Nikon D3 DSLR rumors running rampant

It sure feels like we've been around this block before, eh? Nevertheless, it seems that the ever-popular D3 rumors are cropping up again en masse, and while there's still no true signs of an imminent release, a whole heap of fanboys and girls are doing all they can to will it into production. A smattering of message boards are harping on the "forthcoming" high-end DSLR from Nikon, stating hopes that it'll sport 18.7-megapixels, a nearly full frame sensor, and an uncanny ability to cope with low-light conditions. As expected, guesstimates surrounding a release date are literally all over the Gregorian calendar, but majority sects believe that a summertime launch is definitely plausible. So if you're game for getting swept up in all the commotion, be sure and hit the read link for all the unconfirmed mayhem you can stand.

[Image courtesy of David McGhee]

[humpty @ Jun 9th 2007 10:31AM]

The (near) full frame will most likely be a Sony cmos deisgn.. they are rumoured to be putting out a near full frame flagship dslr as well; it would use the same chip.

[topazbullet @ Jun 9th 2007 11:40AM]

Does this "near full frame" vignette with DX lenses? If so, I predict a lot of people jumping to canon...

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 7:37PM]

"Does this "near full frame" vignette with DX lenses? If so, I predict a lot of people jumping to canon..."

If I can't use my DX lenses with the new Nikon, I'll switch to Canon so I can't use any of my lenses. Sounds brilliant; you're a hell of a sage.

BTW, Canon full-framers can't use EF-S lenses either. What a surprise. You do realize DX lenses are a small minority of the Nikon lens lineup, right?

[optV @ Jun 9th 2007 12:14PM]

What a useless post. At this time there are nothing but rumors (the same rumors we've been seeing for over a year). Must be a slow news day.

[Darnell @ Jun 9th 2007 12:36PM]

This is a gadget rumor site so I see it as appropriate.

At any rate, it's only a matter of time before Nikon came out with a successor to its flagship camera. I'm dissapointed at the MP it has though, as Canon's next flag-cam will more than likely be in the 20+ area. Also, the near full frame sounds like Nikon caving a bit into the FF demands but time will tell if this was a viable decision. I am sure that more than a few DX people will not be pleased.

On another note, I imagine some of the new features will be groundbreaking as the D2X was. Here's to hoping that they've finally gotten that monkey off their back (read: figured out how to cut down the noise on high ISOs).

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 7:51PM]

It isn't known what the resolution of the D3 series will be nor is it known what the 1Ds3 resolution will be. It's a little early to be declaring your disappointment.

The most common rumors have the Nikon at 19 and the Canon at 22. At those numbers the linear resolution difference is 7.5% and it all comes at the edges. Hard to believe that will make much difference. In comparison, the current difference is 16% and yet most reviewers say the result is incremental. If you are truly disappointed then you don't know what you are talking about.

Sony and Nikon have made a lot of progress on noise, but a 19MP sensor with a 1.1x crop, also part of the rumor, means that the new pixels will actually be bigger than those on the D2x (by perhaps 10%). That's the reason for not pleasing those DX people. If they don't do that, Canon will be giving them a severe beating on noise. Canon's pixels will be getting smaller, down to a very similar size, by the way. The race is about to tighten up.

[tekdroid @ Jun 9th 2007 12:52PM]

Nikon is still pretty much at the mercy of Sony when it comes to the CCD. I would like to see in-body stabilisation in their range.

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 8:02PM]

You won't because Nikon puts it in their lenses and that's a functional advantage.

This camera won't be using CCD. Furthermore, Nikon co-develops these sensors and they are not "at the mercy" of Sony at this point. Once upon a time they were but times have changed.

[craig @ Aug 24th 2007 10:52AM]

So much for Nikon being at the mercy of Sony, eh tekdroid?

[tekdroid @ Sep 7th 2007 6:38PM]

hah. Nikon started up their own fab to manufacture the D3 sensor? Pleasse.

Nikon source nearly all tbeir sensors from Sony, Craig. Whether "nikon designed" or not.

There is no proof anywhere their new D3 or D300 sensors are made by Nikon. This coming from a Nikon D50 owner with no bias whatsoever, and who still thinks Nikon and Canon are behind the times on several fronts, notable in-body stabisation for the masses - not the well-to-do who can afford stupendous amounts on stabilised lenses - with their own weaknesses over in-body stabilisation as well as strengths of course.

[Andrew H. @ Jun 9th 2007 4:21PM]

im sorry but that is an ugly body.

[morcheeba @ Aug 19th 2007 8:00PM]

You look through the camera, not at it. I'd be more worried about how it felt in my hand and how it worked than how it looked. But, you do realize that that's just a mockup, right?

[Lionel Mandrake @ Jun 9th 2007 5:03PM]

I'm hearing that Nikon's much heralded long-term reliability has suffered in many of their new digital offerings.

Any hard data or indications of potential truth to the regular comments I'm hearing from multiple sources. I've had Nikon system products (Bloody good cameras) for more than 30 years and have been holding back on trading my F's and F2's for a digital body...

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 7:59PM]

Are you tossing out a bogus rumor and asking others to substantiate for you? Disgusting!

If you are a photographer then why don't you go to the forums where these things are discussed and see for yourself. Otherwise, who cares?

Between Nikon and its competition, it isn't Nikon who can't figure out how to write to a flash card without corrupting its filesystem. I think you got the rumor backwards.

[tekdroid @ Jun 9th 2007 11:33PM]

craig,
In-body stabilisation is offered by:
Sony
Pentax
Olympus (with their new 510)

In-lens stabilisation may be an advantage for Nikon, but for how much longer when the entry-level market continues to grow and Nikon have to hard-sell stabilised lenses to the market? Nikon will be left behind if they don't offer it in their range, IMO. A cheap stabilised lens helps, but how to stabilise every one of them? They haven't done it yet.

The D40 and D40x, which are selling now, use a Sony CCD if I'm not mistaken. On some level, they still seem to be at the mercy of Sony, IMO.

[craig @ Jun 10th 2007 6:39PM]

Of course, manufacturers without the capability to integrate IS into their lenses, especially Sony who has done sensor stabilization forever, will opt for a different solution. Lens stabilization is more expensive for users with many lenses but it is not needed for wide angle and it offers the engineers the ability to optimize each lens. Nikon will not be "left behind" by offering a superior solution. You don't see Nikon or Canon rushing to market with sensor stabilization and they are the top two. Wonder why?

"The D40 and D40x, which are selling now, use a Sony CCD if I'm not mistaken. On some level, they still seem to be at the mercy of Sony, IMO."

Is Canon at the mercy of Sony, too, in your opinion? By your logic they are. Sony provides the CCD sensors for all of Canon's digicams.

Nikon's entry level products are not the subject of this article, their highest end products are. Once upon a time, Nikon was near bankrupcy and totally dependent on Sony in a much smaller market. They are now financially healthy in a strong market, they are enjoying good sales growth, have developed in-house sensor design expertise, and now have a symbiotic relationship with Sony. If Sony doesn't want to support Nikon there are other suppliers that will. Dependence on Sony is meaningless to Nikon's ability to compete. Sony, on the other hand, wants to become a player in the SLR market and their relationship with Nikon currently benefits them.

[todd @ Jun 10th 2007 1:12AM]

Yes please, give me more megapixels than Canon, b/c megapixels is ALL that matters, especially when I can only get 22 images on an 8GB card and I am printing gorgeous images from a 4 megapixel D2h.

[purezerg @ Jun 10th 2007 6:53AM]

nah dont worry. D3h is 18.7mp and D3x is 24Mp. this isnt rumour. a friend of mine is a beta tester of nikon and he has physically handled the D3x.

[craig @ Jun 10th 2007 6:42PM]

Of course they are, purezerg. It makes total sense for their high speed camera to have such high resolution that it can't be high speed while it's high resolution model isn't enough better to justify its existence. You might want to check with your "friend" again.

[SE6 @ Aug 7th 2007 12:29PM]

Seriously, Does anyone here actually take photographs? Unless you shooting in a studio for top notch clients and using a real Hasselblad with some 39mp why the hell would you need a 18mp journalist camera when even Canon released it very new top 1D at 10mp. Dos anyone here actually use the D2x? Im getting great images with its 12mp and sure a few more mp's would be great but its not nessary. It would just slow down the camera and take more and more CF cards.

[purezerg @ Aug 7th 2007 12:35PM]

i shoot in a studio and i shoot cars for a living. and i dont use hassy but D2x. and i dont use hassy cuz i just dont like the cropping other than 2:3

[Square @ Jun 10th 2007 11:32PM]

Almost full frame, huh? Either I will stick with my far-from-full-frame entry level dSLR or will go bankrupt and buy a full frame one.

[Haliburton @ Jun 11th 2007 12:55AM]

False.

Canon DSLR sensors are developed and made by Canon.


Craig says:
Is Canon at the mercy of Sony, too, in your opinion? By your logic they are. Sony provides the CCD sensors for all of Canon's digicams.

