Reading mode: Light Dark

Official D3 samples here

Go to last post
Eric Sorensen said:
Of course it isn't! I would love to have a D3! but, hey - I'm not
made of money here. That said, I think my 5D produces better
high-ISO, noise-free images than these "official" images posted by
Nikon. A few notes below:
Click to expand...
The shot you show is good, but it is high contrast and doesnt show those middle shadows where the color noise usually is visible. The striking thing about the high ISO images that has surfaced (official and others) from the D3 is the extremly low amount of color noise in the highest ISOs.
Eric Sorensen said:
--
Click to expand...
Small D200 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d200_12
Small D40 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d40_12
Small Nikon P5000 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/nikonp5000_12
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
Todd Avery said:
Is this ONLY for auto modes? I shoot manual 95% of the time, with a
mix of the others thrown in when I'm goofin around shooting surfing
or something. I understand the fundamentals of photography at this
point just fine.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I came across as condescending.
Todd Avery said:
Can't figure out what "Exposure Comp (On / Off / On Auto Reset) does
though?
Click to expand...
Easy Exposure Comp On/Off determines whether or not the + - button is required to set exp. comp. Not sure what Reset does.

When shooting in manual mode, exposure comp doesn't do anything. You don't need it, as you're controlling exposure completely already.

When shooting an "average" scene, auto modes should expose the image perfectly (or very close). Only when shooting a high-key scene or a low-key scene will exposure comp be required. Or use a grey card or handheld meter and M mode.

Hope this helps.

Jay

--
Jay Philip Williams Photographic Design
http://www.jpwphoto.com
 
Been playing with it since I asked the first time around.

Seems that pushing or pulling over a stop can happen quite a bit with my D2x in auto modes with different scenes.

Very cool for a lot folks I suppose.

Thanks again for your time Jay! Great photos on your site by the way.
 
My wife didn't even begin to challenge me. I just showed her the comparisons... she totally understands as she makes me take pictures of our daughter in totally unacceptable conditions all the time. SO I always have her well aware of why the pictures in a stage lit by ONE FOOT CANDLE it seems LOL does not come out good with her point and shoot or my camera. She now understands enough about ISO performance to allow me the luxury of dumping another $5,000 on my hobby not even one year after plunking down $5000 for the D2Xs LOL...
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS
 
Perhaps for a Nikon.
fabgo said:
Clearly Nikon wasn't kidding when they called the D3 revolutionary.
It's not just the lack of noise at high ISO, the noise quality is
also superb. It makes a direct comparison to the D2x or to Canon's
cameras impossible.

--
Fabian
Click to expand...
 
I did a relatively aggressive level adjustment on D3 ISO 6400 sample. Though level adjustment often increase color noise, I really impressed by the resaults. bellow You can see a resized pic of iso6400 sample, side by side with adjusted level one, in addition to a 100% crop. No NR applied.





--
Behin Nazemroaya
http://www.prophotocom.com
 
Noise OK in very high ISO (but what amount of PP there?). For low ISO, not impressed by resolution with respect to my old Canon 1DS Mark 1.....

So my conclusion is that the D3 is pretty good, but not sure it is really stunningly better than a Canon 5D, 1DIII or 1DS III in terms of IQ at any ISO.

Nevertheless, if it is on par with Canon IQ, that's already a good point for Nikon. Let's see with in depth review if it is really better... Official samples are sometimes not the best to look at...

--
SFJP
http://www.pbase.com/sfjp
 
..these Percy Sledge shots appear to be a "best case" scenerio for the 5D. That image (and others from that shoot) appear to have less noise than my other shots at ISO3200. I think it's the red lights at the concert, because they seem to produce less blue chroma noise, which is the most noticable to me.
--



Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
 
fabgo said:
Clearly Nikon wasn't kidding when they called the D3 revolutionary.
It's not just the lack of noise at high ISO, the noise quality is
also superb. It makes a direct comparison to the D2x or to Canon's
cameras impossible.
Click to expand...
Why are comparisons impossible? Only when we see a test of both cameras under controlled conditions can we know for sure how they measure up. Remember when the first 5D samples appeared? Lots of people cried out that the 5D lacked dynamic range. It doesn't. So, I wouldn't draw any conclusions, as good as the sample do look.

--
------------------------------------------------------
five dee, Yashica Mat 124, and Panny eff zee feefty.
 
Steve Bingham said:
I down loaded all images into PS CS3 and took a careful look. My
impressions:

1- At 6400 and poor light the D3 is BETTER at ISO 6400 than my D2x
was at 800. Without a direct comparison it is hard to say, but my
guess is that ISO 640 on a D2x would be close to the D3 at 6400.
That's one heck of a jump. And . . . the noise had a nicer quality to
it compared to my D2x.
Click to expand...
Even more impressive, is the fact that the high-ISO samples are under artifical lighting - take a look at the WB settings. I can't say that I've ever seen my D2X do this well above ISO 400, with the blue channel gain pushed so high.
Can't wait to try this camera out at ISO 3200 under the rink lighting!
 
Ignore the Canonites, most are here to protect their egos. Just use your own eyes and your own comparisons and draw your own conclusions. That's what I've been doing, out of the 46 D3 pictures I've collected my current conclusion is that the D3 either exceeds or far exceeds anything anyone (including Canon) has to offer. I'll wait for controlled comparisons though for final conclusions, but I'm blown away with the low noise, DR, detail, and color saturation at high ISOs.
 
unsavory said:
The D3 is simply amazing, but personally, I'm not that impressed with
the 24-70. The 85 1.4 is another thing entirely. That image is what
I would consider to be TACK sharp. Not so much the 24-70 shots.
Click to expand...
A lengendary prime vs a preproduction zoom. What would you expect?
unsavory said:
The 17-55 seems to blow it away. Or maybe they are just bad samples.
Click to expand...
Compare the MTF charts. The 24-70 looks far better "on paper." Then check out Bjorn Rorslett's review of the 24-70. He gushes over it and rates it a 5 across the board.

--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root
 
Got me, there! OK, then - no clumps of noise anywhere on the image! Of course, at 400mm, f5.6, 1/100 with a lens that is not know to be it's sharpest at 400mm, I think it came out OK. I will say that printed 16x20 it amazed all my Nikon friends with it's noise-free detail. Now (or at least in a few months?), you too can print noise-free 16x20 images at ISO3200 and above - and with a much cooler piece of hardware with all the bells+whistles! What a great world we live in!

As a side note, we were over some friends and I just saw that move "300" on blue ray with a 60" 1080i (or is it "p"?) LCD TV. What great resolution! I can only image the Nikon's being viewed at 1080!. I know some people will scoff at that, but it's a pretty cool feature for showing your images.
--



Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top