Compare these shots at 3200 or 6400 and then ask this question again. I would expect every modern dslr today to compare favorably to the D3 at base or near base ISO.
Dave
--
Dave
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon D3 and Oly E-3 direct comparison pair
- Thread starter David Kilpatrick
- Start date
lightcaptures
Forum Enthusiast
Here's a picture I took a couple of years ago of the abbey.
Follow the link:
http://lightcaptures.co.uk/Documents/kelsoabbey.html
--
Iain
http://www.lightcaptures.co.uk
Follow the link:
http://lightcaptures.co.uk/Documents/kelsoabbey.html
--
Iain
http://www.lightcaptures.co.uk
L
Lin Evans
Guest
Why would anyone "want" to take these two shots at anything "except" the best possible ISO for image quality?
If shooting sports at a poorly lit facility or doing event photography where flash isn't allowed I can see the absolute utility of having superior high ISO performance, but there are few places in general photography where exceptionally good high ISO performance is either necessary or desired. Anything above ISO 800 for most photography is pretty questionable anyway so though your point is taken that the D3 may indeed be the best high ISO camera available today, it's rather moot for this comparison. It's essentially horses for courses.....
Best regards,
Lin
If shooting sports at a poorly lit facility or doing event photography where flash isn't allowed I can see the absolute utility of having superior high ISO performance, but there are few places in general photography where exceptionally good high ISO performance is either necessary or desired. Anything above ISO 800 for most photography is pretty questionable anyway so though your point is taken that the D3 may indeed be the best high ISO camera available today, it's rather moot for this comparison. It's essentially horses for courses.....
Best regards,
Lin
terdonal
Veteran Member
Sorry, not too sure what relevance that really has to a lot of users period. I doubt very much that the E3 was really expected to go up against the FF D3 or MKIII or shoot at 3200 and up.
To those willing to pay that much for a camera of the D3s quality it probably does.
--
Terry
http://www.pbase.com/terdonal
dpreview supporter
pbase supporter
FourThirdsFAQ -> http://www.fourthirdsFAQ.com
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
I go over 100 ISO about twice a year. High ISOs just look nasty. They might look a little less nasty with the D3, but they are still worth avoiding.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
were pointing out about me, because this is a camera forum. On the CAMERAS, nobody who has used one for less than a month is going to be able to get the best out of it. Standing there in front of an abbey, going "click click" and shoving them out through a couple of RAW processors without even bothering to match the shots for WB, let alone sharpness, tells you absolutely nothing.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
L
Lin Evans
Guest
Hi Louis,
No, just a color match and sharpness correct and correction of some jpg artifacts. It's not necessary to work from the RAW files for what I have in mind - in fact I've already made the corrections but won't post unless I get David's O.K.
It's not an attempt to make the E3 equal to the D3 - it's not. It's just some changes to better compare the two under more similar color and sharpness primarily to show slight differences in highlight and shadow handling and in color detail and clipping.
The E3 image is fine as it was originally presented - I just wanted to more or less equalize color and sharpness.
Best regards,
Lin
No, just a color match and sharpness correct and correction of some jpg artifacts. It's not necessary to work from the RAW files for what I have in mind - in fact I've already made the corrections but won't post unless I get David's O.K.
It's not an attempt to make the E3 equal to the D3 - it's not. It's just some changes to better compare the two under more similar color and sharpness primarily to show slight differences in highlight and shadow handling and in color detail and clipping.
The E3 image is fine as it was originally presented - I just wanted to more or less equalize color and sharpness.
Best regards,
Lin
OM4ever
Forum Enthusiast
I would think this would be hard to induce, even intentionally.
One could create a fixture that produced adjustable vibration
on the horizontal axis.
Thanks.
That seems to eliminate my (not well considered) scenario. I have no
previous experience with IS in my own cameras.
An interiguing point about basing mechanisms in camera (that naturally
arises from your note above), is that there is so much more potential to
address the complex dynamics at work.
So its another area where film based system limitations may present
an opportunity for competitive innovation.
I look forward to this kind of thing.
I saw the figures somewhere. I am a little wary of issues that may be
present in this 1st generation of their IS. Both in terms of performance
and reliability. Having said that, I tend to "trust" them more than most.
Jan
OM4ever
Forum Enthusiast
There are significant differences when comparing kit lenses and
available lenses.
I agree to some extent, if you were referring to sensor capability.
Jan
available lenses.
I agree to some extent, if you were referring to sensor capability.
Jan
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
I think the RAWs should be given to people familiar with the cameras to get the best out of them. And I suspect they would then come out more or less identical.
I'll try it myself once both cameras are second nature to me.
I don't, personally, think fiddling with the JPG will fix it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
I'll try it myself once both cameras are second nature to me.
I don't, personally, think fiddling with the JPG will fix it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
L
Lin Evans
Guest
Hi Louis,
Not trying to "fix" anything - I really don't see anything to "fix" just equalizing the color and sharpness to account for the differences in defaults. There are not too many people "familiar" with the D3 yet so I hope you get the opportunity soon to get acquainted. I don't have the E3 yet - it's on its way from B&H - so don't have the Olympus RAW converter except in ACR 4.3.
