Any D3 Owners?

dking99

dking99

Suspended / Banned
Messages
34
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
First post here...I am really liking this forum.

It seems as if nobody here owns a Nikon D3? I did a search thinking I would run into a few shots / new stories about the D3, but I found nothing.

I love my camera so far. Below is a shot I took of my neighbor's kids. I havent had a paid shoot since I have had the camera, so nothing spectaular yet.

kids.jpg
 
have a look for some posts by Hacker and Edinburgh Gary, they've both got one :)

Oh, and welcome aboard :)
 
"here owns a Nikon D3?"
NO NO NO :love:

BUT I HAVE A D2 :help:
Kjeld
 
natjag said:
I've seen results from them and I'm considering jumping ship from Canon, thats how impressed I am.
Click to expand...

I got one free from Nikon for two weeks, they hoped I would jump ship.
Canon 1DMKIII and 1DSMKII along with the MKIIN blow it away still.
No thanks for me.
 
PapaLazarou said:
I got one free from Nikon for two weeks, they hoped I would jump ship.
Canon 1DMKIII and 1DSMKII along with the MKIIN blow it away still.
No thanks for me.
Click to expand...

Did you have Nikons test kit? The thing I liked was the black are black, on the canon, you get red spot (tiny, but they are there). But the canon is better at white.
Still undecided to be honest. But I know a few press guys that are jumping ship, partly due to the Nikon deal they offer working pros.
 
I was a Nikon user for 20 years, but switched to Canon 7 years ago as Nikon was way behind in digital SLR cameras. I then thought about switching back to Nikon 2 months ago after the ISO shots from the D3. I spoke to Nikon and told them I was thinking of switching over from Canon. So they sent me a D3 with the 14 - 24 and the 70-200 VR, I was impressed by it, but for me the Canon set up still out performed the Nikon. I think Nikon are 6 mp short of a great camera with the D3. For me the 1DMKIII was a far better camera and the ISO on the MKIII is not that far off from the D3. And as for resolution the D3 is so far behind the 1DSMKII never mind the 1DSMKIII.

PS I had to give the D3 kit back, F@c~i#g Nikon.

wed.jpg


Canon 1DMKIII ISO 1000
 
What a garbage image,taken with a C***n...............;)
 
I've seen quite a few more D3's springing up recently. I'm actually pleased they are giving a Canon a run for their money. Having played with one for a very short time, the D3 is a very serious piece of kit (apart from triggering the shutter with the portrait shutter button all the time!). Very nice indeed.

At the end of the day, it's just a tool. Do your thing with whatever you've got. The average punter wont know the difference but you can impose your own style on top of the kit you use.

A good example - I was shooting an evening city centre cycle race and used 2nd curtain flash and dragged shutter, and there was a D3 user there with no flash and ISO whacked up all the way. Very different style of pics. Of course, mine were way better :D but at the end of the day its what you do with it that counts. A few extra ISO stops or a couple more FPS means nothing if you cant compose properly.
 
As I've said before (and was first alluded to by Diego) the D3 final images have a film like feel to them and give a completely different output to the D300. Papa, I've never used a Canon and especially a pro spec Canon so I can't compare them but I presume that shot is unprocessed?

dking99, welcome to the forum and glad you're enjoying the D3 but as Tobers rightly stated it is just a piece of kit and I really don't understand this Canon v. Nikon thing - just use whatever feels right for you.

ISO 4000 on the D3

ISO 6400 on the D3
 
I have used a D3 and nikons 600mm VR and have to say at the moment its the way to go, wipes the floor iso wise with anything canon have at the moment, as for image size, megapixels isn't an issue having a clean noise free image is so much more important as far as i'm concerned.

If I hadnt got £xx,xxx of canon kit I would be changing to nikon, but as it is I will wait it out to see what canon do with the so called 1dmkIIIn /1dmkIV, then make my move.
 
I might have switched over myself if I hadnt had £xxxxxxx of Canon as well, but I found the Canon handled better for me. But that might be as I am used to Canon, but Canon will hit back in ISO stakes soon.
 
I don't think the 1DIII is doing so bad with high ISO, here's a quick test I just tried:
iso6400.jpg


Shot @ 50mm, f/5.6, 1/80s, ISO6400, jpg, standard settings. The first panel has been put through Noiseware, resized (800px on the longest side), no sharpening. The second is straight from camera, resized, no sharpening. The final panel is a 100% crop of the side of the printer. The exif from the shot should still be there.

I agree the D3 has a wonderful film like quality to it's shots but I suspect that's more to do with colour and tone than the noise handling.
 
Posting images resized for the web shows absolutely nothing about noise.:shrug:

To judge image noise, we need to be looking at full size images or 1:1 crops. Image noise is basically random dots which show up most on the image at full size, as soon as you drastically reduce the size of that image, the noise largely disappears.

Shooting at very high ISOs regardless of what camera you use, the noise will be there, particularly in the darker areas of the image at full size. ;)
 
Demonstrated quite well in pxl8's shots above. :thumbs:
 
One thing I forgot to mention earlier is that whilst it's fun to be all geeky about noise and pixel peep it's something that only really matters to us. I've yet to have a client complain about noise in a shot - the only time it gets mentioned is when they ask for grainy b+w processing.

It's very rare that I need to shoot above 1600 and the 40D handles that well, the 1DIII better still and Noiseware does a sterling job on cleaning it all up afterwards :thumbs:

Back on topic, the D3 really is a nice bit of kit and when I picked up my 1DIII I did think I could save £700 here by switching over but I'm used to my Canon gear and too getting too old to learn new tricks :lol:
 
When did the 1D111 happen then?? Congrats anyway. :D

I'm not a Nikon knocker in fact I owned them for years and was always happy with them. It's great to see Nikon addressing their critics re the noise in earlier models and they've no doubt made huge strides in that area.

Personally I'm very happy with my Canon gear, and wouldn't dream of swapping. There are always going to be slight advantages between the two marques, but that's always going to see-saw as they slug it out in the market place. If you're seriously going to consider swapping your gear every time you see a slight advantage in one brand over the other you could be swapping back and forth a lot! ;)

Huge strides have been made in noise reduction by both marques and I don't doubt Nikon has an edge at the moment, but just taking Lee's pic he posted earlier as an obvious example, the noise in the dark suit of the guy in the foreground is quite noticeable despite the reduction in size, so at 1:1 reproduction that noise is going to be spectacular. :D Of course it was a huge ISO used so it's to be expected anyway, but attributing qualities to cameras which they don't possess does no-one any favours .

ISO6400.jpg
 
CT said:
When did the 1D111 happen then?? Congrats anyway. :D
Click to expand...

Cheers, picked it just over a week ago - 2 days before shooting a wedding :eek:

When I see these discussions about noise I always think how lucky we are that the technology has moved on compared to the grain we got from a 35mm film, just look at this
 
I can't really understand the obsession with noise - if you print it all disappears anyway, and if you view at 100% - well, whats the point in viewing at 100% again? And if only you ever show 800x533 for web then anything looks good re-sized and downsampled.

I can get A4 prints from my D50 and even D200 at ISO1600. And even higher from my S5 Pro.

Before splashing out vast amounts to solve the noise "problem" I would ask:

a) do clients ever complain about noise?
b) does it show in prints?

If you can't answer "Yes" to A and B, its only an issue that concerns pixel peepers and gear obsessives.
 
pxl8 said:
When I see these discussions about noise I always think how lucky we are that the technology has moved on compared to the grain we got from a 35mm film, just look at this
Click to expand...

Exciting times are they not! :banana:
 
PapaLazarou said:
I spoke to Nikon and told them I was thinking of switching over from Canon. So they sent me a D3 with the 14 - 24 and the 70-200 VR.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would they do that? The 14-24 is an awesome lens, but the 70-200 VR was optimised for a DX sensor and using it on a D3 just makes that obvious...
 
StewartR said:
Why on earth would they do that? The 14-24 is an awesome lens, but the 70-200 VR was optimised for a DX sensor and using it on a D3 just makes that obvious...
Click to expand...

I imagine they think that working Pro's have better things to do than stare at the corners looking for things to moan about on the Internet?

Yes, the corners are softer. Does it matter? Maybe if you shoot landscape or have critical detail in the corners than maybe. For portraits etc any softness just disappears into the bokeh.

A 70-200 VR MKII will probably come along at some stage - personally I would have no hestitaion using this lens on a D3 or D700 in the meantime.
 
StewartR said:
Why on earth would they do that? The 14-24 is an awesome lens, but the 70-200 VR was optimised for a DX sensor and using it on a D3 just makes that obvious...
Click to expand...

Do you have first hand experience with this Stewart?

I do - and at first the vignetting was very obvious. However, as I've grown used to the full frame sensor, I've noticed it less and less. Sharpness is a very very slight problem, and not something that any of my clients moan about as generally the corners arent where the detail are (weddings and equine).

Personally - I think it's just 1 thing people jump on about - but in reality it doesn't affect anything.
 
StewartR said:
Why on earth would they do that? The 14-24 is an awesome lens, but the 70-200 VR was optimised for a DX sensor and using it on a D3 just makes that obvious...
Click to expand...

Because I am a working pro and CPS member, who spent over £15000 on Nikon gear many years ago, and now have over £25000 worth of Canon gear. Any working pro who Nikon or even Canon think will switch and spend cash will get a trial for a few weeks.
 
:lol: @ Papa - I think Stewart was questioning their lens choice rather than the motive for sending out demo gear. Still, it is Sunday :D
 
I see, and I got it wrong it was the 24 - 70 not 14 - 24.
Long night last night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top