You convinced me Niko finally, Nikon I am gone. Not because D90 does not have metal frame body with plastic exterior parts as Canon 5D does, and not because it has just a bit better overall usability then Canon 5D but because Nikon does not publish images of the interior of D90 as Canon does for 5D so there must be something bad they are hiding there.
d3s or d3x please advise
(48 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I'm sensing some sarcasm here.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What Niko says makes a lot of sense. You should wait because it's never a good idea to buy something when new models are awaited in the next few weeks... Even if I was looking for a D3s myself, I'd wait to see what the D900 has to offer.
I'd buy the D3s over the D3x because of high fps and extremely good high iso performance. However, like many said, the 12mpx might be annoying... but if you aren't printing large, it's more than enough, if you want to print large, then the D3X or new upcoming models should be better...
The possibility to print larger is about the only bonus from the D3x IMO.
Also, don't forget the lenses! There's no point spending money on a good body if you don't get the best lenses around... 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, etc..
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
I'm sensing some sarcasm here.I am sorry about that but Niko touched me where it hearts. If you compare current Nikon and Canon offering you will see that Nikon is on average inferior and more expensive than Canon. For example
Canon 50D
Price $1000
Sensor DX 15Mpix
ISO: 100-3200 (expandable to 6400 and 12800)
6.3fps
Viewfinder 95%
Video No (so what, wait for full HD 60D)
Body Partially Sealed MagnesiumNikon D300s
Price $1500
Sensor DX 12Mpix
ISO: 200-3200 (expandable to 100-6400)
7fps
Viewfinder 100%
Video but not full HD
Body Partially Sealed MagnesiumPosted 3 years ago # -
For the record, the D300s showed up in my Amazon Daily Deals page priced at $1425... Just Sayin...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Cool, but Nikon has nothing to compete with this:
Canon 7D
Price $1500
Sensor DX 18Mpix
ISO: 100-6400 (expandable to 12800)
8fps
Viewfinder 100%
Video full HD
Body Partially Sealed MagnesiumPosted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, How about this
Apple iPhone 3Gs
Price: $100 (With Contract)
Built in multi-touch capeable capacitive touchscreen
Integrated Panoramma Photostiching, HDR, Photo Retouching, Wireless photo uploading & sharing. Sensor based vibration reduction., Noise Removeal.Oh yeah... and it does the whole smartphone thing as well.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually they do, its called the D300s. People base far too many choice on numbers, rather than actual performance.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PB PM said:
Actually they do, its called the D300s. People base far too many choice on numbers, rather than actual performance.No they don't and honestly if 7D was Nikon camera would you rather go for it or for 1450$ D300s?
And how about this pair:
Canon 5D MkII
Price $2500
Sensor FX 21Mpix
ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 50, 12800, and 25600)
4fps
Viewfinder 98%
Video full HD
Body Partially Sealed Magnesium AlloyNikon D700
Price $2500
Sensor FX 12Mpix
ISO: 200-6400 (expandable to 100-25600)
5fps
Viewfinder 95%
Video No
Body Partially Sealed Magnesium AlloyPosted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
I am sorry about that but Niko touched me where it hearts.Hey now! I wasn't trying to touch you anywhere! LOL :^)
I've always said Nikon needs a metal/sealed body camera at around $1200USD. The D300 at $1800 was really looking way over priced so it's good the 7D finally came along! Perhaps the D400 will be priced around that price if there is a future D90 like full frame at $1800USD?
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
No they don't and honestly if 7D was Nikon camera would you rather go for it or for 1450$ D300s?
And how about this pair:
Canon 5D MkII
Price $2500
Sensor FX 21Mpix
ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 50, 12800, and 25600)
4fps
Viewfinder 98%
Video full HD
Body Partially Sealed Magnesium AlloyNikon D700
Price $2500
Sensor FX 12Mpix
ISO: 200-6400 (expandable to 100-25600)
5fps
Viewfinder 95%
Video No
Body Partially Sealed Magnesium AlloyAgain those are just numbers, nothing about performance. 12MP RAW files are big enough already thank you very much. I don't care about video, and the D300s AF system is still better than the 7D... moving on.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It is not you but Nikon; they should invest more in DSLR and less in stupid CoolPixess.
We hate them my precious
It seams they have prepared 5 new (3 S class and two lower P class) for this conference instead of something we want …Posted 3 years ago # -
So no numbers for you, I guess Nikon Mpixes and ISO are much larger then Canons, right?
I suppose this will also mean nothing:
Canon 1Ds MkIV
Price $5000
Sensor APS-H 16Mpix
ISO: 100-12800 (expandable to 50, 25600, 51200, and 102400)
10fps
Viewfinder 100%
Video full HD
Fully Sealed Magnesium AlloyNikon D3s
Price $5000
Sensor FX 12Mpix
ISO 200-12,800, expandable to ISO 102,400 (Hi3)
9fps
Viewfinder 100%
Video yes nut not full HD
Fully Sealed Magnesium AlloyPosted 3 years ago # -
Ahh crap... didn't we already establish that the CoolPix line makes Nikon money... If they are going to go divesting things they should drop the precision optics business.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Seriously, if you want to be a Canon fanboy, I think there is a Canon rumor site for that.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Spec wise the 1Dmk4 might seem better but image quality wise the proof is in the D3S pictures.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
As far as I am concerned they are, MP are not the crown of a successful camera. As already pointed out, the D3s has better high ISO performance than the newest 1DmkIV, and from all the tests I've seen the high ISO performance of the D300s is on par with the 7D. Then the D700, high ISO, better or equal to Canon's offering in that price range. So at the end of the day, unless MP are important to you, Nikon is doing just fine.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb - but what's wrong with nikon cameras, as I don't get Your point
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Spec wise the 1Dmk4 might seem better but image quality wise the proof is in the D3S pictures.And to prove the point see this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34308219Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah I know D3s is superior to 1DsM4 at high ISO (D3s is actually usable up to 25600 as good as 1Ds at 12800 IMHO and that is fantastic result), but overall 1Ds is more useful camera being sharper at "normal" lighting conditions. D3s is exceptionally good camera but only as a second body.
My point is that Nikon caught Canon a year or two ago and now they are loosing the ground again, there is nothing in the current Nikon offering that could compete with Canon except maybe D3x but remember that Nikon is charging only the difference in the tweaked Sony sensor more then Sony charge for the whole camera with the same sensor and there is currently only 3Mpix difference to Canon and we see nothing in the horizon that could compete with most likely cheaper new 30+Mpix 1DMk4. And number of Megapixels does matter.
I do not see anything in the current offering that will intrigue me enough to spend some money and upgrade and I am sure only a couple of new users will go Nikon way at the time so my point again is Nikon must change something. Or they could ask the most influential photographer in the world what to do … ;PPosted 3 years ago # -
Sorry but this thread is getting a tad silly - there will always be a point in time when Nikon has a better offering than Canon and then another point in time when the situation is reversed. If anyone is seriously suggesting that they are missing shots because they are using a D3 \ 1DsM4 then I'd suggest they take a good look in the mirror ... I doubt the camera is the problem ;-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
gd said:
Sorry but this thread is getting a tad silly - there will always be a point in time when Nikon has a better offering than Canon and then another point in time when the situation is reversed. If anyone is seriously suggesting that they are missing shots because they are using a D3 \ 1DsM4 then I'd suggest they take a good look in the mirror ... I doubt the camera is the problem ;-)No one is suggesting that, but you have the point I have gone to far so I am gone from this thread ... something to cheer this up:
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
