What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
88 Comments
- boothash, on 11/29/2008, -3/+31I wouldn't exactly call that 'the new digital standard'.
Sure, the specs are great, but it's a full pro camera. There are extremely few people who need a 24.5MP camera, not to mention it's rather unwieldy to lug around and going to be super expensive.
My D300 is more than enough for me. - lukak, on 11/29/2008, -4/+22oh god, here come the "who needs more megapixels? 8 is fine for me blah blah blah" brigade.
Speaking as a photographer, I have 2 words for that crowd before they arrive: STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY.
Anyone in the field will tell you that greater tonal graduation and an overall larger canvas to work from is a welcome addition to the modern commercial studio. "Oh, but it's big and hurts my shoulders!" they cry next.
Yes.
These cameras and their sophisticated internals take up space. They can be used with tripods and monopods, or the photographer can go to the gym more often so they are able to carry a meager 2 kilograms of weight for the 20 seconds it takes to compose a shot on location.
I use my 1dsMkII for my work as a photojournalist and carry it around all day. It's not an issue and the 16.1 MP images mean I can crop and edit to my heart's content. - TheCamino, on 11/29/2008, -3/+15 I like your argument, but it all comes down to physics:
More megapixels in less space means smaller holes, thus less light per pixel.
Less light per pixel means more gaining, and subsequently, more noise.
Therefore, more megapixels means more noise.
Everything else is super awesome, but it will have more noise before you run it through noise reduction software, and sharpening will be a monster.
For some people, that is an issue.
That being said, I will gladly trade you my Rebel XTI for your Mark 2. - byukid, on 11/29/2008, -3/+14But can I steal it from Ashton and take provocative pictures of myself?
- srg13, on 11/29/2008, -2/+13This camera doesn't need to shoot video - it's for professionals... If they want to shoot video, then they will probably have a twenty or thirty thousand (plus) dollar video camera package that would shoot nice footage (unlike the Canon - which is alright unless the camera moves) and which would be in a form factor that you would actually want to hold in a shooting position for more than a few minutes.
- Turbo3G, on 11/29/2008, -1/+11Keep it up! Hopefully the whooples listen to this and start to sell off their "sub par" lenses and make the jump to the Canon system! I need some more used glass!
- oda1, on 11/29/2008, -5/+14sweet, another camera I can't afford.
- TheCamino, on 11/29/2008, -6/+14 For those of us that shoot video, we've seen it.
It looks soft on a television monitor, probably having to do with what 3CCD shooters complain about when they get a CMOS video camera. For a moving image, you really need lenses the size of a small subcompact car, because there is no "sweet spot." You're going to use all of it all the time.
For real video production people, shooting on something so small, this is a deal breaker.
Also, by design, a DSLR is short throated. That creates a more open look, but also a larger amount of aberration that moving video doesn't like so much.
Moving video hates a 24mm lens, where stills love it.
Keep in mind that also, things like aperture shooting don't exist in video. In video, the framerate plus the shutter angle/speed is set for that shot. Conclusion... you can't 'pull' a shot in video, by changing shutter speed to sub-60i or 1/24th levels.
In short, imaging in video/film is a monster. There is a reason you need a lens the size of a small subcompact car. Then you need a tripod bigger than that. Aaaand because you can't get the light you want naturally because you're jacking with ten thousand cables, you're going to have to bring the ten ton truck to fake the lighting, and that takes hours. You can't get around it.
When someone starts saying, "I can do HD movies on my DSLR!"
Well, I just stare at them and say, "Maybe you should look up audio."
Then all the sudden Satan appears, and he starts laughing. You pull out a mic, and you're dealing with hellspawn.
"But, I can do HD movies on my DSLR!"
Run for the hills, people.
Run like hell. - tomz17, on 11/29/2008, -0/+7@Mjuboy
All the ISO setting does is boost the gain of the CCD A/D... What you are seeing is photon noise! Simply multiplying the crap out of every photon will not make it any less noisy. You need to increase the quantum efficiency of the CCD, and even if you do a PERFECT job of it, you might only get a ~20% or so benefit (current CCD's are already pretty efficient in photoelectron conversion).
