D3 vs D700

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:32:24 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
eavesdropping through his twit filter.) :-)

There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
better than not taking anything.

It's actually quite good, much better than your sly slur would suggest,

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others

John Navas wrote in
:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people see controversy in anything they disagree with.

I see no evidence of distortions.

My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.


Why, because he's one of the nuts who do comparisons between $200 P&S's and
$5000 DSLR's and finds the P&S better?

In article , measekite
wrote:

It is my understanding that the D700 has larger pixels so it should be
able to produce a larger photo at low light.

compared with a d300 yes. compared with a d3 it's basically the same
sensor. and it's not so much a larger photo, but one with less noise
at a given iso.

Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I want
a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you get
essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The D300
doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its own
quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.

First I think I would opt for the D90 which is basically a D300 for a lot
less $$.

true, but it lacks a few features of the d300. it all depends how
important those are.

But if I was considering a basic full frame camera it would be hard to
beat the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon needs to quickly discontinue the D700 in
favor of a D800 (or D700 mkii) or what ever they want to call it and price
it at the same level as Canon.

the d700 has a much more capable autofocus system and faster frame
rate. maybe it's canon that needs to improve...

both cameras are good, it just depends which mix of features you want
and whether you already have existing lenses.

And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
eavesdropping through his twit filter.) :-)

There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
better than not taking anything.

size can be an advantage.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Another example is that he is very inconsistent. When he reviewed the
D70 he basically said that film was dead and no longer needed. Now
that he's owned cameras that are far better than the D70, his schtick
is that all digital is inferior to film. He says that all of his
digital cameras are toys, but he does his "real" photography with 4x5
sheet film cameras.

i've even seen him contradict himself in the same article.

Example?

i don't remember specifically and don't have time to comb through his
site to find it.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 09:55:57 +1100, "N" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..
Some people see controversy in anything they disagree with.

You sure do.

You're ... let me guess ... 12?



12 what?

"RichA" wrote in message
. ..
John Navas wrote in
:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people see controversy in anything they disagree with.

I see no evidence of distortions.

My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.


Why, because he's one of the nuts who do comparisons between $200 P&S's
and
$5000 DSLR's and finds the P&S better?


Gosh Rich, would anyone be silly enough to do that?

measekite wrote:
[]
They call the wind Mariah. He says a lot of things like the wind
blows. One day South and the other North. He is inconsistent from
time to time and review to review and article to article. Still I
find him interesting and once you can pick and choose information
some of it is beneficial. Some you throw out and the rest you have a
hard time knowing if it is correct or true.

I think I respect someone more who changes his view as new evidence
becomes available or in the light of practical experience, than someone
who sticks with their outdated ideas even when they are proven wrong or
new developments happen.

Cheers,
David

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:49:08 +1100, "N" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
John Navas wrote in
:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people see controversy in anything they disagree with.

I see no evidence of distortions.

My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.


Why, because he's one of the nuts who do comparisons between $200 P&S's
and
$5000 DSLR's and finds the P&S better?


Gosh Rich, would anyone be silly enough to do that?

Only those who worship at the p&s altar with a religious zeal.

It's interesting that most dslr users choose their camera because they
believe it to be the best tool for the job, while there are many p&s
users who feel they have something to prove... as if they think they
are smarter than everyone else for choosing an inexpensive and
subcompact tool which they are convinced does a better job than the
more elaborate and expensive gear.

It's like someone with a hand saw heckling the professional lumberjack
with the chainsaw, saying "I can do a better job than you can."

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:32:24 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite
wrote:

Unless I am mistaken the D3 will NOT produce any better image quality than
the D700. It is supposed to be better built but heavier and that may not
be an advantage; especially if the D700 is built good enough for most uses.

So what are the real differences that justify the difference in $$.

Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.

Since nobody has answered the original question before this thread
deteriorated into Ken Rockwell bashing, let me attempt to get it back
on track:

As best I understand it, the only real difference between the D700 and
the D3 is speed, speed, speed. The D3 is a blazingly fast camera. It
also has a shutter rated for more cycles because it is designed for
very heavy use. There are also a few extra bells on the D3 but
nothing significant to most photographers. Image quality between the
two is virtually identical.

The strong point of both of them is their high ISO capability, which
is insanely good. You can shoot either one at ISO 3200 and get
images that are as clean looking as some other dslrs shot at ISO 400
or less. ISO 6400 is fully useable.

Resolution wise, you won't see much difference between either camera
and the D200/D300, although dynamic range is better due to the larger
sensor.

It is my understanding that the D700 has larger pixels so it should be
able to produce a larger photo at low light.

Not a larger photo, per se, since that is a function of the
megapixels. The D300 and D700 are both 12MP cameras. However, the
D700 will produce cleaner-looking images above ISO 400, and can make
perfectly acceptable images in lighting so low you wouldn't dare
attempt with most other cameras.




Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I want
a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you get
essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The D300
doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its own
quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.


First I think I would opt for the D90 which is basically a D300 for a lot
less $$.

The D300 is a much more rugged and faster camera than the D90. It
also has much better autofocus (51 points vs the 11 points of the
D90). According most reviews, the D300 also has a slight edge in
overall image quality. But the D90 is lighter (because it is
plastic) and will take movies if that's important to you.




But if I was considering a basic full frame camera it would be hard to
beat the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon needs to quickly discontinue the D700 in
favor of a D800 (or D700 mkii) or what ever they want to call it and price
it at the same level as Canon.

That would be nice, but I think Nikon will continue to do well against
Canon's offerings. The D700 is a much better camera overall than the
5DII in terms of features and speed. It is also better at high ISO.
However, the 5DII has more megapixels for those who think that is more
important. But in reality, the difference between 12 and 20 MP isn't
as big as you'd think. Doubling the megapixels only yields about a
40% increase in actual resolution, and it doesn't really show up at
normal print sizes.





And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
eavesdropping through his twit filter.) :-)

There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
better than not taking anything.

That is absolutely true. A camera like the D300, D700 or even the
D80 is overkill if what you want to do is take pictures of your
friends at parties or whatnot. It's good to have both camera types
available.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:31:30 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Another example is that he is very inconsistent. When he reviewed the
D70 he basically said that film was dead and no longer needed. Now
that he's owned cameras that are far better than the D70, his schtick
is that all digital is inferior to film. He says that all of his
digital cameras are toys, but he does his "real" photography with 4x5
sheet film cameras.

i've even seen him contradict himself in the same article.

Example?

i don't remember specifically and don't have time to comb through his
site to find it.

Then I'll not take that seriously.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others