[craig @ Jun 14th 2007 1:17AM]

Digicams and DSLRs are not the same thing. Apparently you didn't get it.

[Haliburton @ Jun 14th 2007 9:07AM]

My mistake, Craig.

I came to this thread because of interest in the Nikon D3 DSLR, and so thought that discussing DSLR sensors was on topic.

Sneaking in comments on happysnap pocket cameras... whoah, you blindsided me, man.

My apologies.

I'll have to be more tricky if I'm going to survive in the cut-and-thrust, dog-eat-dog world of non-sequitirs.

[craig @ Jul 9th 2007 12:13AM]

"I came to this thread because of interest in the Nikon D3 DSLR, and so thought that discussing DSLR sensors was on topic."

Don't you mean claiming I'm wrong by claiming that I said something I didn't?

"Sneaking in comments on happysnap pocket cameras...I'll have to be more tricky if I'm going to survive in the cut-and-thrust, dog-eat-dog world of non-sequitirs."

Mass market DSLRs like the D40 are no more relevant to the D3 than digicams are. I didn't throw any more a curve than those before me did. Good to know you didn't get that either.

If you look at total volumes, Canon buys more Sony sensors than Nikon does.

[Haliburton @ Jul 9th 2007 12:43AM]

- -
Craig sez:
If you look at total volumes, Canon buys more Sony sensors than Nikon does.
- -

Please excuse me for sticking to DSLRs:

Nikon's sensors for DSLRs, bought from Sony: every DSLR that Nikon makes.

Canon's sensors for DSLRs, bought from Sony: none.

[craig @ Aug 24th 2007 10:58AM]

I guess you see now just how dependent on Sony Nikon is for their DSLRs.

Nikon's sensors for newest D3/D300, bought from Sony: none.

Interestingly, Canon still buys more sensors from Sony than Nikon does.

[tekdroid @ Jun 11th 2007 5:29AM]

Of course, manufacturers without the capability to integrate IS into their lenses, especially Sony who has done sensor stabilization forever, will opt for a different solution. Lens stabilization is more expensive for users with many lenses but it is not needed for wide angle
-----------------
Of course it is. Low light and you want to fit a whole room of people in a picture with no room to step back to fit them all. Low light and slower shutter speeds = blur. Perfect, common case of image stabilisation needed.


and it offers the engineers the ability to optimize each lens. Nikon will not be "left behind" by offering a superior solution. You don't see Nikon or Canon rushing to market with sensor stabilization and they are the top two. Wonder why?
----------------
You don't see Nikon and Canon doing it because for the longest time they have been selling the public expensive lenses and enjoying it. The tide is turning thanks to the competition, who, since Sony purchased Konica-Minolta's assets, have progressively introduced it in their cams.

IMO, it's not a matter of if, but when they introduce it. I own a Nikon, I am not anti-Nikon by any stretch, but it seems silly to think that Nikon are "above the in-body stabilisation movement" because expensive lenses are the better solution.

[Deadturtle @ Jun 11th 2007 8:11AM]

Damn the megapixels to hell and back... I don't care if the D3 has 10mp, as long as the IQ is excellent. In fact I think a 12MP camera, FF, with good photosite density to improve IQ and noise would be far more useful than a 17MP overly dense, noisy camera. But hey, what do I know, I am just a photographer.

[John Laur @ Jun 11th 2007 8:54AM]

The "Near Full Frame" is a farce; either it should be APS size so it can use the DX lenses or it should really be full frame so that it can use 35mm lenses. They are really going to bite the dust with this -- anyone who is in the market for a D3 will have too much invested in lenses to actually want to buy one... Plus it means that without Nikon producing yet another line of lenses you won't even be able to buy a lens anywhere that has markings that line up to reality.

Of course it's possible that Nikon will produce converter optics for this that will allow it to accept either the DX or 35mm lenses -- but even if they do, putting more glass in between the lens and the body is kind of a poor option for a ~18 MP camera.

[kevin glackmeyer @ Jun 13th 2007 11:04PM]

hmmmm...i've been a Nikon user for 35 years...i'm ok with the smaller sensor and a 12-16 meg file size. I would like something close to the Mark III with 10fps ( i shoot alot of sports and my reflexes are slow) RAW and Fine JPeg and that LiveView might be cool. And while yer at it, throw in the MPEG ability. A highend still frame camera that also shoots high quality movie format.
I keep hearing about this Platypus thingy with news journalism, so why not have a camera that shoot both? THIS would be the only camera you would have to have. Perhaps a couple of them so you don't have to change lenses. I have Gannett shooter friends that have to carry a video and still camera body, so a single body that shot the two formats woul;d be way too cool. Even though I really have an ingrained hatred for video. But, that's the way this damned business is leaning.

Peace,

Kevin Glackmeyer

[phototext @ Jun 14th 2007 2:56AM]

John,

The advantage of a 1.1 crop is that those FF lenses hardly lose their width, 20mm becomes a 22mm, still nice and wide and you lose the worse part of the lens, the edge. Personally I think it has huge advantages over a FF sensor for those reasons.

But time will tell if Nikon will go this route or FF at all.

[Vern @ Jun 14th 2007 10:00AM]

I agree. I would love a 1.1 crop! I had the 5D and actually sold it because of the disappointing edge performance on my expensive L lenses. Then I bought a D200 with a bunch of Nikkor lenses and I couldn't be happier! :-)

[DaveM @ Jun 19th 2007 4:02AM]

I find this thread fascinating as technology advances the prospect of so many MB's is great...the competition between Canon and Nikon fantastic (keep it going)..keep the price reasonable and everyone benefits...maintain backward compatibility thats great....
But remember it isn't what you got it's the way you use it...I supect that very few owners use the full capabilities of their cameras or even understand them...(apologies to the professionals and semi-professinals out there)

My personal target to improve the volume ratio of good to poor shots...anything that helps technology wise great...so for me its the muppet holding the camera that presents the biggest challenge...
none-professional D200 owner

[Eric @ Jun 21st 2007 4:18PM]

I was at a workshop this past Fall with the head of NPS and the West Coast Nikon rep. They laid out their strategy for future chips for their cameras, and it wasn't Sony. It's based on their LBCAST sensors, which are CMOS with a twist. They showed images shot at ISO 6400 that were amazing noise-wise.

All in all, I was pretty impressed with what Nikon said they had coming. But it is getting a bit frustrating that Canon keeps pulling away in terms of high ISO noise performance. In my job, where I shoot in undergound mines, often with available light, I'm so glad I have a 1Ds Mark II to shoot with. (And the 24mm 1.4 really seals the deal). Nikon needs to catch up and give us some fast primes as well!

Get with it Nikon. I hope the prediction that an announcement from Copenhagen is forthcoming tomorrow (as well as one in New York on the 26th).

[cpcat @ Jun 27th 2007 3:38AM]

So, 26th Jun is nearly over :-( No Nikon.

[James Dobson @ Jul 2nd 2007 12:16PM]

It seems a though the wait may well be over - check out the new Nikon D3 news at http://www.photographywebsite.co.uk/1-day-i602188.html

[DAve Younger @ Jul 20th 2007 6:56PM]

I read these comments and wonder what level of photograher is posting. Pro's don't shoot with DX or EFS lenses and Pro's know that shoving more pixels into the same size sensor does not mean a better image. The size of the pixel has just as much if not more to do with image quality as the number. As for who makes one sensor or another, how many plants do you think make sensors? Sony makes a large number of sensors. A couple of years ago Canon recalled a large number of thier p/s cameras as did a large part of the p/s market when the Sony sensors started to fail (fact look it up). Do you realy think Canon or Nikon make thier own sensors? As for this war on who is better, you buy the product that suits your lenses. I shoot Canon, why because I work for a Canon dealer (no I don't have any magical insight into new products, just a jump on being able to buy it) I have friends who shoot Nikon, Canon, Sony and Sigma. We don't argue over who has the best image quality, best sensor, best features, we look at who knows how to use their camera the best (I'm not at the top either). Why do you think only 645 backs are packing 22 + mp, because a smaller sensor with that many pixels don't have the image quality. The whole MP race is just a marketing scam. You can print an amazing 13x19 with 8mp. If your printing bigger than that you shouldn't be shooting SLR. Will I upgrade my 20D? Maybe, but that will depend on the price break I get and if I can sell my old one, not because marketing hyped the pixels and features that most professional don't realy have an interest in. (and no I'm not a professional either but I do hang out with them)

[SE6 @ Aug 7th 2007 5:33PM]

Well said.

[Renato @ Aug 15th 2007 1:19PM]

"Pro's don't shoot with DX or EFS lenses"

Sorry, but this is a big statement and completely incorrect...

If you look at the some of the winning photos at the Shell wildlife photographer of the year, you will see that a great proportion of them was shot with the Nikon 12-24mm, including the photo that won the competition. A lot of other professional photographers in different areas including Mike Colon, Frans Lanting, Michael Webber, Alan Herman, Moose Peterson...And the list can go on...Shoot with DX lenses.