The D3 is Nikon's first full frame digital SLR. There will probably be an even more deluxe version with 20+ megapixels in the next year or so to match Canon's full frame. But there will probably be stripped-down Nikons with full frame sensors & plenty of pixels but smaller motors and less weight. High quality full frame sensors will become more commonplace in a few years and the prices will come down. They really need to get them a lot smaller and lighter too - like some of the more compact 35mm SRLs from the past. Right now, they're too big and heavy to appeal to anyone but a dedicated pro who uses it on a tripod for sporting events, weddings, studio work etc. Nobody is going to carry these pigs around with a bag of lenses, flash etc.
Digital SLR upgrading thoughts
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
I also went to the show, and found it very interesting. I am not a photographer, I take pictures. I have been using an HP point and shoot, and the pictures are ok for my purposes. But it is so slow, it takes such a long time to start up when you turn it on, and in between pictures, and turning it off. By the time I am ready to shoot, she has lost interest and put her clothes back on.
At the show, the conclusion of the product reps was that I would need a DSLR to go fast, I tried a D60 and it was very nice, it came on instantly, and can shoot three frames per second. And I have to assume that the pictures would be better, even on automatic. Is that a good enough reason to buy the D60 (or the D40)? I think I can live with the size, I keep it in my car.
At the show, the conclusion of the product reps was that I would need a DSLR to go fast, I tried a D60 and it was very nice, it came on instantly, and can shoot three frames per second. And I have to assume that the pictures would be better, even on automatic. Is that a good enough reason to buy the D60 (or the D40)? I think I can live with the size, I keep it in my car.
The D40 is a nice, small size but unless you plan to use various lenses, you should check out the Canon G9 or some of the Lumix cameras that have Leica lenses. The modern P+S also fire up fast and gave almost no shutter lag.
Of course the reps will tell you to buy a DSLR.
As stated above, you are likely to take the smaller camera with you more often.
Of course the reps will tell you to buy a DSLR.
As stated above, you are likely to take the smaller camera with you more often.
Damondean said:
A camera sales rep told me that the Panasonic cameras are great outdoors (aren't they all?) but the worst indoors. Since Winter in Toronto lasts 13 months, most of my pics are shot indoor in low lights. I was watching a comedian at a nightclub (very low light) and was told ok to take pics but "no flash". The pics (taken on a Nikon P&S) were horrible!
I found an interesting article on the Nikon D3 and D300 on the luminous-landscape site. The writer is a Canon fan who says Nikon is really back in the game with the D3, for the first time since 1998. Also he notes that Nikon will probably buld a 24-29 MP camera within the next 2 years (D3 is 12 MP).
He has a great indoor no flash portrait taken at ISO 25,600 on the D3 - this is what I myself like about the new D3 - I like taking indoor portraits handheld no flash and even his shot at ISO 25,600 looks okay to me. I shoot indoors with my current D70 at iso 800 or maybe 1600 @f2.8 and can get what I want, but I'd love the technical ability to have very nice iso 6400 available, and a monochrome iso 25,600...drool, drool. As stated, for my occassional amateur shots I'd have a hard time justifying $5k solely to be able to improve my current iso 800-1600 indoor natural light shots when I have a D70 already that, for my outdoor purposes, gives me 90% of what I need and is free (because I already own it, and since it was a gift originally).
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread - lots of good opinions.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml
He has a great indoor no flash portrait taken at ISO 25,600 on the D3 - this is what I myself like about the new D3 - I like taking indoor portraits handheld no flash and even his shot at ISO 25,600 looks okay to me. I shoot indoors with my current D70 at iso 800 or maybe 1600 @f2.8 and can get what I want, but I'd love the technical ability to have very nice iso 6400 available, and a monochrome iso 25,600...drool, drool. As stated, for my occassional amateur shots I'd have a hard time justifying $5k solely to be able to improve my current iso 800-1600 indoor natural light shots when I have a D70 already that, for my outdoor purposes, gives me 90% of what I need and is free (because I already own it, and since it was a gift originally).
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread - lots of good opinions.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml
C Dick said:
There are some brilliant point and shoots not yet mentioned in this thread -- mind you, they're more directed to serious amateurs, photojournalists and street photographers who are looking for something different.
Check out the Ricoh GX100 and the top of the line Ricoh GR Digital II -- japanese small sensor cameras with phenomenal wide-angle lenses, very intuitive user interface, RAW shooting capability, powerful macro, and a more filmic look to the shots. They are expensive and specialized so not for budgeteers or generalists who need every option -- but they are things of wonder to play and shoot with.
Another new P&S getting a lot of press is the Sigma DP1 which has pros and cons. For reviews of all the above, start with Luminous Landscapes or search Flickr for examples. BTW: Ricohs are not available in Canada -- can be ordered through U.S. retailers popflash adorama and sometimes ebay.
And oh..yes -- they're fast. And with the Ricoh, it's also pretty fast in RAW mode -- critical for a photog.
poonhunter said:Sorry, i thought you wanted an upgrade to your P&S and not a full DSLR system?
I guess i was wrong about how you responded in your post?
get a hasselblad medium format then with full studio lights
My fault, I have not been clear about what I want, because I am not sure. I have a point and shoot, and it is ok, but slow. If I could get a fast point and shoot, that would probably be ideal. But if I have to go to DSLR for speed, then I will. But a D40 or D60 sounds more than enough if I do.
You probably need one of each
Its hard to get what you want when you don't know what that is. Unfortunately there is no single camera that serves every need.
P&S 's are great for size and convenience. There are lots of higher end P&S's that offer good speed and great glass (lenses) but two things that I found lacking were good wide angle capabilities and lower quality images due to the smaller sensors. On the other hand P&S's usually offer video mode (all be it low quality) that is not available on an DSLR.
But if convenience is not the priority, DSLRs offer better quality sensors, more flexability through access to multiple lenses, higher speeds and more advanced features such as higher ISO capabilities. For all this ,you forfeit smaller size.
Personally, I keep a decent quality point & shoot for convenience and travel & a Nikon D200 with a Nikon 18-200 lense and an SB-800 flash for when I want to get more serious. That lense to me covers 90% of what I like to do. and the flash is like having a portable studio ( I would like to have 3). Of course you could achieve just about the same thing with a Nikon body that is half the price. For an avid ameteur, I am able to take professional pics with my skill (or lack thereof) being the only deciding factor.
At the end of the day there are four factors that make great photographs.
1)Size and quality of the sensor. This used to be called film and you could make choices. Now you are stuck with what is in the camera you buy.
2)Glass quality. The lense that the light travels through on its way to the sensor. All glass is not created equal.
3) Lighting. The right lighting makes or breaks every picture.
4) Skill. Digital has become the great equalizer but there is still a place for a pro who can work with composition and lighting before they click to create a lasting image
C Dick said:
Its hard to get what you want when you don't know what that is. Unfortunately there is no single camera that serves every need.
P&S 's are great for size and convenience. There are lots of higher end P&S's that offer good speed and great glass (lenses) but two things that I found lacking were good wide angle capabilities and lower quality images due to the smaller sensors. On the other hand P&S's usually offer video mode (all be it low quality) that is not available on an DSLR.
But if convenience is not the priority, DSLRs offer better quality sensors, more flexability through access to multiple lenses, higher speeds and more advanced features such as higher ISO capabilities. For all this ,you forfeit smaller size.
Personally, I keep a decent quality point & shoot for convenience and travel & a Nikon D200 with a Nikon 18-200 lense and an SB-800 flash for when I want to get more serious. That lense to me covers 90% of what I like to do. and the flash is like having a portable studio ( I would like to have 3). Of course you could achieve just about the same thing with a Nikon body that is half the price. For an avid ameteur, I am able to take professional pics with my skill (or lack thereof) being the only deciding factor.
At the end of the day there are four factors that make great photographs.
1)Size and quality of the sensor. This used to be called film and you could make choices. Now you are stuck with what is in the camera you buy.
2)Glass quality. The lense that the light travels through on its way to the sensor. All glass is not created equal.
3) Lighting. The right lighting makes or breaks every picture.
4) Skill. Digital has become the great equalizer but there is still a place for a pro who can work with composition and lighting before they click to create a lasting image
C Dick said:
For your purpose, you could consider getting two ISO 800 disposal cameras with flash. Wind both of them up so they are ready to fire immediately. This way you could probably get off two really quick shots before re-winding. These are film cameras so you need a darkroom or a lab to get the film developed. (Remember the movie "One Hour Photo"?)
I am almost afraid to ask: Why is she naked?
a classic shooter
I have a small Nikon digital that I use for shots that I put on the web. But it's not in the same league as my film cameras and never will be. No one will ever make a charge coupled transistor as small as a molecule of silver. My best shots come from my Rollei TLR, I also have a Rollei 35 with a few lenses. People look at the razor sharpness of those images and their jaws drop in amazement.
I use a Canon rangfinder, the Ql-17 a lot, as well as a Kodak Retina IIIc. The lens on the Kodak is uncoated so you can't shoot into the light but other than that it's a total joy to use.
My girlfriend's brother came back from a trip to Asia with hundreds of images all from his digital camera. It really struck me how they were all the same: always the same lighting, focus and mood.
On my trips, my shots are pushed brighter, darker, depth of field changes, frozen droplets, silky flowing waterfalls, silhouettes, and my favorite: 8 minute exposures at midnight with a full moon. I achieve all those things with a manual camera with 2 controls: aperture and shutter speed, intuitively without paging through menus. Sure digital has it's place, but for really instant creativity nothing is faster than a good manual camera with world class glass and an intuitive understanding of how to use it.
I have a small Nikon digital that I use for shots that I put on the web. But it's not in the same league as my film cameras and never will be. No one will ever make a charge coupled transistor as small as a molecule of silver. My best shots come from my Rollei TLR, I also have a Rollei 35 with a few lenses. People look at the razor sharpness of those images and their jaws drop in amazement.
I use a Canon rangfinder, the Ql-17 a lot, as well as a Kodak Retina IIIc. The lens on the Kodak is uncoated so you can't shoot into the light but other than that it's a total joy to use.
My girlfriend's brother came back from a trip to Asia with hundreds of images all from his digital camera. It really struck me how they were all the same: always the same lighting, focus and mood.
On my trips, my shots are pushed brighter, darker, depth of field changes, frozen droplets, silky flowing waterfalls, silhouettes, and my favorite: 8 minute exposures at midnight with a full moon. I achieve all those things with a manual camera with 2 controls: aperture and shutter speed, intuitively without paging through menus. Sure digital has it's place, but for really instant creativity nothing is faster than a good manual camera with world class glass and an intuitive understanding of how to use it.
I just bought a 4x5 camera. I still love shooting large format b&w film and developing and printing in a wet darkroom at certain times. Something about the process. I also like the convenience of digital at other times. I have a G9 with an underwater housing when I go SCUBA diving. A lot easier than reloading film.