You can still tell lots about the two cameras by the jpgs. It's obvious that the D3 has lower noise but no lack of detail. The E3 appears to do a better job with some colors and the flatness of the Nikon in the flower detail could be do to default noise reduction smearing. Because of the extreme detail on the D3 and the incredible lens, there is no chromatic aberration and even if the noise suppression is at greater default it doesn't seem to "hurt" the image except possibly in the subtle detail of the flowers. In any event I think for average sized prints, perhaps up to 11x14 or so one would see little differences between the equalized images. On an interpolated enlargement I think two megapixel advantage to the D3 and the better lens would be more apparent but for the cost of the differential the E3 is a pretty fantastic tool.
Eventually I will probably get a D3 for use where it's applicable but doubt I will use it for wildlife because it will require too much heavy hardware to equal the four thirds telephoto boost.
Best regards,
Lin
Not trying to "fix" anything - I really don't see anything to "fix" just equalizing the color and sharpness to account for the differences in defaults. There are not too many people "familiar" with the D3 yet so I hope you get the opportunity soon to get acquainted. I don't have the E3 yet - it's on its way from B&H - so don't have the Olympus RAW converter except in ACR 4.3.
You can still tell lots about the two cameras by the jpgs. It's obvious that the D3 has lower noise but no lack of detail. The E3 appears to do a better job with some colors and the flatness of the Nikon in the flower detail could be do to default noise reduction smearing. Because of the extreme detail on the D3 and the incredible lens, there is no chromatic aberration and even if the noise suppression is at greater default it doesn't seem to "hurt" the image except possibly in the subtle detail of the flowers. In any event I think for average sized prints, perhaps up to 11x14 or so one would see little differences between the equalized images. On an interpolated enlargement I think two megapixel advantage to the D3 and the better lens would be more apparent but for the cost of the differential the E3 is a pretty fantastic tool.
Eventually I will probably get a D3 for use where it's applicable but doubt I will use it for wildlife because it will require too much heavy hardware to equal the four thirds telephoto boost.
Best regards,
Lin
Ben Herrmann
Forum Pro
Of course, I could also be going blind.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
are seeing is different defaults. But I think those need to be equalised at the beginning of the chain, before half the data has been chucked away in the conversion.
2MP isn't much, and I would expect an E3 to be able to hold its own fine with a D3 at 100ISO. Whether it actually DOES we will have to see, but two unequal conversions tells me nothing.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
2MP isn't much, and I would expect an E3 to be able to hold its own fine with a D3 at 100ISO. Whether it actually DOES we will have to see, but two unequal conversions tells me nothing.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
notpc
Senior Member
You are clearly upset over evidence that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions. And your name-calling discredits any actual point that you may be hinting at.
OM4ever
Forum Enthusiast
What evidence? Are you a Troll Denier?
Jan
Jan
I understand the D3 has in-camera sharpening levels 0-9, and defaults on 5.
What in-camera sharpening level would you say that compares to in the E-3?
To juxtapose pictures out of the box like this, maybe the E-3 should have
some sharpening applied too, instead of it's default level 0?
I'm reluctant to beleive that Nikons D-Lighting is equal to Oly Gradation (SAT).
SAT is pronounced as a new technology, that handles pixel-to-pixel DR and contrast, and does a lot of advanced evaluations on the pixels and elements in the picture, while D-Lighting applies something more like a trad. curve functionality over the frame. Any thoughts on that?
And do the RAW converters apply Gradation settings in the same manner as the
E-3 camera does, by the same evaluations and algorithms?
In other words, will applying Gradation i PP via RAW and EXIF-info give the same
results as applying Gradation via in-camera JPEG processing?
To be fair, both should be captured at base ISO,
E-3/ISO 100 and D3/ISO200.
joe bloutner
Member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
If you look at the stone building, it is clear that the Olympus image actually has more detail. Sharpen the Olympus image a bit and you will see. Look at the upper face. A DOF issue?
Additionally, you said that you set the Nikon raw converter on 5, as zero seemed to add blur. I severely doubt ANY raw converter adds blur at a setting of 0.
From what I've seen the Canon 5D would beat both in detail.
Additionally, you said that you set the Nikon raw converter on 5, as zero seemed to add blur. I severely doubt ANY raw converter adds blur at a setting of 0.
From what I've seen the Canon 5D would beat both in detail.
Anthony Cheh
Senior Member
Louis:
Don't forget that the "base" ISO on the D3 is 200, not 100. 100 is an electronically adjusted sensitivity and not likely to be the highest quality setting.
Tony
David Kilpatrick
Veteran Member
Nice view. For a few different views, see:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?st=0&lic=6&lic=1&ns=1&qt=kilpatrick+kelso+abbey&go=1&a=-1
But one or two non-Abbey pix creep in to that search.
David
--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com) and Master Photo Digital
Currently writing for f2 and the BJP
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum