Nikon D3 "film look": James Russell's 1st Impressions on The Luminous Landscape

nada sucka

photomik said:

you only had butter smooth Canon.

Click to expand...

I shoot Canon for personal use, but use Nikon regularly on my job as a PJ. I probably look at far more Nikon images doing image processing every week. Don't be so presumptuous in the future.

photomik said:

The way Nikon renders the images with the limitation of the sensors
of course has always been close to what film looks like (grainy in
the right amount/way). Response with the older sensor was pushed to
the limit. Now that they have CMOS, and thier HDR function, it's a
lot closer.

Click to expand...

Here is a Nikon D200 image at ISO3200, and it's pretty representative of what I usually see. What is 'film grainy' about this image? If anything I see a smudgy loss of detail due to somewhat strong noise reduction, lack of crispness (almost like a watercolor effect), and the chroma noise that's indicative of digital noise, not the more 'film-like' luminance noise.

http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/nikond200_samples/originals/dsd_0235.jpg

If you're referring to the different contrast curves used between different cameras, sure I'll give you that Nikon's default curve may be different, lending to what you and others might perceive to be a more 'film-like' appearance. But again, this has ZERO to do with how the camera actually works, it's just the default RAW option. Use a different RAW preset, and you get the exact same effect with any camera, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, et. al.

Now that you say it I don't think it looks too filmy to me. But when I came home with a bunch of prints I got comments on the film look.

I'm not doing a good job of proving my point. What looks like film and what doesn't is a large topic which other people can explain better than me. I think that part of it is quality of film that has still been missing in digital, so while digital has exceeds film in many ways, when digital improves in more ways we might say it has more film look.

Bill

I have a feeling it may lie more in the format you're viewing them in. I have no doubt your original film gave you a very 'film look' feel. Yet when you put them up here on the computer monitor, they don't quite look the same. A bit more flat maybe, not the same kind of richness in the contrast, maybe? There are lots of different ways to describe it, and it's all pretty subjective. But I notice the same thing with my slides vs. slides scanned onto the computer. It's simply that it is impossible for any computer monitor to output the resolution or tonal range (even dynamic range) that the original slide/print actually contained - the digital camera itself is not fundamentally different in the images it creates, and certainly between digital cameras there is no such thing as a camera that is able to output a 'film look'.

I'm also pretty confident that if you actually printed digital images out and compared them to prints made from film, you could not tell much of a difference, if at all (aside from the aforementioned dynamic range limitations of digital).

Bernard Languillier said:

My personnal view is that Canon has stopped investing heavily in
photography about 3 years ago. All their recent releases are
basically minor upgrades with little innovation.

Based on the current momentum, Nikon seems to be much more likely to
push the enveloppe in the 2 or 3 coming years.

Click to expand...

Canon invests a huge amount of their profits into R&D, every year. This hasn't stopped.

The MK-3 and the new 22 MP FF that's due soon is proof they're hitting hard and unlike Nikon, Canon's specs are very conservative.

The AF on my MK-3 is almost a full f/stop more light sensitive than the new Nikon FF.
If the AF can't "see" it, it can't lock on to it, low light my as...

Canon continues to add more L glass to their line up. The 50L is a very fast prime that makes good use of the MK-3's superb low light capabilities. It gets fast solid locks in light levels that other cameras and lenses are left wandering in the dark.

Time will tell, my calculated bet's on Canon to still be ahead by a wide margin this time next year. More white lenses up front.

-they look like oil paintings. Really weird. Also he's screwed around with the levels so much the runners in one of the shots look likey they have steel skin. Hmmmm.

Funny thing is, I pointed out severe watercolour-esque mush (due to in-camera noise reduction) on a D300 ISO1600 shot on the nikon forum and was howled down as a troll, etc etc. I'm really surprised the nikon fanboys couldn't (wouldn't?) see the plain-as-day smudginess. Oh well.

--
warren prasek
web design ~ interactive media ~ photography
http://www.wprasek.com/

Gearlist: If you think I'm so insecure I need to list every item of kit I've got in a desperate attempt at self-validation, then you're madder than a bag full of squirrels.

blackhawk13 said:

--Who wants film? What a poor choice of words.

These were taken in very well lite settings; Canon need not worry.
It's better than Nikon has done before, but this hyperbole of an
unparalleled break through is pure rubbish.
These cameras won't be out in mass by Christmas; like a near sighted
archer, Nikon keeps missing the mark.

Click to expand...

I doubt that Nikons target group is those who depends on christmas for updating gear

blackhawk13 said:

This camera is conceptually flawed (the do all camera), and in the
end after it's in wide use, the gritty truth will come out that
Canon's next generation of pro cameras are better.

Click to expand...

They should be, just like next generation Nikons will be. It has always been like that. It would be difficult to sell new cameras if the new ones weren't better than the old ones...

blackhawk13 said:

Better low light, low noise performance, better dynamic range, and
better, more sensitive AF to boot.

Click to expand...

I thought quite a few Canon users were more than satisfied with the sensitivity for AF already offered in the latest mkIII cameras?

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

Why are you posting this in the Canon forum???

--
----------------------------------------
http://www.zangenberg.net

Beeing on of those tack sharp sports shooters I should take the time and experiment a little more in post processing.

James Russell is an outstanding photographer, though I was mostly familiar with his fashion work. This type of input from top photographers really means a lot.

I do wish he would drop the Flash site though. I personally find it so odd that so many people hate Flash on other sites but insist upon it for their own.

leping said:

http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3.shtml
http://www.russellrutherford.com/nikon_d3/

--
LEPING ZHA
4x5 film / 6x7 film / Canon 5D / Nikon D2x
http://www.lepingzha.com

Click to expand...

blackhawk13 said:

Bernard Languillier wrote:
Canon invests a huge amount of their profits into R&D, every year.
This hasn't stopped.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it didn't show productwise... neither in the mid end, nor in the high end.

blackhawk13 said:

The MK-3 and the new 22 MP FF that's due soon is proof they're
hitting hard and unlike Nikon, Canon's specs are very conservative.

Click to expand...

conservative indeed, there is very little progress from a Canon user point of view, and also very little innovation compared to other brands.

blackhawk13 said:

The AF on my MK-3 is almost a full f/stop more light sensitive than
the new Nikon FF.

Click to expand...

How exactly do you know that?

blackhawk13 said:

If the AF can't "see" it, it can't lock on to it, low light my as...

Click to expand...

That's correct.

blackhawk13 said:

Canon continues to add more L glass to their line up. The 50L is a
very fast prime that makes good use of the MK-3's superb low light
capabilities. It gets fast solid locks in light levels that other
cameras and lenses are left wandering in the dark.

Click to expand...

1.2 is hardly lighter than 1.4.

Cheers,
Bernard

-----------------------------------
http://www.light-of-earths.com

I agree. Although perhaps that is lost on the intended audience.

Bernie Ess said:

And regardless of the camera used those pics on James' site is the
best sport series I have seen in a long time. Opposed to those "pin
sharp" average sport shots that are posted here all the time those
(James') have a diffeent view, and soul....

Bernie

Click to expand...

I was doing some event photography last weekend and had a run-in with a pretty snotty Nikon photographer. It was one of those guys who thinks he owns the event, and everyone else is just getting in the way or are amateurs or whatever.

My point? There is not always that much camaraderie in our field when we are in the field, and I think a lot of people find some type of solace in being able to look down upon other photographers based upon brand. For example, the Canonite who looks at a Nikon user, recalls the generally crummy looking images at 100% from the D200 and D70, and smiles to himself.

I guess we Canonites can't do that anymore, and the future suddenly feels threatening.

Personally, I would rather see Canon be forced to step up to the plate rather than indulge in schadenfraude. That particular Nikon user was a jackass, though. LOL

calxn said:

Even if he decided to sell all of his stuff to go buy a D3, so what?
Why do people like you get up in arms over these innocent remarks?
He made a simple statement that the D3 looks phenomenal and hopes
Canon can respond. He didn't trash Canon. It's just not rational to
get emotionally attached to corporation just because you buy their
products. The world would be very boring if Canon just dominated
every time it releases a new camera.

Click to expand...

Nathan Yan said:

I see these pictures, but all of the 'film look' comes from
post-processing. This has nothing to do with the D3.

Click to expand...

I'm getting fed up with this "film look" thing whenever someone wants to praise a camera. It's a mythical concept that few dare to define, but everyone loves to use indiscriminately.

--
A travel gallery of my country and some others:
http://www.pbase.com/lithuania

Nor does Nikon have a three year old camera with anywhere near the image quality of the 5D. Let's face it, the 5D was something of a masterpiece.

jack

Ronald Hall said:

It took Nikon like 10 years to respond to Canon's lead.. yet you seem
to be under the impression that Canon will never be able to respond.
By the time the D3/300 are released and available the 5d will likely
be like 3 years old.. While Nikon may have produced a camera that
surpassed 3 year old technology, they don't offer one remotely in
that price range.

Click to expand...

--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177

Do you have an axe to grind?

13 of your past 20 posts have been disparraging towards Nikon or the D300. The majority of your other posts are either about breasts or about how wonderful the 5DmkII from Canon is going to be. It's obvious you are a Canonite with an axe to grind... stop embarrasing yourself by pretending to be 'objective'.

We have a D3 on loan from Nikon Canada at work.

Would I go out and switch systems? Nope.

But it is a very nice camera and if it spurs Canon on to lower prices and refine features great.

As for film look? Well at ISO 12,800 it is noisey though about as much as Fujicolor 1600 used to look. At 1600 ISO it's pretty good compared to film.

Camera feels quite heavy but extremely solid. Also has a hair trigger shutter release so on HS it's hard to squeeze off a single frame without shooting lots. I think it's a bit more hairtrigger than the MKIII.

As for focus tracking, very interesting feature. I locked focus on a coworker then swung the camera in an arc while hitting the shutter. Did quite well at keeping subject in focus. Can see this as a handy feature for a friend who shoots America's Cup races from a Zodiac or chopper.

Richard is using the D3 to shoot pix for the paper, todays edition has a series he shot with available light at the new 'CSI' house in Oshawa Ontario. Link is here, http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/268135 granted they don't have the interior shots on the web...grrrr...

What I noticed with the original files was that at high ISO it had very good shadow detail while holding detail in the highlights and Richard has very positive comments about the camera so far.

Kevin

..and when I post my opinion, I try to back it up with reasoned argument. If you care to read my posts in detail re: the D300 noise situation, you will see that I do present a rational argument to support my views. What is wrong with that?

The fact is there was severe watercolour "mush" exhibited in those high ISO shots. Other posters agreed with me. Many nikon users did not - I could just as easily accuse them of blind pro-nikon bias, they refuse to accept any valid criticisms, instantly labelling any dissenters as a troll.

If you ALSO cared to research my previous posting history, you will see I praise the D300 in almost every other way and indeed was (until the disappointing high ISO shots were shown) very tempted to switch to nikon for the ergonomics, VF, AF, LCD, etc etc.

If I do have an axe to grind, it is because high ISO image quality is very important to my style of shooting (available light) and when I see people claiming the D300 is excellent in this regard, yet i see strong evidence to the contrary, I feel compelled to put forward an alternate viewpoint.

Again, do you have a problem with me doing that? I eagerly await your response. And you will also note I do not launch into personal attacks like you have on me, calling names etc is very childish and undermines your credibility. I would advise against getting personal... we can surely debate this in a civil manner?

Joe Federer said:

Do you have an axe to grind?

13 of your past 20 posts have been disparraging towards Nikon or the
D300. The majority of your other posts are either about breasts or
about how wonderful the 5DmkII from Canon is going to be. It's
obvious you are a Canonite with an axe to grind... stop embarrasing
yourself by pretending to be 'objective'.

Click to expand...

--
warren prasek
web design ~ interactive media ~ photography
http://www.wprasek.com/

Gearlist: If you think I'm so insecure I need to list every item of kit I've got in a desperate attempt at self-validation, then you're madder than a bag full of squirrels.

DKjos said:

this was Mr. Russell's comment:

but when noise does show (and it takes about ISO 2,000 before it
really appears) it is more film-like that most digital files I have
shot. (OK, now I am hesitant to use the term film-like, because I
think film is a romantic notion of the past, but I think the D-3 hit
the film look I prefer faster than any digital camera I have
previously used).

He also makes it clear that the images posted with this article were
heavily post processed in Photoshop and were what he delivered to his
client.

In other words, his references to film-like refers to the 7400 images
he captured at Osaka and is in possession of - not to his post
processed output.

Click to expand...

I said it was one sentence in the whole essay, quoted it, said that's a look he likes and this camera made it easier to get to that look--that's all he said LOL. Plus he made a side ways joke about 'film look' as he also said it was a romantic notion of the past--just a look he likes.

He also made it VERY clear that the few pics posted were processed in accordance with his client's wishes and did NOT represent the camera's abilities and said he could not share 'out of the camera' pics because it was not a production camera.

I think others should go spend some time on his various sites around the net. I've been following James' work for years--spent a great deal of time in the RG MF forums, very very knowledgable--and later on the LL MF forums. Years ago he used to post on dpreview--but that was a long time ago.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

bearcat said:

James Russell is an outstanding photographer, though I was mostly
familiar with his fashion work. This type of input from top
photographers really means a lot.

Click to expand...

It appears he's doing a lot of sports shooting now if you look through his site--and he's bringng the same terrific approach (his own look/style) to them as his fashion and advertising work (and I suspect the sports is advertising work also). He's always used a lot of postprocessing--says its necessary with MF digital--and he is a master processor--or someone in his studio. He's always been forthcoming on various MF forums and knows his stuff, so coming from him, I found his 'review' very interesting. I'm not interested in buying the D3 but like knowing what else is going on in the field--and real life use of it.

bearcat said:

I do wish he would drop the Flash site though. I personally find it
so odd that so many people hate Flash on other sites but insist upon
it for their own.

Click to expand...

He offers both HTML and flash here The HTML is easier, faster.

http://www.russellrutherford.com/

--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries