So, the D3 is dead.....WWYD?

Took a bath while kayaking yesterday. 24 hrs and no life. The water or bags must have had some crap in it because visible contacts are all corroding already, water behind LCD screens etc.. Looks like the battery fried as well... the electrical contacts are blackened like it shorted out hard. So, it's a goner.

Not the end of the world, it's insured for this kind of stuff (no deductible). So I'll be getting insured value/ replacement cost to replace it.

So, another D3 and make a few bucks, a D3s for better ISO, a D3x (that'll cost extra) for the MP's, or wait on the D4 and hope it's around 18MP with D3s ISo capabilities....

For me the MP's of the D3x and the better ISO of the D3 are about an even trade..

The D4 at around 18MP's with the D3s ISO capabilities would be my ideal, but it's an unknown and I would be without a DSLR for many months. Not the end of the world as I have my G10 (but no birds).... If they let me keep the D3 I'll see about a repair for the interim/backup but I'm thinking it won't be cheap.

So, D3s, D3x, or wait/hope for D4?

Oh man that sucks. I don't know about holding out for a D4 unless you have a backup body. Nikon may announce it next month but I wouldn't expect to see it available for 2 or 3 months after that. I'd be very tempted to go for the D3x, having said that the D3s is a one of kind sensor. I'm really no help.

I have a nikon D70 that fell over the edge of a canoe..It whent down 6feet under water for a few minutes till i could retreive it... Removed battery and lens and card and water poured out...With nothing to loose thinking it was scrap i placed it in the OVEN on low door open for two days...put in the lense and battery also...Took it out put in the battery all works perfectly...the lense had water spots between the glass.And cleaned the mirror+sensor that was 2 years ago still works great! Took my nikon F5 out to shoot whales cameras had huge waves crashing over it and soking it dozens of times no problems..dried it with a hair dryer..Long live nikon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian simpson

I have a nikon D70 that fell over the edge of a canoe..It whent down 6feet under water for a few minutes till i could retreive it... Removed battery and lens and card and water poured out...With nothing to loose thinking it was scrap i placed it in the OVEN on low door open for two days...put in the lense and battery also...Took it out put in the battery all works perfectly...the lense had water spots between the glass.And cleaned the mirror+sensor that was 2 years ago still works great! Took my nikon F5 out to shoot whales cameras had huge waves crashing over it and soking it dozens of times no problems..dried it with a hair dryer..Long live nikon

---

Yeah, I've gotten my Nikons wet many times with little affect. This is the first time I've seen such damage from such little water. And I was in that water...makes me wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grant Eldridge

Oh man that sucks. I don't know about holding out for a D4 unless you have a backup body. Nikon may announce it next month but I wouldn't expect to see it available for 2 or 3 months after that. I'd be very tempted to go for the D3x, having said that the D3s is a one of kind sensor. I'm really no help.

---

Yeah, it's a tough call any way I look at it. I might be able to borrow a camera for the fall migrations and eagles...Or get this one repaired if they let me keep it.
Even if I just decide to get another D3 I'll probably wait until the release of the D4 as it will likely affect the prices of the other models. It's going to be a long wait.:e3

Oh, I've also toyed with the idea of switching to Canon. But I'm a Nikon guy in truth and I would have to sell/ buy all of the (very expensive) lenses again.

I shoot both canon and nikon,,canon for long lenses and nikon for shorter..just cant stand the Noisey canons..Really like the image qaulity of D7000.. I heard that the nikon plant in japan that makes D3s D3x was hit pretty hard..It may be awile till something new comes out..Ide go for a D700 at half price and try wait it out.or is the frame rate too slow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian simpson

I shoot both canon and nikon,,canon for long lenses and nikon for shorter..just cant stand the Noisey canons..Really like the image qaulity of D7000.. I heard that the nikon plant in japan that makes D3s D3x was hit pretty hard..It may be awile till something new comes out..Ide go for a D700 at half price and try wait it out.or is the frame rate too slow

---

I'm actually considering a used D7000 :eek:
Could be great for birds but I've handled one and I'm not in love with it.

As long as you're prepared to wait, I'd hang out for the D4.........just don't know how long that may be:2
(Will sell my D3s as soon as I know the D4 is on the way):w3
You can always rent a D3/s if the need arises, good luck with your decision.

Cheers
Marc

I doubt very much that the new Nikon pro body will be a 12mp FF as this is getting long in the tooth (Canon's original 5D was 12mp FF and came out in 2005). Steven- if you like big, chunky sensor sites with low noise, and being somewhat challenged in focal-length limited situations, I would replace the D3s with another. Not sure what the rumour mills predict the mp count of the new pro Nikon will be but it will be noisier by virtue of the higher pixel count.

Brian- Have you tried the Canon's 1DIV? I would not describe this body as noisy (I have one). Nor would I describe the 5DI or 5DII as noisy. Check out Roger Clark's amazing web page on sensor performance if you don't believe me:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/

I believe the predictions for the new Nikon D4 is 18MP (or there abouts) and for the D400 it is 24MP (Sony sensor). A bit dubious about the 24MP APS sensor but I guess it is possible if they maintain the same ISO performance as the D300(s), which was not much good above ISO 800. Depending on the reviews of the D400 I may look at the D400 as a second body to pair with my D3s. Its a bit tough in these parts as we don't get much light during the winter months and ISO 800 is pretty much a starting point.

Steven, if you go for a D7000 it may be a decent stop gap which you could sell or set aside as a backup when the new bodies arrive. I do know a couple serious amateurs who tried one and just found something lacking in IQ when compared to their D700 and D3s bodies. Would be interested to know what you think should you go that route.

I have a friend who I could borrow his 7000....But I really prefer the pro body durability/ handling.

John, while your make valid points, technology in sensors/ processing is advancing regularly. My hope for the D4 is a somewhat higher MP count with the same ISO performance of the D3s. I think it's quite possible and that would make me very happy. If they double the MP I doubt I would go with it unless there is some new magic introduced this round and it somehow fell within my allowed budget. (not likely)

Steven- I think the D3s will be very hard to beat noise-wise. With the 1DIV Canon proved that they could up the pixel count and keep the noise under control and they did this by making the sensor about a stop more efficient. I can't see Nikon going any less than Canon's current 5DII at roughly 21mp so all this will be a real challenge for them unless they know how to bend the laws of the universe- quantum laws that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

I can't see Nikon going any less than Canon's current 5DII at roughly 21mp so all this will be a real challenge for them unless they know how to bend the laws of the universe- quantum laws that is.

---

That's my fear. If that's what they do, it will probably be a waste of time waiting. But if that's what they do they won't have any room for a D4x in a year :w3

Glad to hear that you have good insurance. I'm a kayaker and haven't dared to use my (good) equipment in the boat. Use a dry-bag for transporting to islands and such. Conejohela Flats for example.
Where did you get your insurance?

John McNamara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John McNamara

Glad to hear that you have good insurance. I'm a kayaker and haven't dared to use my (good) equipment in the boat. Use a dry-bag for transporting to islands and such. Conejohela Flats for example.
Where did you get your insurance?

John McNamara

---

It's a rider policy with the company I have my homeowners policy thru. Costs about $200 annually for $20k of coverage...no deductible. Covered for any sort of stupidity (i.e. I leave it on a bus or take it kayaking)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian simpson

I shoot both canon and nikon,,canon for long lenses and nikon for shorter..just cant stand the Noisey canons..Really like the image qaulity of D7000.. I heard that the nikon plant in japan that makes D3s D3x was hit pretty hard..It may be awile till something new comes out..Ide go for a D700 at half price and try wait it out.or is the frame rate too slow

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Steven- I think the D3s will be very hard to beat noise-wise. With the 1DIV Canon proved that they could up the pixel count and keep the noise under control and they did this by making the sensor about a stop more efficient. I can't see Nikon going any less than Canon's current 5DII at roughly 21mp so all this will be a real challenge for them unless they know how to bend the laws of the universe- quantum laws that is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven Kersting

That's my fear. If that's what they do, it will probably be a waste of time waiting. But if that's what they do they won't have any room for a D4x in a year :w3

---

I see a some confusion here. While larger pixels have higher signal-to-noise ratio, potentially more dynamic range (but other electronics limit the range), it is a basic physics trade: smaller pixels get less photons per pixel but also less detail. If you make the same size print from two sensor that are the same size, but one has more pixels, the one with more pixels (which has higher noise per pixel) will almost always look better. Signal and noise density are the key metrics in that case. See Figure 10 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...x.html#DENSITY
and then Figure 11 (noise density).

The canons score extremely well; there is no justification for calling one system noisy. The plot also shows the technology improvement which is about a factor 2.2 over the last decade. But that trend is unlikely to continue as pixel fill factors and micro lens efficiency is now very high.

Steven, in the moon imaging tests we've done, the D3 with its large pixels is spatially challenged. Now is you chance to re-evaluate what camera to get and what that will mean for telephoto reach:
A) more pixels on subject with higher noise
B) less pixels on subject with less noise.
In most cases, given the same enlargement, A will produce the better image.

For those who haven't seen this figure, see Figure 2 which compares the same subject using the same lens with different cameras:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/
In that image, the 1DII, with it 8+ micron pixels has the highest signal-to-noise ratio (similar to a D3 image with the same lens). The "noisy" 7D image is on the right. Which is image is better in your view? Then if one takes a larger pixel camera (from same tech era) and increases the focal length to match the pixels on subject, the two cameras will have the same S/N per pixel.

Noise is more a function of lens aperture, focal length, and exposure time than camera or camera manufacturer.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

snip
... it is a basic physics trade: smaller pixels get less photons per pixel but also less detail.
snip
Roger

---

Before I didn't know I was confused, now I'm sure I am Roger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Now is you chance to re-evaluate what camera to get and what that will mean for telephoto reach:
A) more pixels on subject with higher noise
B) less pixels on subject with less noise.
In most cases, given the same enlargement, A will produce the better image.
Roger

---

Definitely,
I am hoping for a nice compromise in the D4. More MP's while retaining better high ISO noise performance. Unfortunately, the potential for "marketing trend" to give me what I want isn't that great.

I would LOVE a D7000 sensor in a D3 body. The pixels is why I've even considered the D7000 (I don't particularly like the camera though) or even a used D2xs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Before I didn't know I was confused, now I'm sure I am Roger!

---

That does seem *wrong*.
The smaller pixel gathers less light which would equate to less "information"/detail per pixel. But the larger number of pixels/ equates to greater apparent image detail overall.

Unless I'm also confused....

Originally Posted by Roger Clark http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...post-right.png snip
... it is a basic physics trade: smaller pixels get less photons per pixel but also less detail.
snip
Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Before I didn't know I was confused, now I'm sure I am Roger!

---

Another oops from this morning. I was rushing off to work. That should have been
smaller pixels get less photons per pixel but also MORE detail.

Plus a few other typos. I guess I shouldn't type and run before coffee!

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

That should have been
smaller pixels get less photons per pixel but also MORE detail.

---

Roger, are you saying:

1. one small pixel can collect more details than a bigger one can, or
2. although each of the smaller pixel may not be able to collect more details than a bigger pixel can, larger numbers of those smaller pixels together are able to collect more details than smaller number of larger pixels planted on the same surface?

Shouldn't a smaller pixel collect less light than a bigger pixel does? I'm imagining the pixel kind of like a bucket...bigger bucket can hold more water than a smaller bucket can.

Are those details include tonal gradation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

Roger, are you saying:

1. one small pixel can collect more details than a bigger one can, or
2. although each of the smaller pixel may not be able to collect more details than a bigger pixel can, larger numbers of those smaller pixels together are able to collect more details than smaller number of larger pixels planted on the same surface?

Shouldn't a smaller pixel collect less light than a bigger pixel does? I'm imagining the pixel kind of like a bucket...bigger bucket can hold more water than a smaller bucket can.

Are those details include tonal gradation?

---

Hi Desmond,

It takes more than one pixel to record image detail, so your number 2 is a better way to say it. But yes in each of those smaller pixels there will be less light. But collectively the group of small pixels will collect similar amounts of light per area as the larger pixels. So if you make the image the same size (e.g. same size print), then the image with smaller pixels will almost always look better.

Remember film? 1-bit dynamic range per grain. The grain was either on or off. But film gave great images because there were so many grains. Even small pixels in electronic sensors, for comparison, can collect thousands of photons, producing fine gradation.

Roger

I think of it as similar to paper print or mosaic art.
Each pixel is one dot in an image, more dots= finer detail. More light doesn't mean more detail...In B/W terms a dot can be B/W/G. It doesn't matter; each one is a separate dot contributing to the image detail.
The amount of light gathered/displayed by "the dots" (pixel) is a separate issue and has to do with low light performance. Poor low light performance can destroy detail that would otherwise be there, but good low light performance cannot create detail that would not otherwise be there.

There is a point at which the tradeoff is significant (for some)...For most of my work the low light performance does not outweigh sensor resolution. In fact, it's the other way around 90% of the time (ding! ding! I'm starting to be a little more "honest" to myself I think!)... But when you need low light performance it's really nice to have available.

Wow taking a spill with any camera is the wet pits. I use a Ikelite housing when I dive and when I'm in my kayak I use a ewa-marine U-B 100 housing and I have been dumped a few times and the camera was never in danger of getting wet. Even with insurance it pays to protect your toys by being proactive.