Pondering a D3...

It seems that for the first time, the price of a flagship body seems worth while to me. I have never been wowed by the latest and greatest before and in all likelyhood, I would not be on of the first to purchase such a camera, but having recently made the move to "full time" photographer, I was wondering how wildlife photographers feel about the prospect going back to FF on a D3. I am excited about the possibilities of shooting high-action hand-held with my 500 f4 on this new camera, but i ask myself the importance of sensor size vs. focal length. I know that Canon users have gotten by quite well cropping their Mk II images for years now. I really feel that a high-speed AF camera with high frame rate and (what seems to be) a miraculous ISO performance would allow me to produce the kind of images that I love. Even if the chink in the proverbial armour of the D3 as a wildlife camera is cropability due to low pixel density, any number of cameras -- including my D200, could make up for the situations where teleconverters and cropping for distant, static subjects at lower iso's with tripod, etc. As it stands, any cropability advantage on my D200 is lost after iso250 due to noise compromising fine detail.

Any thoughts and comments are welcome

Scott

The obvious alternative is the D300. It looks like this camera is excellent value for money and makes the D2x look pretty old (also when considering the price, but even when looking at the features only). Shoots at up to 8 fps with the grip. High ISO won't be as good as with the D3, though. In the end, it's a matter of style, I guess, and either camera will deliver.

Basil

My single consideration for the D3 as a wildlife/outdoor lens would be to wait for the appearance of the D3X or whatever they call it. The D3 is going to be dandy for fast shooting ala sports and editorial, but I think you'll lose ground in jumping on it. I went through this with the D2 series, and the D2X won hands down.

I guess my fears about the D300 is that the AF is going to be crippled in some way. I just want to be in the same playing field as Mk II owners have been all these years. Also, I'm realistic about my ISO desires: all I want is to be able to shoot the 500 at f5.6 and 1/1600 for the better part of the day. If I could do that I would need iso640 -- if iso 640 behaved like iso250 on the D200 in terms of detail retention at moderate crops, I would be a happy man. I rarely participate in any gear speculation threads, but if a higher pixel density D3x were to arrive, my concern would then be that this would be a 1Ds-like camera intended to for high-res studio applications, etc. and that the noise advantage would be lost.

What do you think?

Scott

From the photos I have seen from the D3 ISO 640 will be fantastic. Several much higher ISO photos show very little noise.

From what I've gathered from various dealers and internet sources is a new generation of electronics should be available by next summer. For that reason I'm hanging on until at least then before considering a new camera.

The consensus seems to be that Nikon won't follow Canon's larger megapixel example in favour of a lower rate but better quality at higher ISO speeds.

Juergen Specht's Nikon list seems to be a good source of information on new developments, but in the end it is just speculation. http://www.juergenspecht.com/lists/d1scussion/