Latest Nikon release rumours

According to David Dyer-Bennet :
"Pete D" wrote in
:

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50
might even give up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted
on me.

Whereas I rarely set my D200 below 400, and would really *love* to be
able to use 3200, 6400, 12800.

And most of the time, my D70 is set to "auto-ISO", so I have to
look at the EXIF data to see what I actually used. I do a lot of
available light shots, and taking time to determine what ISO is best can
often lose me what I want to capture.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50
might even give up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted
on me.

I, too, would find ISO 25 & 50 very useful. For me, 25-800 would be about
ideal...in 30+ years of having SLRs, I've never had need to use ISO
1600-6400, but would welcome not needing a bunch of ND filters to tame the
light.

Rita Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

You're the perfect candidate for the Mk III and six Nikkor to EOS adapter
rings. The old Mk III has been hovering in the ISO 800-1600 range since I
got it.


I think the Nikon D3 is right up there above the Mk III as it will use the
Nikkor lenses natively and is probably cheaper than the Canon body.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in
:

I think the Nikon D3 is right up there above the Mk III as it
will use the Nikkor lenses natively and is probably cheaper than
the Canon body.

List price seems to be $5000 for the D3, which means, short of a
lottery win, not my problem.

But the low-light performance may well be superb; the pixel pitch is
certainly generous.


--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-
b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

(DoN. Nichols) wrote in
:

And most of the time, my D70 is set to "auto-ISO", so I have
to
look at the EXIF data to see what I actually used. I do a lot of
available light shots, and taking time to determine what ISO is
best can often lose me what I want to capture.

I do use the auto ISO setting on the D200 some, but turns out I change
position a fair amount which changes what minimum shutter speed I can
tolerate, so I end up running exposure and ISO mostly manually.
(Bracing against a door frame is often better than resting my hands on
a chair back, for example.)

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-
b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , veldy71
@yahoo.com says...
-RichA wrote:
- All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
- who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
- venues because of the lighting.
-
-
-I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
-ISO100.

in a studio with strobes, right. available light is different.

so you are unlikely to shoot moving children in dimmer light.

either less than bright light
or fast action are not of interest to you.

-
-

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:

But the low-light performance may well be superb; the pixel pitch is
certainly generous.

Yep. Here's what it will look like at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600.

Note that only at 25,600 is the noise really out of control.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

(Do I need to rub it in that (a) Canon users have had this for two years
already and that (b) Canon users get it for less than 1/2 the price?)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:

But the low-light performance may well be superb; the pixel pitch is
certainly generous.

Yep. Here's what it will look like at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600.

Note that only at 25,600 is the noise really out of control.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

(Do I need to rub it in that (a) Canon users have had this for two
years already and that (b) Canon users get it for less than 1/2 the
price?)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

So with the benefit of an extra two years development in sensors, signal
capture, and processing, it's likely that Nikon will provide a more usable
high-ISO than Canon.

David

crownfield wrote:
In article , veldy71
@yahoo.com says...
-RichA wrote:
- All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
- who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
- venues because of the lighting.
-
-
-I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
-ISO100.

in a studio with strobes, right. available light is different.

so you are unlikely to shoot moving children in dimmer light.

either less than bright light
or fast action are not of interest to you.

I shoot mostly outdoors. I do do candid shots of friends and family or some
indoor events, but mostly, I survive on ISO400 or better with use of my
SB-600. As I move towards bird shots, I may revise my opinion on this a
little, but currently, the best I can do is use an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with a
1.4x teleconverter, which isn't really sufficient for most birds.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:01 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

I shoot mostly outdoors. I do do candid shots of friends and family or some
indoor events, but mostly, I survive on ISO400 or better with use of my
SB-600. As I move towards bird shots, I may revise my opinion on this a
little, but currently, the best I can do is use an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with a
1.4x teleconverter, which isn't really sufficient for most birds.

Because the focal length is too short? If it's because the flash
isn't powerful enough at your bird distances, check out the Better
Beamer.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/tdg0502-1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...r_beamer.shtml