Otherwise need to either turn up the lights, get a faster lens, take a longer exposure, or average a bunch of frames together. Sorry... you can't beating the laws of physics with your ISO knob!... - dicketj8050, on 11/29/2008, -1/+6most of us are on $2K plus computers and we spend most of our time alone on digg! what's a $5000 camera rig to shoot some snapshots with the pals?
- inactive, on 11/29/2008, -2/+7 That was an informative post. But as a feature to have if you just want to shoot a quick video of something with friends or family and play it back on the HDTV it's pretty nice.
- milkmit, on 11/29/2008, -1/+6Not to be an ass (ok, maybe so), but 25,600 is really only 2x higher if you're talking actual stops.
6400 / 12,800 / 25,600
4x would be something like 100k ISO....which would be kinda scary. - bipolarruledout, on 11/29/2008, -0/+5North; Just the D3 is 4k with no glass.
- steviesteveo, on 11/29/2008, -2/+6Where's this medium format nonsense coming from? It's a full frame camera, yes, but it's a "35.9 x 24mm (FX format) 24.5MP image sensor" full frame.
That's not medium format by a long shot - medium format sensors are up to 48mm across. - proliance, on 11/29/2008, -1/+5Depends. Are you a hot chick?
- shadow289, on 11/29/2008, -3/+7Camera tech news, on my digg?
Dugg! - spepin, on 11/29/2008, -3/+7I'm not too big on Nikons, mind your their higher-end stuff is pretty great.
There's some heavy competition at that level now with the new Canon 5D Mk2, Sony's Alpha 900 and this D3x.
I don't get the point of these shooting HD video. It's a camera, not an HD video camera. - sh0rtstop00, on 11/29/2008, -1/+4hey remember me? D70?
- smrekar, on 11/29/2008, -1/+424 mp is not overkill, it allows you to crop the snot out of a picture.
- coheedcollapse, on 11/29/2008, -0/+3"I don't get the point of these shooting HD video. It's a camera, not an HD video camera."
That's like saying "I don't get why that video game system plays videos, it's a video game system, not a media center".
I own the D3 and I was almost tempted to pick up a D90 as a back up solely based on the fact that it takes HD video with any of the lenses I have in my collection. I cover a lot of stuff around the area for my paper, and a lot of that stuff I'd like to take video of. I can't even imagine how nice it would be to shoot a few photos with a lens, and be able to switch straight over to HD video without even blinking. The fact that I can switch up any lens that I own on it just adds to how friggin awesome it is.
I guess it really depends on the person. I love photography much more than videography, but sometimes you want to capture more than just a single moment in time. If I'm not going to be paying much extra for video processing, I completely welcome it. - smrekar, on 11/29/2008, -1/+45D
- Dweller99, on 11/29/2008, -0/+3I've got your back Sh0rtstop00. My D70s feels the love every day when I am shooting with it.
Sure, I can not wait to be able to upgrade someday, but I still LOVE my camera, and know of 2 people in the last 3 months that have bought D70s. - directedition, on 11/29/2008, -2/+5Bah, who needs HD video when you can shoot 261 megapixels at 25fps?
http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ - Check out the Epic 617. - dagamer34, on 11/29/2008, -0/+3It's not that more megapixels ruin a shot, but more MPs in the same size sensor or smaller. The point and shoot cameras have just been flooded with models that have MP counts but small sensors making buying them pointless.
- kuyman, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2No, the eye doesn't see linearly as a photographic sensor does. Resolution of the eye is based on a lot of things that not even science wholly understands (the mechanics of the actual eye are simple but the brain bits that control it are amazing).
Keep in mind that this 24.5 MPix sensor is still subject to a Bayer Filter which cuts its resolution into 3 colors (with green used twice), effectively reducing the sharpness of that resolution. A camera is a linear device in this respect, but the human eye is not. (Nor is film, but that's a different argument...) - steviesteveo, on 11/30/2008, -0/+2It'll perform very very nicely - I've never had a Nikon camera of any format that wasn't a good picture taking device, I'm not worried about that.
