Devauld.ca

My business partner will vouch that I've been waiting a long time for Nikon to get it's act together. I even established a fund into which I was storing monies in the hope that I would be able to purchase a Full Frame camera from Nikon. When PMA rolled by this year, I felt my heart drop when no new SLR was announced by Nikon. I was hurt so deep that I splurged my Nikon fund on something that isn't quite photographic.

Disappointments continued to roll around, and finally broke away from my 35mm only rule for glass, and purchased a DX format lens. I guess my break from my rule, started the fates in motion, and as much as I love my new lens, Nikon finally delivered on a dream years in the making.

This week Nikon announced two new cameras: the D300 and the D3. I was hoping that the Full Frame technology would make it into the D200 replacement, but I'm not surprised that it is not. I'm just glad that my 50mm F1.4 is one day going to be 50mm again. After the flurry of speculation, previews and initial impressions have settled down, I thought I would try to get my thoughts down.

I first noticed the resolution of the new sensor. The D3 weighs in at a pro level 12.1 megapixels, which is strangely less than the prosumer D300's 12.3 million photo sensors, it's predecessor's 12.4 and considerably less than the competators newest flagship. At first I was very disappointed, but after some questioning as to why Nikon made the decision I think I understand it. Nikon hasn't been in the Full Frame market yet because the difference between film and digital meant that with a full frame sensor has considerable light falloff on the edges of the sensor; sometimes the falloff is as much as two full stops of light. Early adopters to the Full Frame digital frame complained bitterly about this unnatural vignetting. Sounds like Nikon was listening because with the new sensor employing larger photosites, they can employ more aggressive microlenses to ensure that the light it hitting the sensor just right. The larger photosites also let Nikon get a handle on the noise that was a problem with the D2Xs. With the larger photosites, you can increase sensitivity without a gargantuan increase in noise. A good idea, because Nikon is telling us this new sensor can capture at an equivalent ISO of 25600. I also think that Nikon has someone in their building that isn't wrapped up in the megapixel madness. With the sensor that is now in the D3 you can make a 300dpi (magazine quality) print easily at 9x14 (bigger than magazine page size).

The next feature of note is the raw speed of the camera. Nikon has gone right crazy and put two compact flash card slots in the camera. Any computer geek knows this means the camera can employ a strip writing technique, alternatively writing on the two cards to remove the card's write speed from the bottleneck. The sensor has the capability of capturing nine frames per second at full frame, and eleven in the DX format. Say it out loud: "Nine, twelve megapixel pictures per second". You can fill a gigabyte flash card with pictures in under 10 seconds. It also means that with the auto-bracketing built into the camera you can make a 10 stop bracket for HDR in a single second. I think the dual flash card setup, as well as the lower-megapixel sensor both lend to Nikon's ability to deliver the crazy amount of pictures per second.

I also made note of Nikon's dedication to High Definition. The new D3 does not have a video out, instead it has a HDMI port to plug your camera into a television to preview the images. It only makes sense if you are capturing images in a high resolution you might as well look at it in a high resolution. Also, the LCD screen on the back is crazy. I've been keeping tabs on the LCD stats since I got Mr. Bennett's D200 in my hands and I saw what a difference a bigger and better LCD makes. The D3's LCD is just short of nuts. It's a 3" screen which is on par with the competition, but the crammed over nine hundred thousand pixels on it. That little 3" screen has more resolution than a 720p high definition television, think about that for a second.

Finally, no Nikon announcement ever happens without all the trolls (myself included) comparing what's new to the competition. Canon's MSRP is 60% higher than Nikon's, which I feel is a great blessing. Canon absolutely nukes Nikon in the megapixel war, having 75% more pixels on the sensor. Nikon's camera is 80% faster in continuous shooting mode, and for some strange reason has two more stops off either end in the auto-bracket mode. Canon's equivalent ISO range spans 50 to 3200 (options included), and Nikon's goes from an average 100 to a stupifying 25600. All these numbers are good for measurbators, but what really matters is how good are the pictures that it takes. How good is the dynamic range? How realistic and vibrant are the colours? The camera hits the stores this December, so we'll have to wait to see what kind of images it takes, but in the mean time, I've restarted my Nikon fund.