Recently nikon released the d300 and its first full frame dslr, the d3. We all know how fast the technological world moves, my trusty nikon d70, which I have been using for 3 years now, is a relic by dslr standards. I would like to point out though, that I have never had a problem with it. And I have dropped it many times, got it wet, and its been through several insanely hot Aussie summers, as well as traveled to Japan and New Zealand. I call it my workhorse (ok sometimes my baby).
Anyway, much as I love my camera, its getting to the stage where its a little dated. For a while now, I had been waiting for a 12 megapixel nikon camera, rather then upgrade to the 10 MP d200. And I got it with the d300/d3 release. However, the d3 proves to be such a beautiful camera that now I am stuck debating my longing for it over what I can afford.
In this review I will compare the specifications of the d200/d300 and d3, in case people don't understand what it means when you look at them. Though people considering buying these cameras should know all this stuff anyway.
Lets look at the nikon d200 compared to the d300.
The d200 is 10.2 mp opposed to the d300's 12.3. This really isn't a big deal. The Canon mark III is 21 MP!!!. The d200 uses a ccd sensor while the d300 uses cmos. I think this is something to do with the quality, I only glanced at an article about it a while back. And sorry I dont get paid for this, so you can look it up yourself ;). In the d300 they have removed the option of shooting jpg+raw. Maybe because no one ever uses it. Haha. The metering is the same, the usual spot, centre and matrix. So far not much is different.
Moving onto ISO. The d200 can shoot at iso 100-1600 while the d300, 200-3200. Whoa! Whilst I have always longed for nikons to shoot at iso 100, and I have no idea why they would remove this in the d300 (perhaps to allow the iso to be increased to 3200), 3200 is a bit of a jump. That said I always shoot in iso 200 as much as I can help it, because I cant stand noise. However I have read that the grain at high isos in the d300/d3 is not very noticable. Exposure settings are the same in the d200 and d300.
Onto LCD size. My old d70's is 1.5 inches. This is too small. The d200 is 2inches. Better..The d300 is 3 inches! double the size of my d70!.
Another notable upgrade is frame per second (fps) my d70 shoots at 3 fps in continuous mode, the d200, 5fps and the d300 6. So its not a big jump from the d200 to d300, but from the d70 it is. Bracketing here I come!
Weight. Sadly I have just noticed both the d200 and d300 (at 1.8 pounds) are heavier then my d70, which I already thought too heavy. You may not think weight is overly important but when you are lugging your camera around...when you are trying to take self portaits and your puny arm is shaking with holding your camera in their air. Well then.
So overall if I had the d200 I wouldnt upgrade to the d300, though I have read reviews of people doing so. If you have the money to blow, sure, go ahead, though if it was me I would sell the d200 to put money towards the d3!
Lets have a quick look at this camera.
12 mp. no biggie. CMOS sensor again. Same exposure settings as the d200/d300. Iso available from 200-6400! (and I read you can shoot at 100 in some sort of mode). This itself is pretty awesome. But heres the clincher, the sensor size is....23.9 x 36mm opposed to 15.8 x 23.6mm on the d300/d200 (however the sensor on the canon mark III is bigger). DSLR's that dont have a full frame sensor (equivalent of a 35mm film camera) have a crop factor when using film lenses (1.6x). Nikon has built lenses specifically for its DSLR cameras to factor this in (known as the DX series lenses). Be aware of this when buying a d3, that any DX lenses would be wasted on the full frame sensor. As well as the sensor, the d3 shoots at 9-11 fps in continuous mode. On the downside its heavier then the d200/d300, at 2.7 pounds.
But does all this justify the $7k (AUD) price tag? Personally I wouldn't know, because I haven't seen a single d3 or d300 being sold in stores here, so am unable to test either of these. And unlike ken rockwell, I don't have the er..financial means to buy them anyway. ha...
Thus this review is merely a comparison of these cameras' technical specifications. Sorry!
If you are interested in the new canon cameras, check out the canon mark 11 and mark 111.
For a great site giving in depth reviews on many cameras, have a look at
http://dpreview.com
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Comparing the new Nikon Cameras
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I feel the same about my D70s - water, abuse, mud, sand, heat, cold (froze the shutter the first week i got it) being bumped around, and it's still going.
I see D3s selling for $7K on ebay, so assume they would retail for more. 2.7kg... that's a ton from any perspective i would image, nevermind self portraits etc. Can you imagine swinging that and a zoom around trying to photograph an all day event?!
whoo first comment! thanks for that, if it wasnt for google analytics telling me otherwise, i would think no one read my blog at all.
btw the d3 is 2.7 pounds not kilos(i was using the specs off yahoo), which is 1.24 kilos. lol. 3 kilos with a lens would kill anybody.
Hey Sylvia, great read. However I think that the Canon 5D and 1Ds are also full-frame :) Reggie
oh, thanks for that.
Considering the advantages with the new sensor and therefore picture quality, and the not too big of a price difference, I would go for the D300. The Canon 40D might also be worth a look (similar sensor, quality, lower price). For me, the D80 will still have to do it until the next generation. ;-) Cheers, Michael (solidether)
yes, I know very little about canon because I am a nikon user, but I have heard go canon if you prefer sharpness, go nikon if you like to shoot in low light.
Post a Comment