Whether it'll perform $4000 body only of nice is the question, though. - Sabin, on 11/29/2008, -1/+3Most experts also agree that 35mm film is capable of capturing detail equivalent to 4000 lines of resolution or 4000x6000 pixels with a 2:3 aspect ratio. So since when is (finally) being as good as 35mm film considered medium format?
- Sabin, on 11/29/2008, -0/+2Probably closer to $6000 though they might throw in a mid range lens at that price.
- BossKey, on 11/29/2008, -0/+2>I don't get the point of these shooting HD video. It's a camera, not an HD video camera.
I will almost certainly make my next SLR purchase one that shoots HD video.
I bought a miniDV video camera several years ago, but I don't need to use it very often. I have delayed buying an HD video camera because I know how little I'll use it. But when an SLR offers HD video built in, I'll never have to buy that separate HD cam. Especially when you take into account what coheedcollapse posted above: Unlike a "real" consumer HD video camera, you can use any lens you want on a video SLR, and that is a huge advantage in creativity, and in particular, control over depth of field, which is a real limitation with small-sensor video cameras.
There is one more thing. HD video cameras in this price range are not good in low light, while SLRs are increasingly impressive. If you want to shoot video in low light, you almost have to pick the SLR over a "real" HD video camera.
Of course, if I was a videographer, none of this would make sense. An SLR is not a good, usable video camera for daily use. For occasional use, hey why not.
For an example of what can be achieved with interchangeable L lenses and low available light, see what has been produced with a Canon 5D Mk II:
http://usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticle ... - garblefung, on 11/29/2008, -0/+2Hey, me too! I bought a Ferrari and after a year it got ruined too. I exchanged it (don't ask) for the same model right off the show room floor. Two months later - same thing.
Moral of the story - buy Ford.
Dude, you're touting Canon for reliability over Nikon - and your example is a point & shoot? After the $4K Mark III autofocus fiasco? http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?ci ...
I've owned a ton of Nikons and Canons and they're indistinguishable in terms of reliability. I do tend to keep my cameras longer and use them harder than my printers so it's probably not a fair test. - astutissimo, on 11/29/2008, -3/+524.5 megapixels. David Pogue is going to have an aneurism. haha.
- timdorr, on 11/29/2008, -0/+2The 25600 ISO on the 5D2 is only through software noise reduction. It does up to a native 6400 ISO in hardware and then can go two stops higher with two levels of noise reduction enabled. This also applies to other ISO values, too. So, it can (in theory) bump a 400 ISO shot up to 1600 ISO.
I'm just happy that people have been saying the noise profile at 6400 ISO is about the same as the 40D at 800 ISO. That's just an insane bump in sensitivity! - inactive, on 11/29/2008, -1/+3 I've been reading about the D3's for the last year. It's what I would buy if I could afford a camera like this, the pictures are just fantastic.
- inactive, on 11/29/2008, -1/+3 You should see the Cannon G10. It's a tiny point and shoot sensor with 14 megapixels on it. Anything over ISO 200 is noisy.
- timdorr, on 11/29/2008, -1/+3@lunno666
SFX processing. It's all going to be transferred to digital anyways for that. Might as well make the source be pure digital. - coheedcollapse, on 11/29/2008, -0/+125,600 isn't really usable for much. I own the D3 and I've used it maybe once. The fact that worries me is that if "with boost" you can only go up to 6400, what do the 6400 photos on the d3x look like? I can shoot a complete basketball game in 6400 with my D3 and be completely satisfied with the results I have to turn into the paper. You won't be getting anything blow-up worthy, but it's still very good quality for the ISO.
- fyngyrz, on 11/29/2008, -1/+2This is the kind of thing that will make this camera weak in the market:
"The ISO range covers 100-1600 with a Lo1 (equivalent to ISO 50) as well as boost settings up to the equivalent of ISO 6400."
Consider a 5DmkII; ISO from 50 up to 25600. ISO 6400 is in the non-boosted range for the 5DmkII.
I wouldn't even consider this Nikon. It won't do the job unless there's considerably more light than the competition.
