Official D3 samples here

On the ISO 6400 shot the WB seems off enough that I'd expect it to be more noisy than it shows.

I'm seriously impressed by it. I shoot ISO 3200 on my D80 and it gives it a great grainy look to it and allows me to shoot f1.4 in some very dark situations with decent but grainy b&w photos. This has me scheming to save up 5Gs! Now if only I could justify it...
 
but most people don't seem to pay attention to such subtle concerns. I am looking forward to RAW conversions which amazingly can look even better than these.

It appears the detractors created something to attack.(see link) Unable to definitively claim any single item from my list as an Achilles heal compared to the best Canon's, the new mantra is that the D3 IQ isn't that "much" better than the 1mkIII or 5D , one had the nerve to say the IQ should be compared to the 1dsIII (at low ISO only of course ;). Some are claiming Nikon has only achieved IQ "parity"...riiiiiiight, it is amazing how people continue to lie to themselves in the face literally of evidence to the contrary.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=24792636

Regards,
On the ISO 6400 shot the WB seems off enough that I'd expect it to be
more noisy than it shows.

I'm seriously impressed by it. I shoot ISO 3200 on my D80 and it
gives it a great grainy look to it and allows me to shoot f1.4 in
some very dark situations with decent but grainy b&w photos. This has
me scheming to save up 5Gs! Now if only I could justify it...
--

 
The truth of the REAL high ISO quality will come when we can actually see a raw file converted.

Is the high ISO better than Canon? WHo knows? I'll wait for the converted raws. Incidentally, what camera would you compare to the Nikon? A 2 1/2 year old 5D? A 1DIII that has greater pixel density?
It appears the detractors created something to attack.(see link)
Unable to definitively claim any single item from my list as an
Achilles heal compared to the best Canon's, the new mantra is that
the D3 IQ isn't that "much" better than the 1mkIII or 5D , one had
the nerve to say the IQ should be compared to the 1dsIII (at low ISO
only of course ;). Some are claiming Nikon has only achieved IQ
"parity"...riiiiiiight, it is amazing how people continue to lie to
themselves in the face literally of evidence to the contrary.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=24792636

Regards,
On the ISO 6400 shot the WB seems off enough that I'd expect it to be
more noisy than it shows.

I'm seriously impressed by it. I shoot ISO 3200 on my D80 and it
gives it a great grainy look to it and allows me to shoot f1.4 in
some very dark situations with decent but grainy b&w photos. This has
me scheming to save up 5Gs! Now if only I could justify it...
--

 
Neat, that level adjusted photo looks awesome for ISO 6400

ding ding ding we have a winner !

stinks I ll have to work 200 overtime hours to afford it tho =/
 
Is the high ISO better than Canon? WHo knows? I'll wait for the
converted raws. Incidentally, what camera would you compare to the
Nikon? A 2 1/2 year old 5D? A 1DIII that has greater pixel density?
That's right, the D3 stands alone, creating division in the Canon line-up.

I'm not sure why any of this rubbish going on is relevant. The D3 is a cool camera, with different qualities to any other camera out there at the moment. Is it better or worse than something else, probably, but who cares... it seems like it's going to be a capable tool that will serve Nikon users very well.
 
Having shot plenty of frames with the Mark III and the D3 (for 9 days), IMHO the D3 is one stop better than the Canon EOS 1D Mark III. The D3's ISO 6400 is roughly equivalent to to Mark III's ISO 3200. On the D3 I didn't try anything above ISO 6400, nor did I attempt to calibrate the settings above it either.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top