Nikon Not To Be Outdone By Canon Introduces the D3 and the D300
August 23, 2007: Following Canon’s announcements of the long-awaited 40D and the upgrades EOS 1D Mark IIIs (which costs $7,000, so I refuse to discuss it), Nikon has fired back with the D3 and the D300. While I don’t think these cameras are going to win any awards for their names (will subsequent models be the D3,000, the D30,000 and the D3,000,000?) the specs look pretty tasty.
The following is cut-and-pasted from Engadget:
D3
- 12.1 megapixel, full-frame friggin sensor! (23.9 x 36mm) Finally. ISO up to 6400
- 3-inch VGA live view LCD
- Two (count ‘em, two!) CompactFlash card slots for overflow, backup, or copying
- New EXPEED image processor
- 9fps in full frame, 11fps in DX crop; 51 point autofocus (with “3D focus tracking”)
- HDMI out with optional cable
- $5000, November release
D300
- 12.3 megapixel DX (1.5 crop) sensor
- 3-inch VGA live view LCD
- New EXPEED image processor
- 51 point autofocus
- $1800, November release
According the the always-on-the-nose Imaging-Resource.com, the D3 also features: ” a Virtual Horizon function that indicates (in both LCD and viewfinder) whether the camera is true and level, based on information from a built-in digital level sensor, or in-camera correction of chromatic abberations based on information on the lens in use. Others are features you expect to see on a camera of this level, such as dust and water proofing measures, a magnesium alloy body, tempered glass over the LCD display, and a shutter mechanism rated to last to 300,000 releases.”
In terms of pricing, the D300 will cost about $500 more than the 40D. Is it worth it?
Far be it from me offer an opinion, especially since both companies have adherents so passionate that, if you click on the Engadget link above, you’ll read a feud so intense that it will make you glad these people don’t have nuclear arms. After one poster wrote “The D300 kind of leaves me underwhelmed. Again, it’s a nice camera, and a natural step up from the D40/D80, but I think the Canon 40D has a price/performance edge,” he or she got attacked more violently than a poodle at Michael Vick’s house.
Can’t we all just get along?
We’ll have to get Dave Etchells from Imaging-Resource.com on the show to walk us through all these new cameras. Stay tuned!
By the way, why don’t camera companies follow the time honored protocol in which higher-numbered models have more features than their lower siblings? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the D300 was the higher-end model than the D3? The D300 should be 297 degrees better than the D3 in my book.
Scott
August 24th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Wow, I guess everyone in camera-land got their wishes this week with Sony’s new sensor, and the new Nikon and Canon DSLRs. The D3 sounds pretty amazing, kind of like the best from the 5D and the 1D Mark III combined into one camera. Between the new lens releases and the increased frame rates and ISOs, it seems Nikon is trying to claim some of Canon’s stronghold on sports.
Scott, you are lucky. You might actually have a chance to buy a 40d before the end of the year, where as the Nikon shooters know it’ll be a year before we actually see a D300 in stock!
August 24th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I remember when, in the US, competition used to be a good thing, It helped sharpen, define your image. And challenged you, as a manufacturer, to innovate, and improve.
In the camera hobby, it seems as though all we get are brand backing zealots who inexplicably stand behind one of their two brands, and when asked why they are loyal to that brand, they can not provide a well supported, thoughtful explaination, beyond “Nikon’s the best”, or “Canon rules”. Correct me if I am wrong, but they both make great products which allow us to become great photographers, at very reasonable prices. I happen to shoot with Nikon. But does that make me want to slam Canon product? On the contrary-they are to be commended for making a great product line, and encouraging Nikon to get serious and develop a full frame format camera we can all drool over. The 1D Mark III and it’s sheer mind blowing innovation did more to get the D3 out there than many of the skilled, talented engineers at Nikon.
Guess what, photographers? We all win!
Arthur
August 25th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Well, it interesting that the big offering when digital photography is mentioned, everyone’s envy is that we no longer have to contend with film and processing fees. Better pictures were now possible, due to the onboard camera preview and review features…
It’s funny that the old film based SLRs had product life spans of at least 5 years, where many of the better designs lasting about 10 years. They did not have to be obsolete as often due to the limited mechanical improvements or gradual electronic offerings. When updated, the new product had improvements you could easily measure in different areas. The largest gains realized, were from you the shooter. Your mastery of exposure, composure, focusing (yes, you practiced manual and prefocusing very often), etc; made the difference…
Now, with the digital SLR age, it seems we are seeing product changes happen more often. At first, the DSLR product life was around 3 years. Now, we are down to something less than a year. Even taking inflation into account, many of the new DSLRs are priced way above their film based SLR counterparts from years past. Digital technology is getting much cheaper for all appliances, but not for the midlevel DSLRs (and above). Could it be that the price target is kept moving and high, so to create a price to product ratio? As an example, people will expect the spend $4,000 or above for a certain level of performance, and would discount the performance of anything with a lesser price? So, the solution is to up the performance curve (even on a barely measurable level), with mainly keeping or increasing the price? It paints a picture that the camera is to make more of the picture than the shooter, so for better pictures, pay the price. This is just out of control with the DSLR turnaround is getting just as bad as the point and shoots…
With the above being said, does this make digital photography cost effective? For the elite and the professional with big budgets, this is maybe OK. For others, this sounds very discouraging. We don’t want to get into the buyer’s remorse hype. This pattern sounds rather like the personal computer rant (Windows & Apple). When it comes to system upgrades, associated software upgrade costs are just bummers. Well, here it seems to have arrived in the digital photography world…
To sum this up, I guess we can’t do anything about what the manufactures are doing. I hope great podcast shows like this spend more time helping us to master our basic photography skills. Less on camera and brand specific technological capabilities, with more of how can we pull off this shot using generic photographic techniques. Heck, the last photo contest winner here, used a point and shoot and I am all for that…
August 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Cintinuous improvement is one of the guiding principles of industry, and lean manufacturing. Digital photography is in it’s infancy. No one buys a digital SLR these days thinking “that’s in, I’m done” We all know the lines will continue to evolve and improve. Which is great for us.
A