Official Nikon D3 sample photos

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Furman

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Sep 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Furman

    JR Guest

    Those pics are AMAZING.....I am in awe with the color, noise, and
    dynamic range of the images....I was going to be waiting for the hi MP
    version next year the D3x, but damn, I gotta say, amybe a D3 is in my
    near future...I di have a high paying job lined up for October...maybe I
    will have them throw one in the deal...hmmm.....Its sooo funny how the
    Canon users are virtually silent on all this....it literally blows away
    the Canons....the ONLY thing the can say now is well, he have 19 nore
    megapixels...but if the Nikon final image quality is THAT good, who
    cares....

    JR
     
    JR, Sep 12, 2007
    #3
  4. Paul Furman

    John Sheehy Guest

    Assuming? I don't think noise reduction could be any more obvious. All
    chroma is completely desaturated in the deepest shadows, and all detail is
    completely blurred in the deepest shadows. All that remains is a low-pass
    version of the luminance (even at ISO 200).

    Shot noise does seem to be much lower than other cameras, though.


    --
     
    John Sheehy, Sep 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Paul Furman

    frederick Guest

    You expected iso 6400 samples with no NR?
    Can you show anything better from any current camera?
    BTW - "detail blurred" in shadow areas isn't telling much,
    because the image is blurred/out of focus in the shadow
    areas. Take a crop from the eye - which is in focus - and
    play with levels, and you can bring out detail from the iris
    - and that's from a heavily compressed jpeg.
    It's iso *6400* - it *should* be nearly unusable. I think
    that would print very well at 18x12.
     
    frederick, Sep 12, 2007
    #5
  6. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    I see plentuy of color in the shadows at 3200, and it doesn't skip a
    beat going from bright to dark like the blonde hairs:
    http://edgehill.net/temp/d3/pg1pc2 That's with shadows pulled up so you
    can see more clearly without the black masking things. Looks great to
    me. Look at the detail in the guy's dark eyes, full crop at ISO 6400.
    Granted the yellow gets weird but try a levels adjustment like that on
    any ISO 100 image & see what happens! The well lit part looks fantastic
    in the original for that ISO.
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Paul Furman

    gowanoh Guest

    If they could only do this in a camera that costs less than a fortune and
    weighs less than an elephant . . .
    I expect that by the third quarter of next year at the rate things are
    going.
     
    gowanoh, Sep 12, 2007
    #7
  8. If "it _literally_ blows away the Canons", then Nikon's gonna
    get a very expensive class action suit for the destruction of
    property.

    Literally is _not_ a clever sounding word for "really", though some
    people do misuse it that way. Literally means "not as figure of
    speech, but in the direct word by word meaning", i.e. you are
    telling us 'it' produces so strong a storm that 'the Canons'
    are picked up by it and moved away --- and most likely will
    come to harm in a hard landing.

    You mean that the images figuratively(!) blow away the Canons,
    or that they really blow away the Canons.


    Next up: the difference between "virtually" and "in real life".


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 13, 2007
    #8
  9. That would be true if the use of "literally" is literal, but
    in this case it too is really a figure of speech.
    I'm beginning to think that, just like spelling flames, virtually
    all word definition flames on Usenet are literally devoid of value.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 13, 2007
    #9
  10. Which seems is a speciality of Nikon.
    Sure, why not?
    Irrelevant, the criticism of the NR used does not depend on
    the quality or not-quality of other cameras, especially not
    of the quality or not-quality a single person can show.

    Can _you_ show non-NR samples? No? Well?
    So the 3D is not capable of showing shadow areas in focus,
    since not even Nikon can show such samples. At least by your
    logic.

    On the other hand, look at the cap of the trumpet player.
    It's quite in focus, but the structure of the textile is lost
    quickly in the darker parts, e.g. above the eyebrow.
    You call _that_ detail? There's nothing but noise and imagination.
    I've done a little analysis here:
    http://weissel.smugmug.com/gallery/3468560/
    Basically, even at V (of HSV) ~50 the resolution drops
    dramatically, so that these areas won't lose content even if you
    downsize the whole image to 1MPix. This is _not_ true for somewhat
    brighter areas (V >=60).
    4 bits per pixel is _anything_ _but_ heavily compressed.
    On The Gimp I need quality 99 (on a 0-100 scale, and with 75-80
    recommended) to get to the 5.9 MByte they use.

    Stop throwing up completely fake smoke screens, or at least
    start to think before jumping and showing yourself to be a
    complete idiot.
    Maybe, but then that's the very best the might of all of Nikon
    can produce. Try a subject that has important high frequency
    detail and low brightness in areas, and important chroma content,
    and you'll see the _real_ capabilities (or not!) of that D3.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 13, 2007
    #10
  11. Paul Furman

    frederick Guest

    LOLOL


    The D3 clearly just dorked the best I've ever seen from
    Canon (The peculiar format 1DIII), and you've spent all that
    time and effort trying to show that a camera nobody can even
    buy yet isn't capable of miracles.

    Wolfie - you are a prize wanker of the highest order!
     
    frederick, Sep 13, 2007
    #11
  12. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Not yet but if this is entirely due to noise reduction, I may be tempted
    to get their Capture software this time :)
    OK you've got a point with the area under the brim but overall I'm still
    very impressed with the image.
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 13, 2007
    #12
  13. Paul Furman

    ASAAR Guest

    If thinking it is, does that also include thoughts of witlings
    that trollishly insist on typing "lense"? I'm surprised that you
    disagree with Wolfie on the usage of "literally", since you two are
    in so many ways quite similar.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 13, 2007
    #13
  14. it is not clear how much post-processing (i.e. nr and such) was applied to the
    images but it is probably safe to say that in terms of iq nikon is finally
    getting close to canon 5d, which was of course expected considering the sensor
    parameters. still, d3 is not quite up to the tack of competing with 1-series canons.
     
    Korben Dallas, Sep 13, 2007
    #14
  15. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    It looks like the IQ is better than the 5D by all indications so far.
    It's newer & costs twice as much, so that's expected.
    I'm not sure which 1D you are comparing, the 1D mkIII is 10MP 1.3x crop,
    apparently a bit noisier and faster and about the same price & size so
    I'd say they are very similar models. The 1Ds Mk III is full frame 21MP,
    therefore should be noisier and twice the price.
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 13, 2007
    #15
  16. The difference is now that Nikon has a decent sensor to put their great
    bodies around it will kill anything Canon can come up with. The 5D is a
    great sensor with a piece of shit body wrapped around it. Now, the Mk III
    is a totally different animal and is simply killer. If the 5D replacement
    adopts the Mk III feel and ergonomics Nikon might start sweating. Did I say
    how much I love the old Mk III?
    Don't knock the Mk III. The Mk III with the proper glass, Nikkors, is
    unbeatable.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 13, 2007
    #16
  17. Paul Furman

    John Smith Guest

    Rita,

    How the hell does one use Nikkor glass on a Canon Mk III? What are you
    saying?

    John
     
    John Smith, Sep 13, 2007
    #17
  18. Have you forgotten how to type words, or are you just
    dribbling on the keyboard again?
    Which means exactly nothing.
    I have never seen you, so you do not even exist, right?
    Absolutely necessary against mindless and/or paid claqueurs
    like you.
    Since you do not even have a full name and hide your face in
    shame here, I guess that term is used in your uncouth community
    as a mark of respect, not as the insult any reasonably lettered
    man would see as throwing the gauntlet.

    As such seems to be the case, be advised that less broad minded
    men or those in stronger need to protect their honor, namely the
    young and insecure, will have their secundants contact yours, and
    you shall meet them onthe field of honor in the dawn. Being the
    churlish and ill-bred person that you are, you may still live to
    see high noon, should your opponent choose the cudgel or throwing
    rocks as as weapon. In other words, you'd better bet on the long
    life of a snowflake in hell.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 13, 2007
    #18
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 14, 2007
    #19
  20. wrong on several accounts. firstly, nikon does not make sensors. until it does,
    saying that "nikon has a sensor" would be a bit premature. secondly, 5d is an
    excellent body wrapped around an ultra-excellent sensor. thirdly, 5d ergonomics
    is the same as 1d ergonoimics (have you actually seen the cameras?), although it
    is indeed different from traditional nikon's cluttered minolta-style
    ergonoimics, which is a good thing, of course, (for canon).
     
    Korben Dallas, Sep 14, 2007
    #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.