Russell McMahon wrote:
> I consider the Nikon D700 to be the world's best 35mm full frame
> digital camera for portable sporting and low light use at present. The
> D700s (as yet  unnannounced*) will add even better low light
> performance and HD video.

The D3 and D700 are signs things will eventually get to where I'm willing to
switch from the F3.  Both are nice cameras, but both are still too expensive
due to the relative immaturity of full frame sensors.  I do think Nikon is
on the right track going for sensitivity and low noise instead of going for
megapixel insanity.  In theory you can blow up your shots more with more
pixels, but only if those pixels contain real data and aren't individually
swamped with noise.  And then there's the issue of getting a shot in the
first place with the extra sensitivity that extra pixels can't make up for.

I like how there is less stuff below the lens on the D700.  Sometimes you
want to get right down onto the ground or some other surface.  The popup
flash is just silly though.  It's also not clear that the D700 and even the
D3 have the same brick outhouse construction of the F3T.  That's a important
feature when most of your shots are outdoors in unpredictable conditions
with some physical abuse expected on the way out and back.

So it looks like things are heading in the right direction, but I'll
probably sit tight with my F3 for a few more years.

> Full frame sensor and "only" 12 MP.
> Better results than an F3 - but it took a long time for that to be
> true.

Yes, the D3 is probably the first camera that can seriously make that claim
for any reasonable price, and that was around 25 years after the F3.  12Mpix
if each pixel is real is better than film for most cases.  It's certainly
better than I get with my scanner now.  To put this in context, consider a
35mm frame at 50 lines/mm.  That would be 36 x 24 mm with 100 pixels/mm,
which comes out to only 8.6Mpix.  Good lenses do get you more than 50
lines/mm, but you're not going to get twice that.  The 12.1Mpix of the D3
and D700 comes out to 59 lines/mm in 35mm terms.  I'd much rather have a
solid clean 59 lines/mm than a noisy 80 lines/mm.

> D700 would take your lenses :-).
> But, at about $US2500 for the body only it may be "a bit dear so far"
> :-). Wait for the D700s.
> And for the price to come down a bit more.

Exactly.  And for the brick outhouse version.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist