| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/23/2007 08:29:51 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by zaflabout:
HAHAHAHAHAHA as i was expecting
BYE BYE CANON:) |
Heh. Woohooo! 2 years later, full frame for the nikonites!
Gotta say that's a lot of camera for the price if the $1800 estimate holds true. |
Err, I misread the reviews. I thought both models were full-frame, including the 1800 dollar one.
Well, I was impressed for a few hours anyway. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:20:18 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
ISO 24,600.
Advantage Nikon! |
whats the point of putting that high an ISO when the picture is going to be unusable, because it has so much Nikon noise on it? :p
usable ISO6400 on a MKIII without anti-noise filter, advantage Canon ;) |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:30:30 AM · #53 |
- DPC Registration: $25
- New Canon 40D SLR: $1300
- New Nikon D300 SLR: $1800
- Not getting sucked into an un-winnable argument: Priceless
=) |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:33:13 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
- DPC Registration: $25
- New Canon 40D SLR: $1300
- New Nikon D300 SLR: $1800
- Not getting sucked into an un-winnable argument: Priceless
=) |
U forgot the price of 
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 09:36:32 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
- DPC Registration: $25
- New Canon 40D SLR: $1300
- New Nikon D300 SLR: $1800
- Not getting sucked into an un-winnable argument: Priceless
=) |
Hilarious.
This can be used so many places! |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:11:37 AM · #56 |
D3 looks pretty sweet. Full frame, ISO 25600, 11fps
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:14:17 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
D3 looks pretty sweet. Full frame, ISO 25600, 11fps |
Yup a 1D III killer. It shoots 11fps in DX mode (5.1 MP) and 9 fps in Full frame mode. Now we have to see samples at ISO 25600. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:31:31 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zaflabout:
HAHAHAHAHAHA as i was expecting
BYE BYE CANON:) |
Hmmm, lets see, full frame Nikon for $5000.
or
Full frame Canon for $2800.
advantage, Canon! |
Umm, pro alloy body with a built in vertical grip and better weather sealing, and ISO 24,600.
Advantage Nikon! |
"Pro alloy body with a built in vertical grip and better weather sealing, and ISO 24,600"
Not worth another $2200.
Advantage Canon. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:52:16 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
"Pro alloy body with a built in vertical grip and better weather sealing, and ISO 24,600"
Not worth another $2200.
Advantage Canon. |
Actual competition for Canon again.
Advantage photographers.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 10:58:06 AM · #60 |
Free advertising and customer-generated hype for Canon and Nikon.
Advantage the Marketing Executives. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 11:10:57 AM · #61 |
"Selectable 14-bit A/D Nef".
This sounds a little suspect to me.
I wonder what this really means and what downstream affect this will have.
Maybe the converter doesn't process the image fast enough at 14 bits for the max rated FPS?
It would have to have some negative impact on performance otherwise they wouldn't offer you to select 12bit.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 11:13:20 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
'Bout Time!
I guess my new Nikon will be a Nikon after all. :-D Now the hard part...saving the cash.
D3 here I come! |
Glad you are not jumping over to the dark side. Although I hear if you buy a new Canon you get a free trip to Iceland and 3 Blue Ribbons.
Still not worth it,. lol
|
Man, Canon really IS diggin' into those rebate coffers!
Spazmo99 - nyeah! :P, and all that other junk. we'll go piss the farthest in the woods sometime. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 11:43:19 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Spazmo99 - nyeah! :P, and all that other junk. we'll go piss the farthest in the woods sometime. |
Yeah, I'm just messin' with ya. Personally, I find the whole Nikon vs. Canon debate, ridiculous. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 11:46:07 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Spazmo99 - nyeah! :P, and all that other junk. we'll go piss the farthest in the woods sometime. |
Yeah, I'm just messin' with ya. Personally, I find the whole Nikon vs. Canon debate, ridiculous. |
I actually wanted to go Canon when we went to get an SLR, but the wife was already on the Dark Side.
now I just need a D3eathstar and my training will be complete. |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 11:53:01 AM · #65 |
So yesterday I was all pissed and ready to jump ship. Today I can't stop thinking about the D3! Must see images!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
:-D |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 12:05:44 PM · #66 |
OK so I just added up what I would have if I sold some stuff and I am half way to the D3!
How many times can you sell your blood in a week? :-P |
|
|
|
08/23/2007 12:07:08 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So yesterday I was all pissed and ready to jump ship. Today I can't stop thinking about the D3! Must see images!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
:-D |
I agree, must see images. I have not been impressed with Nikons high ISO work in the past, and to throw out 6400 and up they better have been some BIG improvements over noise handling. The 1600 was acceptable but 3200 was pretty useless in most instances. And I'm not sure why they cant go down to 100ISO and 50ISO with software. Just doesnt make sense. In the studio and outside sometimes you need that low ISO to control DOF and 200 just wont cut it sometimes, I'd hate to have to use ND filters in the studio.
MattO
Message edited by author 2007-08-23 13:05:52.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2007 12:47:49 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So yesterday I was all pissed and ready to jump ship. Today I can't stop thinking about the D3! Must see images!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
Must have D3!
:-D |
I agree, must see images. I have not been impresses with Nikons high ISO work in the past, and to throw out 6400 and up they better have been some BIG improvements over noise handling. The 1600 was acceptable but 3200 was pretty useless in most instances. And I'm not sure why they cant go down to 100ISO and 50ISO with software. Just doesnt make sense. In the studio and outside sometimes you need that low ISO to control DOF and 200 just wont cut it sometimes, I'd hate to have to use ND filters in the studio.
MattO |
Light with smaller flashes at low power, and you can go down to f/2.8 without a problem. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 10:48:44 AM EDT.
