* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

New D3H

Anyone heared abotu the new Nikon D3H, with 9 MP, 8.5 fps?? That will be cool, because I was thinking to switch to Canon.


by [a former member] at 2005-07-26 14:35:03 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Santiago , Chile | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Just did a quick google, and looks like they are aiming for Fall 2007, maybe by then they will have their shit together and get it right the first time.

by Mike Brown | 27 Jul 2005 08:07 | Memphis - USA, United States | | Report spam→
Wow! I’m amazed by how bitter people are towards Nikon. I myself have a Nikon D100 system but I am seriously thinking of switching to a bunch of Olympus Camedia 7070’s with the various add ons. A D3H by Fall 2007? That’s a long way away. I’d love it if they rebuilt their old rangefinders, only digital. Wouldn’t that be cool?

by Paul Treacy | 27 Jul 2005 08:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
I was faced with a similar dilemma last year when I was considering the switch after rumors of the D2X surfaced.  After the rather lackluster D2X specs and a really lame release date was announced, I switched to Canon.  Multiple problems with the D2H including noise problems above ISO800 and the aforementioned D2X issues were primary factors.  The Canon gear I have now is awesome.  The 1DMkII is a real trooper…I’ve beaten the crap out of mine and they just keep on going.  The improvement in image quality over the D2H is amazing.

The thing to consider is even if Nikon announced a D3H today, it will be almost a year before we’d have it in our hands.  And if the 9MP/8.5FPS spec is true, that’s very little improvement over the two-year-old 1DMkII.  By switching now you’ll have over a year of shooting at those specs with awesome image quality.  Or you can wait a year…continuing to shoot with the gear you have at a lower quality…and hope that Nikon "gets it right" when they release the D3H.

by David Harpe | 28 Jul 2005 06:07 | Louisville, United States | | Report spam→
I have a D1x that I have been shooting for 1-1/2 years and since 1999 have been using only nikon bodies and they have been amazingly good to me. I shoot a lot of Golf and got hit on my shooting hand holding the camera last week.

My hand puffed up but the camera never missed a beat. I’m not a rah rah kind of guy but I am very happy with the quality of the D1x, if anything, it is my shortcomings in color correction that I have an issue with.

Everyone has different experiences and I feel fortunate to have had such good equipment. I’m so glad not to be managing film anymore or feeling sick until my prints come back. I think Nikon cares a lot more than we know. PS: Loved the F5

by Ken Murray | 28 Jul 2005 15:07 (ed. Jul 28 2005) | Broomfield, Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
Ken, I think you’re right.

by Paul Treacy | 28 Jul 2005 15:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
I know where you are coming from Ken. I’ve always been a Nikon shooter. Until the purchase of my D2Hs my gear was always reliable. I’m at the point now where I’m looking to find a used D1H (maybe a D1X) and use the D2 as my back-up. The D2 has proven itself to be unreliable and my old D1H had better all around image quality anyway.  In fact I’ve yet to meet a D2H shooter that is satisfied with the quality.

While I would like to think Nikon cares more than we know, the people I’ve dealt with on the phone sure don’t show it. All I get is apathy when I’m just looking for a hint of empathy. When I have to turn away work because my (new) camera keep needing repairs it hits my pocketbook hard. It also makes me cringe when I look a Canon shooters image next to mine shot in the same conditions. There is no comparison. I just keep holding my breath hoping that Nikon can catch up soon and learned their lesson with the poor release of the D2H that turned Nikon shooters away in droves.

by Mike Brown | 28 Jul 2005 16:07 | Memphis - USA, United States | | Report spam→
The thing is: why Nikon never listen the professional users?? They are more focused to the amateur, but people like us make the camera works in the worst conditions. I was with D2H in Iraq, getting sandstorms, high heat and hits from the soldiers. But the D2H, came trough undamaged. I have a great experience with Nikon since my old FM2. Sure, we need the D3H now. I feel sad when I see the quality of the Canon Shooters.

by [former member] | 28 Jul 2005 16:07 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
Companies listen to $$$$. I am sure that sells toward the  amateur market is much higher than the pro counterpart..
Still  I agree with Hugo  Nikon does not listen ( or doesn’t care ). My  D100 broke ones . It  took  5 months !!!!!!!! to have my camera back.
I am still using Nikon I think I will keep using them (Love my F100) .
The next digital Nikon I’ll buy HAVE  to have a full-format sensor.
Hey Paul wouldn’t you like to see a digital Nikon S3?

by Alex Reshuan | 28 Jul 2005 17:07 | Miami, United States | | Report spam→
I had the D1 and it rocked but within a month I went to the D1H because of the 5fps and the more convenient viewing of the custom settings and improved image transferring. Both were used. That D1H was a great camera. The shutter blew out on me 7bills for that fix. Then I wanted better quality and went to the D100. It just couldn’t keep up with the action so I went to the D1x.

At the time the D2H was out but the 4mp wasn’t what I was looking for so battery,lag and image quality aside I went to the D1x. The D2H serves it’s market extremely well I think with a manageable image size from a speed perspective and greatly improved battery system, color representation and the shutter Lag improvement. I haven’t shot with one this is just from what I read. I believe if the D2Hs was 6mp it would have swept the fence sitters to their side.

The D2X is an incredible camera based on what I read and hear and I am looking forward to getting one, once it’s replacement comes out. All things considered I have been tempted to switch because of quality but I can still make some nice images with the D1X. Forget 3 frames per second, you’ll get better images shooting single images but you really have to work at it.

I’m getting a 17-55 tomorrow and that is as excited as I have been about equipment since word of the D2H first leaked out. It’s all personal preferrence. I wish they had better apparell ;)

by Ken Murray | 28 Jul 2005 18:07 (ed. Jul 28 2005) | Broomfield, Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
The 17-55 is one of the finest lenses ever made.  I really miss that lens…

The D2X is an okay camera, but it’s not a well-rounded photojournalist camera.  It tops out at ISO800 and the noise is just as bad as the D2H above that.  

There are folks at the newspaper that I shoot for that still shoot with the D1H because it works better than the D2H.

by David Harpe | 28 Jul 2005 19:07 | Louisville, United States | | Report spam→
I only used the D2H for digital work, and I never abuse my cameras.  My D2H had a problem last December, I had that particular Nikon for about 8 months, the meter was stuck on f 5.6 1/15 of second.  I had to cover the Barcelona Dakar Rally in 2 weeks, so I sorta flipped out.  I phoned the Nikon office in BCN, and because of Christmas they expected a turn around time of 3 weeks.  I was a little upset, but I called back a little later and explained I was a professional and I really need this camera fixed now, and its not fixing a 3000 point and shoot camera.  They, BCN staff, responded with an O.K, bring it in the next day, 48 hours later, fixed, cleaned, and back in my hands working ever since.  

So for me, the Nikon guys in BCN did a great job, fast turn around, great support.  They have my loyalty and confidence.  Oh, still under warranty, didn’t pay a dime, but they would of charged 350.00 euros for the fix.  I rarely go to ISO 800, ISO 200 – 400 has been the normal range from daily, football at Camp Nou, Fashion Shows, low light music, etc.  If I need more light, put on the flash, and least that is how I work.

by [former member] | 28 Jul 2005 19:07 | boston, United States | | Report spam→
The same thing happened to my D2H with the lightmeter. Is a factory problem. They change main circuit and that is. Many users had the same problems around the world.

by [former member] | 28 Jul 2005 19:07 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
The biggest frustration, collectively, is the lack of a full frame sensor on an affordable camera — pricewise, the Canon MkII Ds is way out of range for most of us.

I have used all manner of Nikon and Canon digital cameras, and I must say, since I have all the Canon lenses, flashes and being a Canon film shooter as well, that I am very happy with two of the so-called prosumer cameras, the D60 — which is very quiet, and the 20D, which is a remarkable powerhouse with exceptional image quality.

Drawbacks for both, feels flimsy. Advantages: very lightweight, so you can carry two with lenses and not break your back. The reality is that they are actually very durable cameras, as I have shot them in extreme situations vis a vis conflict/war stories over an extended duration, beat them up, dropped them, but they continue to function flawlessly.

This is not a plug for Canon, as I have heard similar war stories related to the Nikon D100 and D70. The image quality, light weight of all these cameras, not to mention the relatively low price, has been the selling point. We all want to see these qualities in future cameras, with full frame sensors, but I’m afraid that won’t happen for at least 2 more years. A little off-topic: I don’t know about your specific requirements, but unless you’re shooting sports, who needs 5 or 8 frames a second? That makes us lazy. Photojournalists should try to shoot one frame/when we need to.

Regarding ISOs, the D60 works best at 400 ISO or lower, and the 20D at 800 or lower. Anything above that, the noise becomes a problem.

A tip: if you ever find yourself in such a low light situation where you are tempted to shoot a higher ISO because you’re not comfortable with a slower shutter speed, just switch to RAW, keep it at the top ISOs I just mentioned, then underexpose up to -1 to -1.5 f stops (maximum), then correct the exposure in Photoshop CS or CS2, and the image will be fine, with just a hint of noise, but nothing like the noise you would get at setting the camera to the upper ISO settings.

by [former member] | 28 Jul 2005 20:07 (ed. Jul 28 2005) | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
the fight between Canon and Nikon is the same as the fight between Mac’s an PC’s , i know people that has done GREAT work using CANON but also know people that had the same success with NIKON!

some people do amazing things on their pc’s also … despise the “macnization” of the world … BUT one thing is true though!
COCA COLA beats the shit out of PEPSI in its flavor and its ability to make you WOW when you take large gulps of it ! , specially after running or doing some physical activity , like going to B&H .

by [former member] | 29 Jul 2005 03:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
You make a good point. However, I’m a PEPSI man all the way.

by Paul Treacy | 29 Jul 2005 05:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Thanks for the tip Timothy. I’ve been shooting over 1/3 stop with the D1x then going to Noise Ninja. Do you select the blue and red channel individually then-filters-noise-median-1in PS?

Mike…Would you want more than 6 or 8mp in a D3H? What would your ideal Nikon be like? Price included. Realistic, based on the current market.

by Ken Murray | 29 Jul 2005 07:07 (ed. Jul 29 2005) | Broomfield, Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
Ken, noise ninja is the way to go.

by [former member] | 29 Jul 2005 07:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Noise Ninja is a god send especially when it comes to those Friday night high school football games (which will be starting again soon) and NBA.

Ideal Nikon…lets see….I’m not wrapped up in MP. My images are mostly showing up on the toilet paper we call news print. I’d love to start see my images in magazines more but the odds of me getting a double truck in Newsweek or Time is pretty slim. I can deal with 4mp, but yes 6-8mp would be nicer. Then you get into the downside having to own/carry a million flashcards around once the files get too big. The fps is not a big deal to me either. The only time I ever use a motor drive is shooting sports, and even then I rarely shoot in bursts of more than 3 frames. I would not want them to back track on that though.
I’d like my wide angle lens to be wide angle. I want my curtain to synch with a strobe at a shutter speed above 250 when I need it to. I want to to be able to crop into images without the pixels turning to mud. I want it to to be as reliable as my Nikon film bodies are. Hell the FM that I’ve been shooting with for 10 years has still never needed repairs! My D2Hs has needed to be repaired twice in less than 3 months of moderate use in ideal conditions (this is the main reason I seem bitter here). And I want it to cost less that the Lieca I’ve always wanted but never can afford. want want want, I think I’m starting to sound like 3 year-old who want some candy…

Coke…Pepsi…fuck that shit, Pabst Blue Ribbon.

by Mike Brown | 29 Jul 2005 09:07 | Memphis, United States | | Report spam→
Oh yeah…I want the battery to last atleast through a whole day if not longer….that is about my only praise of the D2h

by Mike Brown | 29 Jul 2005 09:07 | Memphis, United States | | Report spam→
I would like 4fps,6mp, no lag, d100 battery sys, limited noise at 3200, double exposure capability, good color representation and a 3k price.

by Ken Murray | 29 Jul 2005 11:07 | Broomfield, Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
I’d settle for limited noise at ISO 1000

by Mike Brown | 29 Jul 2005 12:07 | Memphis, United States | | Report spam→
To Ken: I think you battery has a factory problem, because I can use my camera all day and the battery is still there, working as the beginning

by [former member] | 29 Jul 2005 13:07 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
Hi Hugo:

I’m shooting a D1X with the en4 battery. During a game and depending on the amount of action I generally use 1 battery and 1/2 of another whereas the D100 battery would be great for a day of shooting and a game on top of that.

by Ken Murray | 29 Jul 2005 13:07 | Broomfield, Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
Ok, Ken: I misunderstand your post. I am using the D2H. All the batteries problems are solved. Cheers,

by [former member] | 29 Jul 2005 13:07 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
if you are a good photographer u will get good photos with nikon olympus or canon but  with canon everything will be more easy.
I switced to canon last year im more comfortable but my photos are shity as they use to be.

by Jonathan weitzman | 13 Oct 2005 15:10 | Jerusalem/tel-aviv, Israel | | Report spam→
The most frustrating thing about shooting Nikon to me is the lack of full frame for wide work. I used to love working with a 24, 28 and 35 lenses on my old F3s and FM2s. Though you can still get the “crop factor” on these lenses, it’s just that. A crop of a wider lens so that a 24mm frame’s compression looks like that of a 16 killing the background layer. Worse, is that Nikon seems to have accepted this limitation providing us with wider DX lenses instead of a full frame camera option and with the investment in DX lenses, I’m doubtful that we’ll be provided with a full frame body in the near future. Hope I’m wrong but even this die hard Nikon fan may eventually switch to Cannon just to get back to the basic capabilities we’ve always had shooting film.

by James J. Lee | 15 Oct 2005 08:10 | Washington, DC, United States | | Report spam→
I just don’t get it, why would you want a full frame camera for, say 3-5000$ when you can buy a much wider lens for your existing camera for 1-2000$?

by Kalmár Nagy András | 13 Dec 2005 07:12 | Pécs, Hungary | | Report spam→
Andras, because the depth of field of a cropped 24mm is not the same as the DOF from a REAL 35mm! I sold my Eos1D MKII’s to buy 2 Eos5D’s…all of a sudden, everything feels ‘right’ again, lighter bodies, no zooms (a 24mm f1,4L on one body and a 35mm f 1,4L on the other one) no lens changes, no hassles, just plain PHOTOGRAPHY! Interestingly when I shoot film, I use 2 Leicas, a 40(!) year old M2 with a 24mm and a M7 with a 35mm…go figure!…and when I shoot Hasselblad, I use a 38mm SWC (same angle as a 24 in 35mm) and a Distagon 60mm (same angle as a 35 in the 35mm world). In other words, I use the same ‘tools’ regardless of the format I shoot in…if you are stuck with Nikon digital cameras, the whole exercise is just …impossible…you’d have to use a 15 and a 24…NO DOF control whatsoever…and, the EOS5D is here NOW! Not maybe next year…by the time Nikon comes up with a solution, my 2 EOS5D’s will be very happily paid for…in fact they were after my first reportage with them, 6 weeks ago…my 2c…

by [former member] | 13 Dec 2005 08:12 | | Report spam→
What you say makes sense, but it would be foolish to expect a full-frame sensor from Nikon in the near future. Nikon has made too much of an investment in APS-C/DX sized sensors and DX designated lenses to throw that out the window. they seem commited to their small sensors. So, if you really need that full frame, now is the time to switch to Cannon or something else.

by Kalmár Nagy András | 13 Dec 2005 08:12 | Pécs, Hungary | | Report spam→
My point exactly.

by [former member] | 13 Dec 2005 08:12 | | Report spam→
I’ve shot a fair amount with a D2H (though my own gear is Canon), and I know the D2X is out there, but shouldn’t we be expecting a plain D3, then a D3H, then a D3X?

by [former member] | 31 Dec 2005 20:12 | New Jersey, United States | | Report spam→
I upgraded from the D1h to the d2x and the change is a good one, funny I’ve never worried about depth of field control on either camera, but with the D2x I take extra care with my pics and I’m happy witht the results. If a D3h came out with the specs mentioned I’d look closely at a purchase but the real reason I’m satisfied with the D2x is that it compares well with what my competitors are using – canon – and none of the reliability issues mates tell me about their canons. I’ve worked with the D1, D1h, and now the D2x – you can throw in the fuji s1 which some people laughed at… – and now I’ve relaxed a little as the quality for me is close to the film I used to put through my cameras. The nikkor 17-35mm 2.8 is an absolute delight to use and couple that with a 50mm 1.4 an§d the 70-200 2.8 vr and the 10.5mm dx and your laughing. Full frame, who cares get over it, the world isn’t flat and photography has never got stuck on old formats, it keeps moving on… If and when I upgade next image quality and functionality will be my primary concern, whether that chip is 1.5,, 1.3 or 35mm dosen’t bother me as long as the files aren’t so large that I have to drag a G5 with all the extras around with me…

Anybody who has the D2x and has done the firmware upgrade will know already that 1600 and 3200 iso are workable especially 1600, you just need to be carefull not to under expose and get you white balance correct, but that has always been the case anyway.

by Sean Dwyer | 01 Jan 2006 02:01 (ed. Jan 1 2006) | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Mercedes or BMW? SonyErricson or Nokia? Nikon or Canon? All this is high quality stuff and is subject to the individual person and his needs. What the Schumacher’s, Haekinnen’s and Alonso’s are in the Formula 1, are we in the Photo Business. They basically field test the gear, which will be later implemented into normal cars or in our case into compact digital cameras. It is obvious, that the millions they spend for the developemnt of a new pro camera for the couple of thousands of pro’s, will be paid back by the hundred of thousands if not even millions of hobby and amateur photographers.

Main development is obviously on the sensor side, but how far can they go with the pixel terror? The computer industry is doubling the speed of the processors almost yearly, but do we really need that for the sensors? I think we are close to reach what we really need besides few improvements. We don’t have any more space on the camera for more buttons, displays and wheels anyway. In my opinion Nikon and Canon should both work on a better serviceability and reliability in the field and on the service in general.

One thing I still don’t understand is the huge size of the power supply, which is in many cases exceeding the size of the camera itself, not to mention the weight. A real burden. And the size and the weight of the battery pack of the camera. Battery size and weight never changed over the years to our favour.

In other words it is I think worth to wait for Nikon another year as long they get the thing right and are able to present a camera reliable as the F5 or F6 and a sensor quality equal to film.

by T | 01 Jan 2006 22:01 | Jakarta, Indonesia | | Report spam→
"Full frame, who cares get over it, the world isn’t flat and photography has never got stuck on old formats, it keeps moving on… "

Its a big step backwards…

by James Brickwood | 02 Jan 2006 00:01 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
I’m not sure I see “full frame” as a big step backwards, but sometimes too much is made of it. I use Nikon’s 17-35mm and 12-24 DX lenses and enjoy both. In any case I don’t feel I am missing anything without a 35mm sensor. I’m more concerned about the long end where the extra reach helps me when I can’t afford the longer lenses. I mean, how many DX lenses do you guys have, anyways? I’ve got two and may add one or two more someday.

A new D3H (or whatever they release) is likely to be a welcome addition to Nikon’s stable. I don’t think Nikon is trying to build a camera for Canon users, but for what Nikon’s users want. 6-10 megapixels on an 8+ fps pro body is fine with me, as long as they address any current issues with the D2Hs. (By the way, I know a lot of happy D2H/D2Hs users, despite what one poster indicated.)

If Nikon someday produces a full frame camera, great. I’ll consider it if the price is right. I see it as another camera, not the answer to all my needs. It’s not like Canon’s “full frame” cameras are without their problems.

by David Knapp | 29 Jan 2007 11:01 | Southern California, United States | | Report spam→
Sony is the primary manufacturer of Nikon sensors, Canon makes their own. Now that Sony is in the DSLR game I wonder if they’d even offer Nikon the use of a full-rame sensor if they ever made one or make it exclusive to their own cameras for a while and the eventually offer them to Nikon.

To me that’s too many ifs.

If Nikon ever did offer a full frame option I’m sure all the Nikon fanboys who harp on about Nikon not needing full frame would do a quick about-face. Not necessarily talking about anyone on this board, more the annoying hobbyists who have too much money to spend on gear but can’t take a photograph to save their life, but still infest message boards with their chirping.

by Kenneth Armstrong | 29 Jan 2007 13:01 | Sault Ste Marie, Canada | | Report spam→
Annie Leibovitz is rumoured to have tried a “Canon 22MP” camera. Click here and scroll down a bit when you get there.

by Max Pasion | 29 Jan 2007 17:01 (ed. Jan 29 2007) | | Report spam→
10 reasons current digital camera thinking SUCKS:

10. no decent point-and-shoots any more. the olympus C7070 and its predecessors were the right idea, as were the Canon G series. but olympus seemingly has discontinued that line and canon’s new G7 is a huge disappointment. the ricohs are nice but not serious.

9. emphasis on “image stabilization” and high ASA settings rather than large aperture lenses. other than Canon and to a lesser extent Nikon, nobody is making decent f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.0 lenses in useful focal lengths any more. f/1.4 at ASA 400 is better than f/2.8 at 1600 any day of the week, no matter how good you get the 1600 to look. because no matter what you do with 1600, concurrently 400 will always look better.

8. emphasis on zooms rather than primes — following from point 9 — Nikon 1.5x crop would be fine if they made 17mm f/2.0 lens. but they don’t. especially wide angles. where are they?

7. where are the clones for Leica M mount? leica M8 no matter how good or bad is too expensive for most people. where is the next generation epson/cosina/voigtlander? how about from Sony which inherited Konica/Minolta — Konica made the great Hexar and Hexar RF cameras, a digital version, either P&S or M mount, would be great too.

6. wrong dichotomy between size and features — the newest Canon 400d, their cheapest body — is tiny + light. but its user interface and build quality suck. it seems, the smaller and lighter, the crappier. The bigger and clunkier, the better made. Why not combine the ideas? i’d buy a Canon 400d for double the asking price if it was built like a 5d or a 1DS or whatever.

5. where is the replacement for JPEG as the most common format? RAW is OK but there should be something better in between, a revamped JPEG that doesn’t get scewed up upon changing and recompression….

4. what ever happened to traditional shutter speed dials and aperture rings? Canon is now the industry leader but EOS system from the beginning has been too many thumb and finger wheels linking to digital read-outs — and Nikons now clone this — how about models with analog looking controls? Epson + Leica make a nod in this “retro” direction but nothing else about them equals the bigger players. How about a digital Nikon FM type camera??? Nikon could even copy Leica and make a digital back for the FM series…and charge $2000 rather than $5000 like Leica did. this would sell.

3. how about real innovation in formats? a square format camera like a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad would be nice. and i don’t mean $20,000 digital backs. I mean a walk-around, portable camera. I understand that the sensor-size issue is so huge, but surely there’s room for more niche products….a real panoramic, a digital Widelux with rotating lens….a vertically dominant format like 645…you get the idea…

2. long term archive storage — CD, DVD, hard drives — all have problems. are those gold CDs really better? is getting 4×5 film negatives made from digital files (expensive) the only real way?!?

1. actually 9 reasons is enough. give me a roll of Tri-X, please!

by [former member] | 29 Jan 2007 18:01 | New York, NY, United States | | Report spam→
For the record, Nikon address some of those issues by metering the old primes. They are not so interested in making DX primes because they are supposedly bringing out a new 24mmx36mm sensor camera. I shot some fast action indoors in poor light last night with old primes on the D200 and I was more than satisfied. It’s encouraging. I wish they’d make DX AF primes however.

by Paul Treacy | 29 Jan 2007 18:01 | Manhattan, United States | | Report spam→
Max, the rumours about the 22mp Canon are quite old and the original post is on Luminous Landscape forum. The 5th assistent who was hired to bring the second assistant his ice tea talks about a canon rep showing up on the shoot with a demo body. Okay, even if this story is true. The 22mp Canon will need new lenses, because the current lineup does not perform up to the pixelcount.
I’d rather have an eos 6d with weather sealing, small size, 14MP, so I can crop to 4×5 ratio rectangular and still have some pixels left and all of this for 3500 up to 4000 €. Yes I would get two of those. No matter if it’s Canon or Nikon or Ricoh or Pentax or Kiev.

