Nikon D3 review posted

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Voodoo Thunder Pig, Apr 18, 2008.

  1. Voodoo Thunder Pig, Apr 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    frederick Guest

    Very surprising - they liked it.
    And for naysayers of the coming "D3x", alpha 900 and existing 1dsIII,
    the 1DsIII shows significantly more outright resolution.
    Saying you "don't need" the extra resolution seems like sour grapes -
    when much of the emphasis of reviews such as that is on image quality.
     
    frederick, Apr 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Robert Brace Guest

    So let me understand this -- your version of high IQ rests upon higher
    resolution and anyone who thinks there are many other factors to consider
    are classed as spouting "sour grapes"?
    Surely not!
    That's like saying "the sharpest lenses produces the best images" and we all
    know that's not the case -- at least not in the real world!
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Apr 19, 2008
    #3
  4. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Yoshi Guest

    What folks "don't need" is the Canon QC problems, unreliability under severe
    field conditions, and sketchy lens quality.
     
    Yoshi, Apr 19, 2008
    #4
  5. I am surprised at the *sample photos*
    They are nothing better than I can and do achieve with my 6 megapixel
    Fujifilm, nevermind my Nikon D80. IMO of course. You want to spend
    $5000 on THAT? Good for you to have that much money to throw away.
    IMO!!! of course...based on the *sample photos* I reviewed at the
    above URL.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 19, 2008
    #5
  6. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    frederick Guest

    I didn't say that IQ rests entirely on higher resolution.
    But it's very nice to have more resolution than you "need" rather than
    not enough, especially if any penalty (cost in other areas of image
    quality that matter to you) isn't significant.
     
    frederick, Apr 19, 2008
    #6
  7. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Yoshi Guest

    Time to put the crack pipe down.
     
    Yoshi, Apr 19, 2008
    #7
  8. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    ____ Guest

    I've yet to determine if you are an outright moron, keep going an you'll
    get there.
     
    ____, Apr 19, 2008
    #8
  9. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Guest Guest

    let's see how well those cameras do at iso 6400 or 12800, and if they
    can shoot at 9 fps, or shoot with a 9mm rectilinear dx lens (to match
    the 14mm from the 14-24mm full frame lens).
     
    Guest, Apr 19, 2008
    #9
  10. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    frederick Guest

    Yeah - well Nikon aren't immune either.
    You'll see on Bjorn Rorslett's site and some others, that some of the
    truths about the demands of Fx on lens quality are bringing some new
    problems for Nikon users - many not willing to accept the reality that
    Nikon is in a similar position to what Canon was a few years ago - ie:
    The 70-200 VR f2.8 just isn't very good at 200mm on FX - even stopped
    down - it has soft edge performance and vignetting.
    The 28mm f1.4 "uber-lens" that's been selling for >$4k on EBay truly
    sucks on the D3 - soft as duck-down even stopped down, and incredibly
    bad vignetting. Yes if you want f1.4 at 28mm, there's nothing else, but
    there's a big sacrifice to get it, in $ as well as image quality.
    The 17-35 might have been marginally better than the Canon 16-35, but
    neither are very good compared to the 14-24. One of the "points" of Fx
    was so people could make the most of good old Nikkor glass. It can't be
    taken as a given that expectations will be met. Nikon is set to make a
    killing out of selling new lenses - so long as they can deliver more
    like the 14-24.
    If you keep up to date with things you'll see that Nikon kludged the
    latest firmware updates for the D3 - the one that was supposed to have
    brought needed vignetting correction to the D3. To be fair to them, it
    took them only 24 hours or so to acknowledge there's a problem, so on
    that sort of issue, Nikon are possibly ahead.
    What "problems" has Canon had with the 1DsIII?
     
    frederick, Apr 19, 2008
    #10
  11. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    C J Campbell Guest

    The caveat in that review was that the 1DSIII had higher resolution at
    "lower ISOs." The D3 had better resolution at high ISO, despite having
    fewer pixels.

    This difference will show up between the D3 and the D3X, too. The D3X
    will suffer at higher ISO because of the greater pixel density, but at
    low ISO will have higher resolution than the D3.

    Use the right tool for the right job. D3 for high speed, high ISO work;
    the D3X or 1DSIII for slower, fine art and studio work.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 19, 2008
    #11
  12. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    C J Campbell Guest

    This is really funny to the guys who come from film, where ISO 1200 was
    considered to be grainy and the highest ISO most photographers were
    likely ever to need.

    Sure. Let's see how these cameras do at ISO 10 million. Or a trillion.
    Or a ISO googleplex.

    I guess Moore's law applies to more than just processing power, eh?
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 19, 2008
    #12
  13. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    frederick Guest

    5 years ago, you could buy a Kodak DCS 14n or c - 14mp "full frame".
    Today, the highest MP full-frame is 21mp 1DsIII.
    That's only about a 5% linear resolution increase per year.
    OTOH a D3 works about 7 times as fast as a 14n.
    That is at about "Moore's Law" rate of progress.

    By far the biggest pain in the @rse with film for me, was that I used to
    lug two 35mm slr camera bodies around, typically one with 50iso
    (transparency), the other with 200 - which still wasn't fast enough much
    of the time, but gave piss poor results even compared to my old D70 at
    the same (base) iso.
     
    frederick, Apr 19, 2008
    #13
  14. Absolutely true!

    One of the things I'm interested in seeing is if a D3X
    has an FX crop mode for DX lenses that produces images
    equal to a D2x. The D3's 5 MP crop does have the
    advantage of added speed, but it doesn't obsolete either
    a D2x or a D300. A D3X model might do just that!

    I don't see a D3X competing with today's D3, but I do
    see the pair of them being a real problem for Canon.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 19, 2008
    #14
  15. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    frederick wrote:
    | C J Campbell wrote:
    |> On 2008-04-18 17:38:16 -0700, nospam <> said:
    |>
    |>> In article <>, Lawrence
    |>>
    |>>> I am surprised at the *sample photos*
    |>>> They are nothing better than I can and do achieve with my 6 megapixel
    |>>> Fujifilm, nevermind my Nikon D80. IMO of course. You want to spend
    |>>> $5000 on THAT? Good for you to have that much money to throw away.
    |>>> IMO!!! of course...based on the *sample photos* I reviewed at the
    |>>> above URL.
    |>>
    |>> let's see how well those cameras do at iso 6400 or 12800, and if they
    |>> can shoot at 9 fps, or shoot with a 9mm rectilinear dx lens (to match
    |>> the 14mm from the 14-24mm full frame lens).
    |>
    |> This is really funny to the guys who come from film, where ISO 1200
    |> was considered to be grainy and the highest ISO most photographers
    |> were likely ever to need.
    |>
    |> Sure. Let's see how these cameras do at ISO 10 million. Or a trillion.
    |> Or a ISO googleplex.
    |>
    |> I guess Moore's law applies to more than just processing power, eh?
    | >
    | 5 years ago, you could buy a Kodak DCS 14n or c - 14mp "full frame".
    | Today, the highest MP full-frame is 21mp 1DsIII.
    | That's only about a 5% linear resolution increase per year.
    | OTOH a D3 works about 7 times as fast as a 14n.
    | That is at about "Moore's Law" rate of progress.
    |
    | By far the biggest pain in the @rse with film for me, was that I used to
    | lug two 35mm slr camera bodies around, typically one with 50iso
    | (transparency), the other with 200 - which still wasn't fast enough much
    | of the time, but gave piss poor results even compared to my old D70 at
    | the same (base) iso.

    Yeah... I know how you feel.

    That Kodak Rettina Ia I had was a real bitch to focus with no range
    finder. I wonder even now, how I won so many competitions with it. And
    then some jerk came along with "colour negatives" and seriously man... I
    just lost it. Miniature film was bad enough but to put my mum out of
    business colouring photos was just too much.

    Back to using the company's speed graphic for me then...

    Bloody colour photos? Nah. It'll never take on.

    Circa 1966. In the studio of my mentor and apprentice master. What would
    he think now?

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFICV8Jhuxzk5D6V14RAhmTAJ4kv0fwRdBqrH4cpxx4Y2U+pte6iQCeLu8u
    kKfYYbBxwG3FoK/z2iUW/VQ=
    =VGpc
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 19, 2008
    #15
  16. That his student, -you-, have become a Fatuous Asshole
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 19, 2008
    #16
  17. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Lawrence Glickman wrote:
    | On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:55:05 +1000, Alienjones
    |
    |> Circa 1966. In the studio of my mentor and apprentice master. What would
    |> he think now?
    |
    | That his student, -you-, have become a Fatuous Asshole
    |
    |

    You have no idea the joy you just gave me. My 32nd message rule - delet
    messages from this jerk.

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFICXoshuxzk5D6V14RAvRnAKCRW0JnEqI0kjHv2EYniBRiy87p/ACgmYIz
    kIepuYQ/HQirUYZU1rQdn28=
    =k20U
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 19, 2008
    #17
  18. Never went to school I see. That explains everything. In fact, never
    did much of anything I see, except FORMULA PHOTOGRAPHY.

    Okay, everybody, bride and groom over here, inlaws over here. Snap.

    Very uncreative. Typical bullshit. Furthermore, you have been
    obsoleted by the digital revolution. My dog can take wedding photos
    now...probably more interesting and a hell of a lot less expensive
    than yours.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 19, 2008
    #18
  19. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    frederick Guest

    It never occurred to you, in the context of this discussion, that you
    won prizes even though your equipment sucked - because everyone else was
    using equipment that sucked too?
    So rather than reminisce about the old days, if you were to adopt some
    new technology, then perhaps you'd be capable of winning prizes again.
    If you ask in this forum, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who
    would be happy to help you along that path.
     
    frederick, Apr 19, 2008
    #19
  20. Voodoo Thunder Pig

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    frederick wrote:
    | Alienjones wrote:
    |
    |> |
    |> | By far the biggest pain in the @rse with film for me, was that I
    |> used to
    |> | lug two 35mm slr camera bodies around, typically one with 50iso
    |> | (transparency), the other with 200 - which still wasn't fast enough
    |> much
    |> | of the time, but gave piss poor results even compared to my old D70 at
    |> | the same (base) iso.
    |>
    |> Yeah... I know how you feel.
    |>
    |> That Kodak Rettina Ia I had was a real bitch to focus with no range
    |> finder. I wonder even now, how I won so many competitions with it. And
    |> then some jerk came along with "colour negatives" and seriously man... I
    |> just lost it. Miniature film was bad enough but to put my mum out of
    |> business colouring photos was just too much.
    |>
    | It never occurred to you, in the context of this discussion, that you
    | won prizes even though your equipment sucked - because everyone else was
    | using equipment that sucked too?
    | So rather than reminisce about the old days, if you were to adopt some
    | new technology, then perhaps you'd be capable of winning prizes again.
    | If you ask in this forum, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who
    | would be happy to help you along that path.

    Thank you Frederick. If there is anything I feel you can contribute to,
    I'll be sure to ask.

    Last time I asked in a rec. group about calculations for depth of field
    specific to using FF lenses on a crop factor cameras I got flamed for
    being a Pro Photographer and not knowing the answer.

    It was simple math but I needed a chart because the lenses I had didn't
    relate too well with their scale on a crop factor camera...

    I've sought my answers to moving from film to digital (in 2005)
    independently ever since so no one will ever know "a Pro Photographer"
    doesn't have all the answers.


    - --

    from Douglas,
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au

    If my PGP key is missing or doesn't match the one I gave you,
    the post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFICa1zhuxzk5D6V14RAq/OAJ9ySU+0lZnWopfRJUipcolP6yq52QCfeugb
    ssfTgoz/5aYxT1N2dmZjZwY=
    =p8XA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 19, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.