powerball: When news on that sensor originally broke, we actually figured it was for a Nikon, not a Sony cam. So very possible. But it was a big point of pride for Nikon that they developed their own full-frame sensor, and they're still a very old school Japanese company.

@TommyImages: Yeah, that's the question.

matt buchanan

@szrimaging:

Oh, YEAH??? I'll stake my crazed Apple fanbois status up against your so-called Canon fanbois status any day, szrimaging, any day! C'mon, bring it on!!!

* picks up gauntlet *
* queues up NSFW thesaurus entries *

;^)

bosskev

I think it is official, Canon fanbois are worse than Apple fanbois....

*prepares to be flamed if anyone is still reading this*

szrimaging

@apeguero:
@vertigo:
I'd still say the Canon 85mm f/1.2L is nicer :) (sorry to be a Canon snob, but, well, I am one...)

[www.the-digital-picture.com]

bignaz2k

Wow that *is* a good looking lens

vertigo

@discounteggroll: I have heard/seen a few of those pros with the large collections of lenses switching. It all breaks down to economics. If you can sell your lenses/cameras to cover the bulk of the switch, it becomes possible to do so. And depending on the pro, they may have a higher budget to invest in BOTH systems than you think.

As for a 24MP 35mm sized camera, well, screw that. At this point, the camera is a studio/landscape camera. Give me a Mamiya or Hassie over this any day. Even with only a 16MP back, the colors and tones will be better. And your price difference really isn't all that much.

So my question is, with these bodies approaching the cost of MF bodies, are we going to see more MF digital out there, and will its price drop?

*Hopes the answer is yes*

szrimaging

@Matthew77: Pixel binning doesn't quite work like that in real life though. You lose light to the traces, etc that must run around each pixel. Hence the 24mp camera will peform worse in low light no matter the resolution captured.

1roll20s

Apple = Nikon

Just on different roads. Nikon will continue on the hardware side and Canon lens.

Apple = Hardware
MS = Software

Nikon isn't going anywhere anytime and neither is Apple These two companies have survived through very tough times and have managed to stay competitive while demonstrating innovation.

Keep sneaking by the Apple/Nikon counters while still pretending to hate them.

Obi-Wan: "This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age."

pockleton

If they can do that without sacrificing noise performance, great. Otherwise, I'd rather stick with the D3. Past 15MP, it just becomes a gimmick IMO.

TommyImages

FILM FOREVER!!!

ki.designs

FILM!

ki.designs

@Kobe_No_Means_No:
I was originally going to argue through the teeth with you about that comment, but I realized (second glancing it) that you're essentially right; and it's so simple too. It doesn't even matter that canon owns the super high and probably the entry level also. people with the mk series (just as the people in the D2/3 series could care less about their bodies. Every 2-3 years its time for an upgrade. However, the $5-10-50k they have in lenses has to stay the same (brand-wise). It's not really a matter of what brand they own. Neither Canon nor Nikon will really be able to win over shooters who have invested a lot in either brand

discounteggroll

It's too late for Nikon... Canon dominates the high-end DSLR market. With all the Canon lenses already out there, it's unlikely for Nikon to win over shooters with nice camera bodies even if the D3x is better than the 1Ds3, which may not even be the case.

Kobe_No_Means_No

@lafond66:

exactly.

its the same old king.

thats what you ment... am i rite?

endless

Nikon has full momentum right now. There is a lot of talk about Nikon right now. In fact many Canoninas got converted and never looked back. The D3 has indeed revolutionized photography with its features, one being low noise. If D3x is coming out, if it is slightly noisier it is fine, but if it is noticeably noisier, I dont know if it will be a worthwhile product.

bgbs

@HibikiRush:

Yes, the D300 is an amazing camera. Its easily the best APS-C dSLR out there. The problem I had with the D200 was not only the noise at higher ISO but also the relatively short battery-life. Not only does the D300 produce "usable" images at 3200ISO, likely due the change from CCD to CMOS, but its battery-life is exceptional. The 51-point AF is incredible (however the AF performance needs adjustments from default setting to get the best out it, the AF-lock needs to be turned off).

The MBD-10 battery grip is also something you should get if you decided to get the D300. Not only does it allow shooting of up to 8fps, but has amazing build quality since its completely magnesium in construction. Which is important since you don't want a cheap plasticky grip that flexes when you hold it.

Scaramanga

new king? please. It's a nikon.

lafond66

I know this is the only Nikon without Sony inside, but Sony is producing a 24mp CMOS chip for their flagship, which might add to the story and give it more credence.

powerball

@bosskev:

But if you averaged combined pixels in the 24MP camera to create a 12MP image, you would end up with approximately the same noise, at the number of photons falling on each pair of pixels would be the same (give or take). Noise is created primarily by the integer nature of photons falling on each pixel.

I am sure there will be a "low-res" low noise feature on the D3x (if it exists at all).

Matthew77

I have been considering upgrading a a D300 from a D200 to reduce noise at 800 and above. Should I bother?

HibikiRush

Punchline: Compared to the as yet unreleased D3x, the current D3 is likely to give cleaner images under lower light levels.

Explanation: Right now the D3 is considered the king of low noise, high ISO digital shooting. This is, of course, primarily due to the design choice of limiting the full frame FX sensor to being "only" 12 megapixels. By comparison, the D3's little sister, the D300, has essentially the same 12 megapixel capture, but does so with a much smaller DX sensor. The result is, compared to the D3, the higher density pixel count on the D300 translates to a slightly noisier picture.

I don's say this talking out of my hat (a phrase I never really understood anyway). I own both the D3 and D300 and have also read a lot of other opinions and reviews. If I had to quantitize it, I would estimate that the D3 gives you about 1.5 to 2 extra stops of low light capturing ability.

So, let's prognosticate a bit on the upcoming D3x. Very quick, very rough math suggests that the new sensor will have a similar pixel density to the current D300. This means that, barring some kind of new sensor technology (it could happen), one could predict that the D3x will have low light capabilities similar to the ever so slightly noisier D300, and therefore not be quite as clean as the D3.

Bottom Line: If you already own a D3, do NOT feel bad not having the newer D3x. Do NOT feel like you are missing out on "the latest and greatest". You might instead think of the D3x as "the latest and different" and the tool of choice when higher resolution, not the cleanest possible image, is the absolute first priority.

bosskev

Damn that's a hot looking lens!

apeguero