The D4 is supposed to be 18 MP, but well, who knows and talks about it? I guess a lot of people know, and a lot of people talk, but these are probably very highly non-overlapping sets of people.
I have a D700 and have decided that I am not upgrading until I can get at least the resolution of a D3x with the low noise performance at higher ISO's of the D3s. Oh, and did I mention that it needs to be in the D700 price range? I know I live in a fantasy wold!!
Actually, I have been very satisfied with the performance of my D700. Although I haven't had any large prints made from my D700, based upon what I have read here I don't think I would have any problems. Unless you print substantially large prints on a regular basis or view large prints from a close distance (which is really not the point) then I am not so sure you really need the 26MP resolution.
Personally I think there is more to image quality than sheer MP. The files that come from the D700 are exceptionally clean and respond well to processing (of course having high quality lenses makes a substantial difference for me).
Although I don't have any first hand experience with it, my opinion is that you can't go wrong with the D3s if you can find one and have the budget for it. NPN photographer Brad Hill uses it and has written a good review of it on his blog. Honestly, I wouldn't expect Nikon to replace it any time soon. It hasn't been on the market that long and in its class it remains untouched. Furthermore, the earthquake has substantially affected Nikon's production. Add to that the fact that Nikon doesn't typically rush new pro-level cameras to the market anyway (how long have people waited for the rumored D700X?). The problem with upgrading cameras is that the technology becomes obsolete very quickly, although I think the technology is leveling off somewhat. I think the old adage still holds true that it is better to invest in good glass.
Thanks, Mark - THAT is the answer I was hoping for.
Wish I could keep up with all the Nikon blogs, discussion groups, and forecasts, but I just can't.
Sandy
If these rumors are true there is usually a 6 month waiting period before dealers can make them available in any quanity. There will be tons of amatures selling their gear so they can get the latest and greatest.....will be a great opportunity to pick up some top notch barely used bodies for backup at a better price.
Joe Rogers
Hi Sandy
I tried out a d700 - wanted to see the difference in ISO and full frame. I mostly have been shooting with the d300, d200. To be honest, I was disappointed with it for the simple reason that it is slower than what I have. I found I could not sacrifice fps in wildlife to get the best action shots. While I sure appreciated the ISO and full frame capabilities with the 70-200 for low light, I found that I was holding my breath waiting for it to catch, say an osprey in flight at dusk. It would have been great for landscapes and turtles, and it may have been my technique, but I found it slow in comparison. (Probably more likely to be me and not the camera - but try it.) And yes, I am waiting for either the new stuff or saving up for a d3s. When you find out the scoop, let everyone know.
I'm still shooting a D2Xs commercially and am ready for an upgrade....still a great camera, though.
Same here on the D2Xs. I actually have 4 of them now, because my wife dumped her two on me in favor of the D300. Along the lines of the point made by Lindy, the D300 shoots circles around the D2Xs while weighing about half as much. In side-by-side use the D300's high ISO results completely skunk the D2Xs, while it's also much faster in both autofocus and IR acquisition. Any time I'm shooting in lower light or challenging conditions, I have to borrow a D300 from my wife.
Our standard for an upgrade will be comparisons with performance of the D300 rather than the D2Xs. If a new body doesn't beat it significantly, we'll just snap up more used D300's at much lower costs.
Hank: how does image quality at base ISO compare between the D2Xs and D300? I was actually considering the D7000 which is supposedly a step above the D300 in IQ. I played around with a D7000 (never shot it though) and was a little disappointed in the build quality as compared to the pro body build of the D2Xs.
We've not been able to detect any IQ sacrifice using the D300, and our clients certainly haven't. The largest D300 files are roughly half the size of the largest from D2X, but that hasn't been an issue either. I have no experience with the D7000, so will have to yield to others who have compared it to the D300. But the D7000 would have to be a WHOLE LOT better than the D300 before I could justify the extra expense for commercial shooting.
As for build, yeah the 300 is nowhere near as beefy as the D2Xs, but to my wife's great joy it only weighs half as much. We bought our first D300 as a backup for the "pro" models, but considering both image quality and weight my wife quickly bought another and gave me both of her D2Xs.
Here's the most convincing argument for me on behalf of the D300:
We had a very early morning aerial shoot, intended to catch sunrise over a barge delivery of windmills to Kodiak. But circumstances conspired. Not only was it cloudy, the local helicopter service was booked up and plane we intended to use had a mechanical. Rather than shooting from a stationary platform or with the door off the alternate plane, I ended up in the front seat of a Beaver on floats shooting through the tiny little triangular vent window, timing my shots in the skinny vantage between the prop in front, the float below and the wing and wing strut on my right. Minimum air speed for steerage and low elevation tight circling turns was 80 knots.