Anyway, soon there will be PMA and will see what happens then.


by Heinrich Voelkel | 29 Jan 2007 20:01 | Barcelona, Spain | | Report spam→
If it’s a phony news, then I’m certainly not the only one that got fooled. Thanks for the heads up. I’ll get me a $1,000, rock-tough, full-frame, 30MP Acme body that can fit Canon lenses if there’s one. Cheers.

by Max Pasion | 29 Jan 2007 20:01 | | Report spam→
Paul – if I were still a Nikon user I’d surely feel I had a right to be bitter. Almost 29 months since the 1 Ds Mark II was released and Nikon still can’t rival it, and the D3 specs people are speculating about above would only match the existing 1D Mark II which itself has been around for donkey’s years and is about to get updated. The reason Nikon is being deserted by professional users all around the world is not because they prefer the colour white. People are realising (as I did) when they try a Canon that the comparable models just don’t compare! But the good news is even though, as someone pointed out the greater proportion of Nikon’s income comes from punter cameras, having a strong stake in the professional market is important for R&D and more so for marketing. An agency photographer here was talking to a senior Nikon executive about equipment buying plans recently and the guy told him that Nikon acknowledges the predicament they’ve gotten themselves into, so they are throwing bucket loads of cash at this next release as they concede it’s their last chance. That being said, Canon haven’t substantially updated their 1D cameras since early 2004 I think, and that’s a lot of R&D time to produce something interesting (which we’ll apparently see at the end of March).

by Wade Laube | 29 Jan 2007 21:01 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Heinrich – there are new lenses coming our way for the reason you mentioned. Not a complete re-release of the L series range, but a handful of primes to use with the 1DS Mark III or whatever they want to call it, which is coming out end of the year (all info extracted from Canon rep under duress).

by Wade Laube | 29 Jan 2007 21:01 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
I played with a lot of cameras before getting my D200, several of the Canons amongst them, and the D200 felt just right.
It’s fast, strong, well sealed and makes gorgeous files. It’ll do me just fine for now. But wouldn’t a digital Nikon rangefinder be cool? Or a Sony digital Hexar? That would be my dream come true.

by Paul Treacy | 29 Jan 2007 21:01 | Manhattan, United States | | Report spam→
Paul – Are your prime lenses MF or AF? I’ve been using my D200 with some great MF glass (1.4 85mm, 1.4 50mm, 2.0 35mm) but haven’t had the sharpness i’m used too, even under controlled situations. Should i not bother with MF lenses on the D200? change the focus screen? Which lenses are you using?

by amit dahan | 30 Jan 2007 02:01 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Agree with Sean; the D2x, particularly with a nice array of glass, is an awesome machine. I’ve taken it to three deserts with huge ranges of temperatures, dropped it (and lenses) several times, banged it against rocks and 4×4s, exposed it to dust and sand, and it has come through every time. Never a problem with battery life or FPS (except for flash recycling time). I’ve seen people with the 5D and 20D in those environments and the differences i saw were that the canon’s are less robust and have worse dust spot problems, but on the positive side are lighter, full frame (5D at least), focus more crisply/sharply, and – to my eye – capture images which require less post-processing, i.e. right out of the camera they reflect the observed colour temperature more accurately (whiter, cleaner light on auto WB as opposed to Nikon’s warm hues) and produce way way less noise at high ISO….the difference is often astounding.

But then, having always been a Nikon loyalist, and with three bodies and eight pieces of Nikkor glass, I find it unbelievably hard to justify the switch to canon. It’s all tag to me, Canon are slightly ahead of the game, and at this stage in the digital lifecycle we just have to accept that they haven’t totally nailed it yet….hopefully they do so before i’m on the D8x and have parted with $30,000 more….

by Chris Lusher | 30 Jan 2007 03:01 | Hong Kong, Hong Kong | | Report spam→
Sorry David, what i meant by my comment was that he smaller framed censors are a big step backwards. As stated DOF control. Plus, you every tried M.Focusing on those small sensor cameras in low light??

by James Brickwood | 30 Jan 2007 06:01 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→

I guess every brand has it’s “fanboys” – God knows Canon sure does. I wouldn’t say Nikon doesn’t “need” a 35mm sensor camera (all their cameras are full frame, just not 35mm.) I just don’t see it as preventing me from taking a decent picture because I don’t have what the competition has.

And remember, if it wasn’t for us hobbiests, you pros would either not have the gear you’ve got, or it would be significantly more expensive. Pros don’t buy enough gear to pay for the development of it. It takes sales of Canon’s Rebels (and Nikon’s D50’s, etc.) to finance the research. So heck yes, we’ve got a lot to say about it – we pay for it! We may bow our heads to the pros photographic superiority, but we’re trying to learn to be better.

James – some good points. As my eyes deteriorate with age, manual focus gets harder and harder for me. I’d love a 5D-like Nikon body, assuming I could afford it. I recently helped a friend purchase a DSLR system based on the 5D (I’m loyal to Nikon because that’s what my gear is, not because I think they are the only game in town.) If Nikon introduces a 35mm sensor camera I’ll consider it. But for now my D200 and F5 serve me well. Both produce better results from me than anything else I have used.

by David Knapp | 30 Jan 2007 07:01 | Southern California, United States | | Report spam→
wade, sounds interesting, but to be serious, how long did it take canon to rebuild the 80mm and the 50mm, all other primes are stone age designs from the film age and now they gonna have a complete lens range supporting 22MP out at once, the moment the camera is shipping? I don’t know. And at what price point?

The same about Nikon, the body’s are good. Well build, good handling. The 1,5x factor sucks. I use mostly medium format on assignments for depth of field. Going back to the small rectangular for digital sucks anyway and then I have everything sharp from here to the moon, just because those designer and accountant guys at Nikon think or at least pretend the future lays in APS size chips. Where are the primes for this cameras. With Nikon, nothing below f2.8 at the current line up.

Digital sucks, at least from my point of view, where is the digital Hexar, a full frame camera with weathersealing and though light enough to carry around two of them.

Yes, yes, digital is so beautiful, the clients love it. And why? Because they don’t have to pay for film and development anymore, the photogs are doing so much prepress work and still we forgot to tell our clients that this huge amount of knowledge and investment has to be paid for.

just my 2cents

by Heinrich Voelkel | 30 Jan 2007 09:01 (ed. Jan 30 2007) | Barcelona, Spain | | Report spam→
Well for me and the type of work I do the D200 is a great camera. It produces a real nice file and is a pleasure to use. I’ve got a whole bunch of Nikon glass but that wouldn’t have prevented me buying Canon. In fact I tried using all the Canon bodies but just couldn’t get used to the ergonomics of them. I want a camera that I can use without thinking about it first and struggling with the design of the damn thing. The D200 is light, well built and really well thought out, so much so I can work it easily without taking my eye from the viewfinder. I didn’t like the Canon wide zooms either, too soft at the edges for me. With the D200 I can use all my old MF Nikon lenses too and some of these have not been bettered by the more modern plastic lenses.

The main problem with these APS chip cameras is that indeed everthing is sharp from “here to the moon”. I’ve given up hope of trying to get a good look for portraits using the D200- although I’ve not tried the 85mm 1.4 AF yet, has anyone else ? – so I just pull out the old 500cm with the 120 macro and use that. MF cameras give a really nice look, and for the ultimate quality, MF and LF film is still where it’s at isn’t it? I just reckon it’s good to use both mediums at the same time, for me it keeps my brain alive !

by Barrie Watts | 30 Jan 2007 09:01 | North Wales, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
It’s sad that people can take a topic like this so personally.

by Wade Laube | 30 Jan 2007 21:01 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
you talkin’ to me, wade, you talkin’ to me?

by Ed Giles | 31 Jan 2007 13:01 (ed. Jan 31 2007) | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
Wade, do you mean me? I was replying to your post about the new lens line coming up. And I think I ask some reasonable questions. And I don’t join colleagues in getting so excited about digital. I used it as well, but as the whole think started, we just forgot to tell our clients, that they have to pay for digital as well, some fee, somehow.

If you think, I offended you somehow, I’m truly sorry.


by Heinrich Voelkel | 31 Jan 2007 17:01 | Barcelona, Spain | | Report spam→

There ya go… Something to think about. But it ain’t a nikon.

by Sean Dwyer | 31 Jan 2007 21:01 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
Hey, Sean. Thas’s exactly the page I made a link to and which Heinrich said is a old rumor that first surfaced in the LL blogs. Scroll up.

by Max Pasion | 31 Jan 2007 21:01 | | Report spam→
You know if I put half as much time in to my work as I do reading over about new Nikon reviews, I’d have a half a dozen Pulitzers by now. D3 comes out, great, who knows I’ll buy one some day. Until then, I love my D1h, it works great, as did my D1. I’m sure th D2h and D2hs work well too in the field. I think sometimes we get so in to the tech aspect of the gear we lose sight of the most important factor of all-it records the image when we hit the shutter button.

You know for all the complaints about noise in the D2h and the cameras before it, the same can be said for the old film eaters. I hate grain so let’s drop the Pan-X for Trui-X, then skip the Tri-X for T-Max… Colors in, let’s drop T-Max for Surpra… and so forth. Personally changing film was easier than changing cameras every few years, but so be it. I’d just hate to think all the money I saved going digital does have to go right back in to upgrading the camera body every other year.

by Aaron J. Heiner | 01 Feb 2007 19:02 | Washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
Max, funny how these rumours keep going round and around, and I’m sure it’s old but what the hey…
Aaron, the nice thing about the D1h is the size of the raw file and it’s quality. On todays computers – mac anyway – they process as fast (Raw Developer) as jpegs from the D2x do. They hold nicely uprezzed to 3000 pixels on the long side, and more if you need it.

by Sean Dwyer | 01 Feb 2007 20:02 | Dublin, Ireland | | Report spam→
I’m sorta weird, I actually shoot everything in TIF. (I have this OCD-like fear that in ten years from now, Nikon NEF will not open in any program. Whereas TIFF has been around twenty years plus already.) Even though by career I’m a press dog, who likes to shoot trains for fun, so the write time in TIFF is a little long in the tooth depending on which card is in there. Still, I love how the D1 runs. I’m sure the D2-series despites Nikon’s issues with early production is still a good workhorse as will the D3. The last Canon I sued was a loaner AE-1 about fifteen years ago, and it was a good unit, so I’m sure Canon makes a good system too.

by Aaron J. Heiner | 01 Feb 2007 20:02 | Washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
The D3 is doing just fine, noise is real low at very high film speed compared to D2XS, new features are great, 9 fps for 12 Megapixels is a very decent mprovement. I have problems with D3 files and aperture which does not seem to recognize thes files. Anybody has similar problems (on Leopard)? Any fixes?
And to answer Heinrich Voelkel, why don’t u bill ur clients for using digital as u were billing them for films? Now that we work digital with much complex equipment costing much more than analog (cameras,lenses, cards, computers, networks, hard disks and the like) why do we have to foot the bill since we do more work than before (prepress, indexing a.s.o)?

by Laurent Zylberman | 06 Dec 2007 01:12 | France, France | | Report spam→
I swichted to Canon two months ago. Guys, same old shit. No one can make the perfect camera. But we can make the perfect shoot with any camera.

by [former member] | 06 Dec 2007 03:12 | Santiago, Chile | | Report spam→
Has anybody heard a good reason why Nikon dropped the 28mm f1.4 from their lineup?

by John Robert Fulton Jr. | 07 Dec 2007 14:12 | Fort Worth, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
“Has anybody heard a good reason why Nikon dropped the 28mm f1.4 from their lineup?”

I think that this lens contained some lead, which has become illegal to use (at least in the EU).

by Bruno Trematore | 07 Dec 2007 14:12 | Duesseldorf, Germany | | Report spam→
Bruno—actually that’s a good reason. Thanks.

by John Robert Fulton Jr. | 07 Dec 2007 15:12 | Fort Worth, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
The 28mm f/1.4 was never a big seller in any way. It’s a spectacular lens that has limited appeal. Few people want to pay, then, $1,600 for a fixed 28mm lens. However once you shoot with one you will want it. That’s why they are selling for about $3,000 used now. I’m sure glad that I got mine when I did.

by Jonathan Castner | 07 Dec 2007 15:12 | Vail, Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
These kind of discussions never end huh? Well, branching form your posting Paul, I shot 90% of mu book UNSUNG with an Olympus8080. If you look at the pictures, you can not make out whether the pictures were shot with full frame, half frame, double frame…For the book I have shot in sub zero temperature in the Himalayas and in a very dusty and hot environment in the Eastern India.. 8080 withstood the rigors pretty well.
Also, I totally agree with Hugo Infante – “No one can make the perfect camera. But we can make the perfect shoot with any camera.”

by [former member] | 10 Dec 2007 06:12 | Bangalore, India | | Report spam→
Mahesh, how did you get on with that annoying electronic viewfinder? I almost got an 8080 a while back but the viewfinder killed the deal for me.

by Paul Treacy | 10 Dec 2007 14:12 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Mike Brown, Photographer Mike Brown
Memphis , United States
Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
David Harpe, Photographer David Harpe
Louisville , United States
Ken Murray, Freelance Photographer Ken Murray
Freelance Photographer
Broomfield, Colorado , United States ( DAA )
Alex Reshuan, Photographer Alex Reshuan
Guayaquil , Ecuador
Jonathan weitzman, Jonathan weitzman
Jerusalem/Tel Aviv , Israel
James J. Lee, Photojournalist James J. Lee
Myrtle Beach , United States
Kalmár Nagy András, Wonderer Kalmár Nagy András
(Status quo)
Pécs , Hungary
Sean Dwyer, Press Photographer Sean Dwyer
Press Photographer
Dublin , Ireland
T, T
Jakarta , Indonesia
James Brickwood, Photographer James Brickwood
Sydney , Australia
David Knapp, Power Plant Electrician David Knapp
Power Plant Electrician
Southern California , United States
Kenneth Armstrong, Freelance Photographer Kenneth Armstrong
Freelance Photographer
Sault Ste Marie , Canada ( YYZ )
Max Pasion, Street Photographer Max Pasion
Street Photographer
Bayonne, Nj , United States ( EWR )
Heinrich Voelkel, Heinrich Voelkel
Berlin , Germany ( TXL )
Wade Laube, Wade Laube
Sydney , Australia
amit  dahan, Teacher/Photographer/Writ amit dahan
Toronto , Canada
Chris Lusher, Photographer Chris Lusher
Hong Kong , China
Barrie Watts, Photographer/Photojournal Barrie Watts
North Wales , United Kingdom
Ed Giles, Photojournalist Ed Giles
Sydney , Australia
Aaron J. Heiner, Photojournalist Aaron J. Heiner
(Sleeping his life away)
Baltimore, Md , United States ( IAD )
Laurent Zylberman, Photographer Laurent Zylberman
Edimburgh , Scotland
John Robert Fulton Jr., Photographs John Robert Fulton Jr.
Indianapolis, In , United States
Bruno Trematore, Bruno Trematore
Duesseldorf , Germany ( DUS )
Jonathan Castner, Photojournalist Jonathan Castner
Denver , United States


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven