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Ansel Adams
Congrats all you Nikon shooters. I'm looking forward to seeing some sample pics. If all the hype is true it bodes well for all shooters, regardless of brand.
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
I've thought about getting a D200 now since it's well-proven and prices look better every day with the D300 pending. But over a longer run, would it be wiser to wait for the D300?
I'm torn. Personally, after spending years shooting film (Canon), all the bells and whistles being added to digital cameras do nothing for me because no amount of technology can compensate if:
- you don't have a good eye for a shot
- you don't understand and can work with the (never-changing) basics of light to begin with
- you don't find your Self in the right place at the right time
Many Pulitzer prize-winning photos are taken with what some would consider quite "ordinary" cameras. Meaning, the basics of photography haven't changed so what does spending more money for "newer" really provide?
Comparing specs includes:
- An extra 2.1 megapixels with a new sensor
- 1 extra frame per second (specs don't indicate if only applies to RAW)
- About 400x300 extra pixels in large image size
- ISO 200 minimum instead of ISO 100 (ISO 100 "equivalent")
- One more white balance mode
Sure, the D300 improves a bit on auto-focus, but doesn't a good photographer already know how to properly focus manually?
Everything else seems geared to those things I do now on my computer, i.e. post-processing. Which isn't going to really change no matter how much smarts are built into a camera.
So what's a girl to do? (No, going back to Canon isn't an option...haha....) I want something I can keep for a few years since this is going to be rather an investment for me and I just don't see it taking me longer to outgrow a D300 versus a D200 right now unless I'm missing something?
PJ.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
Hey PJ,
You can't go wrong no matter what you do. By the end of the year they will be a bunch of used D200s. D2Xs, and D2hs for sale at reduced prices. Also you will have the D3 and D300 on the market.
Everyone is a good camera and you will get good results from any of them. It comes down to $. Can you afford one of the newer cameras. If yes they should give you better performance at higher ISOs with a faster AF. Emphasis here on the 'should'.
If $ is an issue any of the older cameras will do fine for you and will be a step up from your D70.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Quite interesting, indeed! Makes me think I should wait until I can afford a D3 or go with my first reaction and get a "workhorse" D200 as the price comes down. But I'm sure that as stated there will be further, more detailed comparison reviews to come.
I guess I'm still "old school" in some ways because I just don't see the point of big LCD screens and ISO 25,000. Well, maybe the high ISO for capturing things that move in the dark but at least for me, most of the time, like 99% of the time, a long exposure at ISO 200 works just fine. And when you think about it, our eyes don't see "properly" in the dark anyway....
Way to much for this tired brain to consider.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
I would wait until the reviews and some controlled testing of both cameras is done before I made my final decision. The article was interesting but the dude was reviewing the shots on the LCD.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
H2H_PHOTO
I also really like the higher dynamic ranges supposedly offered by the D3. (and by the D300 - because of CMOS??) THAT makes me drool. A billion FPS, 51 pt AF, yeah yeah. $2000 CDN vs $6000 CDN at one CDN retailer...
I want to see some comparo shots between the D3 and the D300! :jfriend
VI
So getting the D300 mid November will give me about a month before "THE TULSA SHOT OUT"
H2H_PHOTO
H2H_PHOTO
The D300 should be a hot selling camera.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2
Reading some of the posts after this one, the most important factor in whether you should go for the D200 vs. the D300 is if you think that the difference in the price is worth the upgrade from the D200. Below, however, you make a lot of comments that are similar to what I thought before I finally went digital in 2002. I have a closet full of Nikon film cameras (FG, my favorite, N90s, F100, F4). Yes, there are things that one would expect converted filmies to know how to do that pure digitales can't do or don't understand, but going digital should only be that much better if you have that film experience...
Some comments on your comments.. From the D70, or anything built off the D100, there is a major jump in quality that you won't realize until you get at least the D200 in your hand. It's much more tightly built, has much better auto focus in speed and accuracy, and for indoor stuff like theatre and concerts, the noice at ISO1000 is so much better. All of this is supposed to be even more improved in the D300.