That's the setting. I had to keep one eye on the approaching view and one through the viewfinder and shoot really quickly while the shot was briefly in front of me. I alternated between a D2Xs and D300 with each pass in anticipation of buffer download issues with such very fast action. The D2Xs was set at 800 ISO to get the fastest possible shutter speeds while retaining "reasonable" IQ and the D300 at 3200 ISO for a couple more stops of shutter speed and "insurance," at least in my mind's eye. Identical lenses on both bodies.
The D2Xs was noticeably slower in AF and VR, to the point that it was a rare accomplishment along with the slower shutter speed to get a single clear image from a series shot on each pass with the plane. The D300 images were all clear and sharp. Comparing noise and contrast between the two was a near-religious experience. The D2Xs images were so much worse by comparison that we didn't deliver a single one to the client. They would have stood out like sore thumbs among all the great images from the D300.
BTW- D300 images from that shoot were subsequently used for 10' enlargements for trade show displays, international ads and high-dollar annual reports. No apologies needed for using a "lesser" camera, and several follow-up contracts from a very happy client.
Thanks for the feedback, Hank. Interestingly I am repeatedly asking my stock agents if they feel I need to upgrade from the D2Xs and they invariably say "no"....that the files from this camera do just fine in the marketplace. Nice to have choices, though, and it sounds like more are on the way.
We'll be watching carefully, but I don't anticipate springing for a D4S, D4X or even a D4Xs. Full frame will be useful at times, at times not, but there will have to be a huge jump in image quality before I'd ever consider any of those. When "lesser" models produce excellent results, I start running out of reasons to spend more.
Just for background "noise" I'm attaching a wide view cull of the conditions where the D300 excelled and the D2Xs failed miserably. This one happens to be at 2500 ISO rather than 3200 ISO, but it amply displays the lighting, rough seas (and air), the impinging mountains all around our spiraling plane and even a little window frame in the ULC. I'm yet to encounter tougher shooting conditions, and it will forever be my reference point for judging camera performance.
2. what are you in-camera noise reduction settings (I know they get applied to jpegs, and I think they are applied to raw files if processed in CaptureNX, and not applied to raw files if processed in ACR)?
3. Did you apply NR in post processing and if so how?
It was shot as a tiff with no in-camera noise reduction whatsoever. I can't recall if the D300 captures RAW. (My wife won't let me near HER cameras! )
I didn't do any noise reduction in post processing either. All I did was resize it to 640 pixels on the long axis, sharpen at 500/0.2/0 and save as a jpeg for posting.
I thought it would be worthwhile posting a closer view from the shoot in order to give you a better look at the blacks. No NR in camera, none in post processing. Resized, sharpened and saved as a jpeg for this post.
This is also a cull (obviously), shot at 2500 ISO, f/5 @ 1/100. In a very tight low turn with lots of turbulence. Egad. You need a camera that can really deliver in the worst conditions, including a $1350/hr airplane and an "event" for which there are no second chances.
The D300 did it and the D2Xs didn't. Not much more I can say than that.
Discussion
18 repliesI'm looking for something like the D3s with 26 MP.
thanks -
Sandy
The D4 is supposed to be 18 MP, but well, who knows and talks about it? I guess a lot of people know, and a lot of people talk, but these are probably very highly non-overlapping sets of people.
Sandy
Actually, I have been very satisfied with the performance of my D700. Although I haven't had any large prints made from my D700, based upon what I have read here I don't think I would have any problems. Unless you print substantially large prints on a regular basis or view large prints from a close distance (which is really not the point) then I am not so sure you really need the 26MP resolution.
Personally I think there is more to image quality than sheer MP. The files that come from the D700 are exceptionally clean and respond well to processing (of course having high quality lenses makes a substantial difference for me).
Although I don't have any first hand experience with it, my opinion is that you can't go wrong with the D3s if you can find one and have the budget for it. NPN photographer Brad Hill uses it and has written a good review of it on his blog. Honestly, I wouldn't expect Nikon to replace it any time soon. It hasn't been on the market that long and in its class it remains untouched. Furthermore, the earthquake has substantially affected Nikon's production. Add to that the fact that Nikon doesn't typically rush new pro-level cameras to the market anyway (how long have people waited for the rumored D700X?). The problem with upgrading cameras is that the technology becomes obsolete very quickly, although I think the technology is leveling off somewhat. I think the old adage still holds true that it is better to invest in good glass.
I'm still shooting a D2Xs commercially and am ready for an upgrade....still a great camera, though.
Wish I could keep up with all the Nikon blogs, discussion groups, and forecasts, but I just can't.
Sandy
Joe Rogers
I tried out a d700 - wanted to see the difference in ISO and full frame. I mostly have been shooting with the d300, d200. To be honest, I was disappointed with it for the simple reason that it is slower than what I have. I found I could not sacrifice fps in wildlife to get the best action shots. While I sure appreciated the ISO and full frame capabilities with the 70-200 for low light, I found that I was holding my breath waiting for it to catch, say an osprey in flight at dusk. It would have been great for landscapes and turtles, and it may have been my technique, but I found it slow in comparison. (Probably more likely to be me and not the camera - but try it.) And yes, I am waiting for either the new stuff or saving up for a d3s. When you find out the scoop, let everyone know.
Same here on the D2Xs. I actually have 4 of them now, because my wife dumped her two on me in favor of the D300. Along the lines of the point made by Lindy, the D300 shoots circles around the D2Xs while weighing about half as much. In side-by-side use the D300's high ISO results completely skunk the D2Xs, while it's also much faster in both autofocus and IR acquisition. Any time I'm shooting in lower light or challenging conditions, I have to borrow a D300 from my wife.
Our standard for an upgrade will be comparisons with performance of the D300 rather than the D2Xs. If a new body doesn't beat it significantly, we'll just snap up more used D300's at much lower costs.
As for build, yeah the 300 is nowhere near as beefy as the D2Xs, but to my wife's great joy it only weighs half as much. We bought our first D300 as a backup for the "pro" models, but considering both image quality and weight my wife quickly bought another and gave me both of her D2Xs.
Here's the most convincing argument for me on behalf of the D300:
We had a very early morning aerial shoot, intended to catch sunrise over a barge delivery of windmills to Kodiak. But circumstances conspired. Not only was it cloudy, the local helicopter service was booked up and plane we intended to use had a mechanical. Rather than shooting from a stationary platform or with the door off the alternate plane, I ended up in the front seat of a Beaver on floats shooting through the tiny little triangular vent window, timing my shots in the skinny vantage between the prop in front, the float below and the wing and wing strut on my right. Minimum air speed for steerage and low elevation tight circling turns was 80 knots.
That's the setting. I had to keep one eye on the approaching view and one through the viewfinder and shoot really quickly while the shot was briefly in front of me. I alternated between a D2Xs and D300 with each pass in anticipation of buffer download issues with such very fast action. The D2Xs was set at 800 ISO to get the fastest possible shutter speeds while retaining "reasonable" IQ and the D300 at 3200 ISO for a couple more stops of shutter speed and "insurance," at least in my mind's eye. Identical lenses on both bodies.
The D2Xs was noticeably slower in AF and VR, to the point that it was a rare accomplishment along with the slower shutter speed to get a single clear image from a series shot on each pass with the plane. The D300 images were all clear and sharp. Comparing noise and contrast between the two was a near-religious experience. The D2Xs images were so much worse by comparison that we didn't deliver a single one to the client. They would have stood out like sore thumbs among all the great images from the D300.
BTW- D300 images from that shoot were subsequently used for 10' enlargements for trade show displays, international ads and high-dollar annual reports. No apologies needed for using a "lesser" camera, and several follow-up contracts from a very happy client.
We'll be watching carefully, but I don't anticipate springing for a D4S, D4X or even a D4Xs. Full frame will be useful at times, at times not, but there will have to be a huge jump in image quality before I'd ever consider any of those. When "lesser" models produce excellent results, I start running out of reasons to spend more.
Just for background "noise" I'm attaching a wide view cull of the conditions where the D300 excelled and the D2Xs failed miserably. This one happens to be at 2500 ISO rather than 3200 ISO, but it amply displays the lighting, rough seas (and air), the impinging mountains all around our spiraling plane and even a little window frame in the ULC. I'm yet to encounter tougher shooting conditions, and it will forever be my reference point for judging camera performance.
Would you clarify a few points about this.
1. was this shot as a jpeg or in raw?
2. what are you in-camera noise reduction settings (I know they get applied to jpegs, and I think they are applied to raw files if processed in CaptureNX, and not applied to raw files if processed in ACR)?
3. Did you apply NR in post processing and if so how?
I didn't do any noise reduction in post processing either. All I did was resize it to 640 pixels on the long axis, sharpen at 500/0.2/0 and save as a jpeg for posting.
This is also a cull (obviously), shot at 2500 ISO, f/5 @ 1/100. In a very tight low turn with lots of turbulence. Egad. You need a camera that can really deliver in the worst conditions, including a $1350/hr airplane and an "event" for which there are no second chances.
The D300 did it and the D2Xs didn't. Not much more I can say than that.