One of the key issues here is that people are to a great degree tied to their investment in lenses. You would be appalled to know what I've invested in them as a commercial photographer. In order to get new users of a pro camera, you pretty much have to pull them from other brands. This camera won't make any inroads with Canon users; it's just not competitive with the 5DmkII in some areas that really count, like ISO range.
As for the 24.5 mp... the difference between that and the Canon's 21.5 mp is negligible, the D3X is 6,048 x 4,032, while the 5DmkII is 5616x3744, a measly 400 pixel addition to a line that is 5,600 long already - about a 7% actual increase in detail. Whoo(cough)hoo. No one's going to change their lens inventory for that. - fyngyrz, on 11/29/2008, -1/+2Jimfeet, medium format refers to the size of the film or sensor area at the lens focal plane. This is a FF, basically 35mm equivalent, camera. No more than that. Go price medium format cameras; whole 'nuther world.
- coheedcollapse, on 11/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah pretty much. A lot of stock photography places won't take anything under a certain size as well, so a lot of studio photographers will benefit from the D3x.
Photojournalists however, don't seem to be getting much of a benefit. Even at the highest setting on the D3, stuff I send in to the paper is overkill as size goes. Combine that with the fact that in the higher MP, the speed drastically falls and the ISO on the D3x is lacking compared to the D3, and you get one happy D3 owner (me).
I was fearing that the D3x was going to blow my camera away, but they seem to have made it specifically for a certain group of people. - Napiertt, on 11/29/2008, -0/+1He likes MILFs
- Sabin, on 11/29/2008, -0/+1Same resolution, 3 times the price and not nearly as easy to carry as a D3x. the RED does digital stills but it is not a replacement for a proper still camera.
- aut0maticdan, on 11/29/2008, -1/+2Not all photographers share your needs, so the argument they make is perfectly valid. Some prefer low-light capabilities. Some just don't need extremely expensive equipment to make their art or shoot just for fun.
If you think the average person needs > 8MP, you are crazy. Most photographers you know shoot for stock? lol - schmuckguy, on 12/21/2008, -0/+1If you want to best price, you should go to the Nikon Price Tracker, http://www.nikonprice.com
- esus4, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't it be cheaper to just stop cleaning your lens with a handkerchief?
- Napiertt, on 11/29/2008, -0/+1tell me about it!
- greenkermit, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1If it can shoot 1080, itll be a pretty sweet video camera as well. the lens will give you much more control of depth of feild
- lennybird, on 11/29/2008, -2/+3I just bought the Canon Rebel XSi 12.2mp. My first DSLR. I'm pretty excited.
- steviesteveo, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Calling it a resolution issue is a bit silly - we've all been told to remember it's not a megapixel issue - you have to consider the size of the sensor too. A bigger sensor with larger pixels means that each pixel has a chance to collect more light and therefore produces a lower noise image at higher ISO speeds, this is why studios shell out tens of thousands of dollars for genuine medium format digital cameras.
It's clearly not a resolution thing because "pixels don't matter", it's not right to say it's a medium format camera just because it's suddenly got over this number of megapixels because one day point and shoot cameras and even mobile phones will do exactly the same and the pictures they'll produce will clearly not be "medium format" - they'll be 24 and more megapixels in resolution but they won't be the same as pictures taken with a big and costly sensor which is a few -inches- (not centimetres) across. - timdorr, on 11/29/2008, -0/+1Why are we arguing this when this camera doesn't even do video anyways???
- steviesteveo, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1Jimfreet: Medium format refers to the size of the imaging surface, be it film or digital. Medium format is logically enough cameras which image to a sensor which is bigger than small format (35mm and less) and less than 4"×5". It's a medium size sensor.
I don't understand why you're bringing film and digital into it, the real question of medium format is that you need entirely different lenses to cover the whole sensor. So a medium format DSLR might be made by Nikon, but it's still going to have black corners if you try to use a FX format lens with it.
Have you tried using the 1.6x crop factor DX lenses with an FX sensor body? Same issue - too small lens for a bigger sensor area. Not a film issue at all. -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is