Depends on the money. For me, where I shoot mostly outdoors, I have three D200s in my lineup, and I look forward to the price on it going down so I can have a few more. The D300 is only of primary interest for doing theatre stills, at least right now.
Just think of what you could do with the technology if you really have those three things!
!!!!!
The D300 probably has more options in there than most know what to do with, but have we all really mastered all that the D200 has to offer yet? I venture that most photographers these days no longer know how to focus properly. Lenses are no longer split-image, the focus rings are not where you would want them, and the new systems do it far better anyway. (With my eyesight, I had to learn to trust the autofocus long before I went digital!)
Yes, what is a girl, or a guy, to do? As if going back to Canon was ever an option
To pay or not to pay... That is the question... You are, afterall, a photographer, so why not just go for it!
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
A new camera with better bells and whistels can't take the place of the basic principles of photography. It can sure make it easier though.
With another trip to the U.P. planned for later this month, knowing it will be replete with splendid photo ops, I'm almost literally drooling over the advantages the D2Xs will give me over my D70 now that I have the 80-200mm AF. Sure, last trip I got some good photos with the D70 but that trip is what finally made it quite clear the time had come to upgrade. And in talking to the folks at one of the camera stores here over the weekend, getting a D2Xs now made more sense than waiting a year or so for the inevitable update of the D3. Not to mention the D2Xs came at an excellent price as most folks are focused on obtaining the bells and whistles of the D3 and D300.
I'm standing on the edge of a big learning curve, but gosh, it's so bloody exciting!
PJ.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
Congratulations!
The Nikon D2X/D2Xs are gorgeous cameras to be sure, and you are right, they are a very good value now that they are close to the end of their production cycle.
Enjoy and remember to share here.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Congrats, I've been shooting with the D2X for awhile now and its a fine piece of equipment. This may be of help. I always get one from Thom when I get a new camera.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
In case you don't wnat to go through the thread he said:
"Shot another D3 today with the AFS 600/4 VR and 24-80/2.8 AFS. Both were production level items and both delivered astonishing results on the D3. The 600 focused swiftly even in dim llight. I did a series up to 25600 ISO to show the high-ISO performance to the public attending that event and had the strange experience of a camera telling me it ran out of shutter speeds in dim light: "HI" at f/4, @ 25600 ISO - I had to stop the lens down to get the speeds within the fastest 1/8000 sec. Now, that is a new dimension for most of us"
" The previous 24-70 I used in Tokyo was pre-production and showed severe flare issues, not so with this production copy. Images were crisp and clear across the entire frame, geometric distortion on the D3 looked minimal or negligible, and CA virtually non-existent. Sorry, embargo on D3 images so you need to take my words for this."
"I spent the better part of an hour with my old favourite AFS 17-35/2.8 on the D3 to see whether it behaved in a civilised manner. As far as I could ascertain, no severe issues with vignetting or CA occurred. I'll rerun this lens and a number of other again when I receive my personal D3 later."
"Still not have had the opportunity to run comparisons directly, but my impression is that 6400 on D3 is cleaner than 800 on the D2X, and 25600 looks more or less as 1600. All of this will be tested throroughly later, of course. For the D300, my guess at this time is that 3200 is on the level of 800 for D200, but take this statment with a big pinch of salt. Since we now use cameras with embargo on the jpgs and no RAW converter is currently available, too much remains speculative."
"The Nikon engineers stated in a Q & A session in Tokyo that the improvement of D300 was 300% (approx 1.5 stops), but it is a little unclear what this means in terms of total dynamic range or just better (read: lower) noise behaviour at base ISO. There is more to noise performance than just a number. Thus, the appearance of noise needs to be taken into consideration as well. After all, it is the interaction of noise with intended pictorial content that matters."
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
It all sounds very encouraging.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Reading stuff like this is making the wait for the D3 seem longer and longer. :twitch
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"