Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon D3 and Oly E-3 direct comparison pair

Go to last post
D

David Kilpatrick

Veteran Member
Messages
5,438
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelso/Scotland, UK
This just one of many different comparison pairs I shot in a brief period of good sunlight (the only hour or so we have had the entire week) - rushing round a circuit of about a mile finding subjects I know and shoot often, so all hand-held just swapping the two cams. The raw files have been processed using CaptureNX and Studio 2 respectively, with 0 sharpening and whatever NR is built in (but the Oly 'Noise Filter' has been turned off as an option - it softened the image needlessly). The Auto WB has been allowed through 'as shot', and the tones are 'Standard'. In both cases here, the software was allowed to detect the use of Active D-Lighting Auto on Nikon, and Auto Gradation on Olympus; these are similar functions, and have in both cases much improved the balance between the big shadow area at the left, and the well lit zones.

Nikon D3:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/90004825 for the original (set to Level 10 JPEG as 12 was just too slow for pBase viewing)

Olympus E-3:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/90004956 for the original, ditto.

The EXIF data is below the images on pBase - comparable relative apertures (f6.3 for Oly, smaller format; f8 for Nikon, could have been f11 in theory I guess), both at ISO 200 (the E-3 has truly excellent noise characteristics at 200), both at about the equivalent focal length (16mm, 31mm); lenses 12-60mm Oly, 24-70 Nikon, both the new designs.

I have also processed these using ACR 4.3.1 for my own study. The Nikon image ends up much changed in density colour and contrast at normal defaults; the Olympus image is almost a dead match, gradation colour and exposure wise between Studio 2 and ACR - surprising that ACR was anywhere close.

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
... and I can't say which camera's wb worked best.

The D3 image looks too warm and the E-3 one too cold for me. Having said that, the Olympus sky looks much better but the D3 original has wonderful sharpness and detail - it's like being there.
 
Seems to be a good comparison. The difference in color balance is interesting. As far as noise goes, the D3 has the edge of course. The E-3 is so close behind it's hard to believe the sensor is half the diagonal size. Same with sharpness (viewed at original size), the D3 is slightly sharper, but it took flipping back and forth about 20 times to observe the difference. It's not worth $3300 to gain so small an advantage--the likes of the E-3, D300, and 40D are looking better all the time. (Course the dual card slots is about a cool as James Brown dancing--and any pro would want that option as well as the ultra low noise at much higher ISOs--this the D3 delivers. Still not worth the extra $3300 to me).

Cheers, Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
 
I wonder if the difference in WB would be as marked if you had shot horizontals rather than verticals. Given the position of the external WB sensor, it is more likely to be influenced by the colors of the ground, etc when tilted to the side. Also, did you hold both cameras the same way, meaning were the external WB sensors both leaning left/right?
Soph.
 
Miss Sophie said:
I wonder if the difference in WB would be as marked if you had shot
horizontals rather than verticals. Given the position of the external
WB sensor, it is more likely to be influenced by the colors of the
ground, etc when tilted to the side. Also, did you hold both cameras
the same way, meaning were the external WB sensors both leaning
left/right?
Click to expand...
I shot many pictures including horizontals and the answer is that the orientation of external sensors (not present on either of these cameras as far as I know) makes no more difference than taking a second frame without even shifting the camera an inch. Both cameras show their own consistency for any given situation, or even for similar subjects (open field, river, etc) in the same sunlight conditions. But each shot - even two shots in a row - can show a different Kelvin figure and correction in ACR. You can have six apparently normal shots with similar sky and stone colours and the WB shown in ACR will range from 4750 to 6050.

Generally, the Olympus shots look, relative to the Nikon, like this comparison. It is typical of the colour and contrast difference between the cameras when both are set to use a neutral rendering.

If you know where the external WB sensors might be located on the E-3 and D3 please tell me, because I can't see one on either.

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
David Kilpatrick said:
If you know where the external WB sensors might be located on the E-3
and D3 please tell me, because I can't see one on either.
Click to expand...
Between the grip and the lens, just under the sign "E-3":



--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist
 
very vibrant looking colours..simply the best DSLR so far!!!!

Thanks for the sample.

ABBAR
 
The E3 has an external WB sensor right underneath the E3 logo, but I should have done my homework and found out that the D3, unlike the D2, has no external WB sensor. Whether it makes a difference in this case I don't know, but the E3 external sensor can be switched off.
Soph.
David Kilpatrick said:
Miss Sophie said:
I wonder if the difference in WB would be as marked if you had shot
horizontals rather than verticals. Given the position of the external
WB sensor, it is more likely to be influenced by the colors of the
ground, etc when tilted to the side. Also, did you hold both cameras
the same way, meaning were the external WB sensors both leaning
left/right?
Click to expand...
I shot many pictures including horizontals and the answer is that the
orientation of external sensors (not present on either of these
cameras as far as I know) makes no more difference than taking a
second frame without even shifting the camera an inch. Both cameras
show their own consistency for any given situation, or even for
similar subjects (open field, river, etc) in the same sunlight
conditions. But each shot - even two shots in a row - can show a
different Kelvin figure and correction in ACR. You can have six
apparently normal shots with similar sky and stone colours and the WB
shown in ACR will range from 4750 to 6050.

Generally, the Olympus shots look, relative to the Nikon, like this
comparison. It is typical of the colour and contrast difference
between the cameras when both are set to use a neutral rendering.

If you know where the external WB sensors might be located on the E-3
and D3 please tell me, because I can't see one on either.

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo
Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
Click to expand...
 
Kirasir said:
David Kilpatrick said:
If you know where the external WB sensors might be located on the E-3
and D3 please tell me, because I can't see one on either.
Click to expand...
Between the grip and the lens, just under the sign "E-3":

Click to expand...
Well, I had better read the manual before writing it up - what a strange place to put a sensor, where my fingers end up obscuring it! It is probably reading my nice bright pink cold hands and making the shot end up cool in balance.

It never even occurred to me that this was a WB sensor - I assumed it might be an AF assist light, though I have not yet looked at the detail of the camera, I've just been trying it out.

David
--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
Bjorge said:
You are absolutely right
but did you spot the dust or pollen, above the left tower.
Click to expand...
Yes, it came fitted with loads of dust, and when stopped down to f16 or f22, you really see it. Many more small spots, not just this large curly bit.

The E-3 has been in use for many more actuations I think (if the file number means anything) and is totally clean.

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
I'm surprised really, at this "size" it seems that the Oly lens really can't keep up with the nikon. The sharpeness and local contrast on the Nikon is just far and away better across the entire frame! Just look at the branches against the sky, or even the grass in the shadows or sunlight. The D3 with it's lens is rendering it all crisply.

Very nice example though, I'm impressed. Though I would have liked it if the examples were normalized a bit during RAW conversion both for white balance and maybe shadows, as the Nikon seems to have deeper shadows (though again it might just be the lens)
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510
http://joesiv.smugmug.com
 
Small fortune - the point is not to show that the D3 is better. Heavens, it should be. Of course it should be. 12 megapixels over an entire full frame tested with Nikon's equvalent of telecentric digitally optimised new lenses (if you have seen the 24-70mm you will know what that entailed - a lens about as long as the average 200mm!).

The point is simply to show the what the two cameras do. No comment is really needed, unless it might be that at this ISO setting the E-3 is surprisingly good. Just look and see, it shows what you get for your money under nice bright everyday conditions.

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
Amin Sabet said:
Even though it was set to "0" sharpening.
Click to expand...
ACR is also supposed have some sharpening present at 0, because you can't deconvolve Bayer info without an element of edge enhancement. But using ACR on both formats, the difference is about the same.

I could show one or two examples which indicate that the E-3 has reduced sharpness on diagonal detail, but retains optimum rendering on vertical and horizontal edges, while the Nikon handles angled edges unusually well. The black railings to the left of the picture, with pointed finials, give a clue about this difference. A shot I have with triangular roof ridge ornaments (like the back of a stegosaurus) shows them as a blurred line from the E-3, but an identifiable AAAA ridge on the D3.

Capture One won't look at these files yet, or that would have given another way to compare the raw details.

David

-----
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
lightcaptures said:
Have you any more photos of Kelso Abbey. I love this place. I got
married over the road at St Andrews Church.
Click to expand...
Far too many photos of Kelso Abbey! It is 100 yards from our house, so it serves as a regular test target. They had locked the grounds - should not have been locked - as I went there with a different shot in mind and could not get in.

We have a good interior of St Andrews, architectural quality, shot on the Mamiya ZD digital SLR using the 35mm Mamiya lens (actually taken by Richard, son and heir, with me just watching and hoping he got it all straight - I don't like climbing on pews and using full extension tripods in churches, he is better at beating up church wardens).

Fortunately the town centre of Kelso, river, wildlife etc provide a decent range of test targets - but not when the weather is like this and it gets dark all day. Off to test the D3 in Edinburgh's German Christmas market and their floodlit open air skating tomorrow. Just wondering whether or not to lug that HUGE stupid 300mm. Shirley said I just looked like a right wally with that huge camera and enormous lens dangling between my legs. That sort of equipment is why I never became a real photographer. If the public can SEE you are a photographer, you have lost the game.

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
 
David Kilpatrick said:
lenses 12-60mm Oly, 24-70 Nikon, both the
new designs.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there is no impact of the lens differences on IQ. Price of Oly 12-60 is 900 USD whilst Nikon 24-70 2,000 USD. Wish I could see results from E-3 & 14-35mm f2.0 (2,000 USD) though the lens is not available yet. Oly claims the upcoming lens 14-35mm f2.0 would deliver the best IQ among all the lenses in the industry.
 
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