Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
See thats what I have a problem with.. Canon HAS responded.. 1dm3 and 1dsm3.. both compete just fine with the Nikon's, and the 1dsm3 will likely be available months before the Nikon offerings. You may claim that Canon does not have something in the PRICE RANGE of the Nikon FF offering, and you would be right.. they have one thats CONSIDERABLY cheaper and one thats CONSIDERABLY more expensive. But to say you HOPE Canon will respond is silly..
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...
 
Frank C. said:
Nathan Yan said:
Frank C. said:
Member said:
dotborg wrote:
That "film look" is because Nikon does heavy chroma noise reduction
in-camera, something you can easily achieve after the fact with any
other camera.
Click to expand...
left column explains it all:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhilixiwhdig
Click to expand...
I don't get it, are you saying his comments are automatically false
because he posts in the Canon forum. How about addressing the actual
Click to expand...
' heavy chroma noise reduction '

sound's a little biased wouldn't you say... ;-)
Click to expand...
Do you even know what chroma noise is? Or what it means to remove it? Or do you just assume any thing that says "noise" implies a bad camera?

If anything, you're the one blindly biased here, if you take offense to mere comments on the noise characteristics on the D3.
Member said:
Member said:
claim, which seems to be panning out completely with the D3 and D300.
And yes, chroma noise is one of the easiest things to remove in
post-processing.
Click to expand...
so only Nikon does pixel massaging, not Canon? who can ever guess
what that Digic chip truly does.....
Click to expand...
This isn't chroma noise reduction, but you seem to be just taking that as a blanket statement to noise reduction, so here's a demonstration of Nikon's noise reduction vs. Canon's.

30D vs. D200 at ISO3200





The Canon image delivers less noise and is far sharper. The D200 on the other hand uses more heavy-handed NR and ends up smudging a lot of the fine detail.
 
dotborg said:
Frank C. said:
Barugon said:
dotborg wrote:
Frank C. said:
Barugon said:
I never said that the chroma noise reduction was a bad thing, you
just assumed that.
Click to expand...
HEAVY chroma noise reduction sure sounds bad to me ;)
Click to expand...
It is what it is. ;) wink wink ;-)
Click to expand...
yup!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhilixiwhdig
Click to expand...
"yeah I'm pretty smart"

LOL, yup.
Click to expand...
==
L

yeah I have my fair share of grey matter, or is that gray matter? lol
... nfortunately my wifey has a different view of me =(
 
Nathan Yan said:
This isn't chroma noise reduction, but you seem to be just taking
that as a blanket statement to noise reduction, so here's a
demonstration of Nikon's noise reduction vs. Canon's.

30D vs. D200 at ISO3200





The Canon image delivers less noise and is far sharper. The D200 on
the other hand uses more heavy-handed NR and ends up smudging a lot
of the fine detail.
Click to expand...
thanks for pointing me out a comparison I've seen a kazillion times
before ( really you shouldn't expend your energies on lil ol' me,
thx. for taking the time tho ; )

I'd still like to see an example of HEAVY chroma reduction however... ;)
 
Frank C. said:
I'd still like to see an example of HEAVY chroma reduction however... ;)
Click to expand...
Here's a sample pic from Nikon:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/img/pic_003b.jpg

Here's a crop converted to YCbCr. Take a look at the luminance channel here and note the noise in the shadow areas:



Now look at the blueness channel and you can see that noise remains in the areas that are highlights but it's heavily blurred in the shadow areas:



--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
 
I read through the reviews linked in the original post, and have to wonder if somebody with an IQ above 80 honestly needs in-camera parameters to accomplish that kind of look.

I thought the D3 was marketed towards "Professionals" , so could somebody explain to me why a "Professional" photographer using a D3 would use those in-camera parameters in the first place? So, you can afford a D3, you aren't really a "Professional" photographer (real editors would never accept files altered in such a fashion), but you don't know how to use/afford a RAW converter or use levels in Photoshop? Yup, I want my D3 to look like Kodachrome on a light table. Just show me the switch to reduce it's dynamic range down to 6 stops and render the file as imposible to reproduce becauseyou can't scan it worth a cr#p.

I do have to note several Leica users that chimed in and started the usual 'goose stepping' when yet another photographer showed a superior portfolio not taken with a German camera. That's par for the course. These are the same guys who claim that their lens on their 35mm rangefinder makes the film perform like medium format. Ever have an argument with a meth-head about drug reform? Same logic.

Otherwise, the D3 looks like an awesome machine. The Olympus E3 (the world's only Professional camera not bought by Professionals) will of course have far superior AF and I.Q. (har), but that's another bunch of lunatics to debate. Kudos to Nikon on this one otherwise. I'll happily eat some crow because I didn't think they'd go FF.
--
 
I loved the "goose step" remark....visions of Hitler Youth and such.

By the way, those pictures that the OP linked us to are awesome. Many, many great compositions.

Could it be that one can compose greatly with a Nikon? When did that feature happen? I need to get out more....

Too bad EOS fanboys cannot admit that many of those pictures show great compositions, regardless if one likes or agrees with the post processing.

As to "film-like", well that notion is Bu!! $hit.

Hahaha....Nikon seems to be doing great things...time will tell.
 
I know you love Nikon but

wrong forum, this is the Niikon forum

we use Canon and like it that way

--

Canon EOS 5D, 40D & prime lenses, Albuquerque NM contact me if you are local and want to take some pics
 
Scott Eaton said:
I read through the reviews linked in the original post, and have to
wonder if somebody with an IQ above 80 honestly needs in-camera
parameters to accomplish that kind of look.
Click to expand...
Euh... to save hours of post-processing and therefore meet a stringent deadline for instance?
Scott Eaton said:
I thought the D3 was marketed towards "Professionals" , so could
somebody explain to me why a "Professional" photographer using a D3
would use those in-camera parameters in the first place? So, you can
afford a D3, you aren't really a "Professional" photographer (real
editors would never accept files altered in such a fashion), but you
don't know how to use/afford a RAW converter or use levels in
Photoshop? Yup, I want my D3 to look like Kodachrome on a light
table. Just show me the switch to reduce it's dynamic range down to 6
stops and render the file as imposible to reproduce becauseyou can't
scan it worth a cr#p
Click to expand...
There are literaly thousands of photographers worldwide for whom the ability to deliver files very quickly is a life saver. Wedding, sport, news,... For all of these guys, a perfect jpg straight out of camera (with a RAW backup in case it is needed) is all they will ever need.

A fine art guy like me never uses jpg, but this doesn't prevent me from understanding that good jpg IS immensely useful for many people.

Cheers,
Bernard

-----------------------------------
http://www.light-of-earths.com
 
abqnmusa said:
I know you love Nikon but

wrong forum, this is the Niikon forum

we use Canon and like it that way

--
Canon EOS 5D, 40D & prime lenses, Albuquerque NM contact me if you
are local and want to take some pics
Click to expand...
--Good point. When the dust settles there will still all those big white lenses in front.

This isn't a magic bullet, and I think threads like this should be removed. yawn.

junk.

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-
 
It's the 21st century already. For the last 100 years serious artists have held that artistic expression means, among other things, being true to the medium in which one works. For example, remember the photographic dead end "Pictorialism" where photos were made that looked like watercolor paintings? You can look it up. While such photos may be pretty to look at they cannot help but call attention to the fact that they are frauds, one medium masquerading as another, artistically dishonest. Or take a car analogy, so popular here, remember when cars were styled to look like jet planes and rocket ships? Cute, but lacking artistic truth, form not following function, ultimately disappointing because the promise of "flight" can't be fulfilled by a car.

As a contemporary artist one has a choice to make between operating with a discredited aesthetic from 100 years ago that prizes deception or operating with a modern aesthetic where truth is prized. IOW if you want your pictures to look like they were shot on film, then they ought to be shot on film, anything else lacks truth. Continuing to add to the world's stock of anecdotal genre scenes, sentimental landscapes and weak portraits is not the artist's job any more, IMHO, how about something new?
--
JohnK
I like to see what things look like photographed in infrared
 
I shot film using a Kodak Retina Reflex (my Dads), a Pentax K1000 (bought is as a soph), several of the schools view cameras and 120s, and finally Nikon F bodies, and a Canon AE1.

I never got images that looked like those.

IMHO the look in those images is more the result of CS than the camera used.

--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.
 
Frank C. said:
Member said:
bearcat wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
generally crummy vs generally soft for Canon, but who wants
inferior flash, AF, and ergos anyways? funny you were smiling
at Nikonites but really the Nikonites were smiling back at you
also (!) LOL
Click to expand...
Haha, probably. :-) Remember, Canonites tend to be obsessed with sensors. 3 years ago, I didn't think Nikon was anywhere near Canon on that score. Now there are early reports that Nikon has not only caught up, but perhaps surpassed Canon in this area. That doesn't leave much for Canon to be ahead on, except for what I regard as a somewhat better overall lens lineup, at least for my needs.

I'm happy for the Nikon guys, I really am. Maybe I'll join your ranks if Canon continues to slip. More likely, the latest from Nikon will push Canon much harder.
 
Everything is pointing in a positive direction for this camera. I hope this continues, and Canon's breather is over.
Kevin Omura said:
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
Click to expand...
 
I agree with that. The 5D was the last really startling DSLR to come from Canon. Everything since then has been good, but more evolutionary. The 5D really redefined what was possible in this industry. Before it was announced, 90% of the people on the various forums would have argued why Canon couldn't and wouldn't create a camera as good as the 5D for so little.

Canon needs more mindblowing creations like the 5D.
jackkurtz said:
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
Click to expand...
 
JohnK said:
It's the 21st century already. For the last 100 years serious artists
have held that artistic expression means, among other things, being
true to the medium in which one works. For example, remember the
photographic dead end "Pictorialism" where photos were made that
looked like watercolor paintings?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that the plastic look of many current digital files will not be considered in 20 years from now as yet another photographic dead end?

Cheers,
Bernard

-----------------------------------
http://www.light-of-earths.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

007peter
Mirrorless Revolution: Times are Changing by luminous-landscape
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
141
SmoothGlass
S
G
Leica SL impressions from a Nikon D800e user
2
Replies
26
Views
348
LD_50
L
E
What did you know about the new 46MP's FF Canon camera?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
150
Rick Knepper
Rick Knepper
M
Luminous Landscape V1 Quick Take
2 3
Replies
40
Views
41
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson
M
DP2M: Steve Huff and Luminous Landscape
Replies
11
Views
24
JL Salvignol
JL Salvignol

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