Reading mode: Light Dark

Will D3 give me better IQ than this(pics)

Go to last post
C

carauction

Veteran Member
Messages
6,662
Reaction score
101
Location
US
I am very happy with my D300 ergonomics wise. But I am very critical of IQ. I have a feeling that the D3 would be more satisfying to me as far as resolve, texture, Dynamic range, and shadow noise. I shoot raw, and was extremely impressed by Phil's review of how raw capture can increase DR very close to the Fuji S5.

I am a serious hobbyist, and am thinking about trading up to the D3. The D3 seems like a camera that I would be content with for a couple of years.

Like I said, I am very critical of my images. Assuming I shot these exact same D300 images with the D3. Would I be able to see a difference in the areas that I have mentioned above? And I do shoot raw, so any headroom that is available, I will pull out.

I could possibly have used a CP to remove some background haze, but that is not the issue.

replies much appreciated

Mike







 
I bought the D3 to replace a D200 for better color and bit depth. My take is that images from other cameras (including the ones you posted) tend to be a bit "flat" by comparison. D300 images seem a bit more colorful than D200 images, but still, I expect the images would be better with the D3 sensor.

Have you thought about waiting until July 2nd?. If there is a smaller lighter cheaper D700 with the same sensor, I'd go with that, "cool" as all the D3 pro features are.
 
Love these photos, but of course a D3 will give better quality it's a better camera.

Tim
 
Thank you both.

I kinda feel that I need more than what I am seeing from the D300. I do need to keep a better eye on the photography end, but as I am getting a better feel for technique, my gut says that I can get more out of my images with the D3.

mike
 
David Rosser said:
I don't know about IQ but you would have to use cropped mode or
invest in new lenses with 1.5x the focal length of the one(s) you
used for the pics you show to get the same field of view.
Click to expand...
It is only the IQ that I am looking for answers to.

Thank you David.
 
Those pictures are neither very sharp (oh maybe the pre-last one is) and the lens doesn't seem to be too good (did i see a slight halo around bright objects?), plus the pictures seem flat and they lack contrast and punch. If that's what you're looking for, get the D40 - it will be enough. You don't need D3. You need better lenses and better processing IMHO.

But 100% seriously - D3 will get you more than S5, surely much more confident picture taking. D3 is an amazing device. I would never use it above ISO 6400 cuz of the severe loss of colours but ISO 6400 is still great and very usable even on large prints. D3 has a steep learning curve to get into all details, but even at first sight you can take great pictures.
--
Fun stuff - http://adamkozlowski.deviantart.com
 
Yes, the D3 will give you better IQ. It gives you better color. I usually tell people that to me, the difference in color is like the difference in color with 'regular' glass and ED glass. There's just more 'there'

I noticed the same when I got a 5d. When I traded up to a 1d mark III, I went to an APS-H sensor and the image just looked a little flatter.
--
http://www.flickr.com/joostassink
 
JoostA said:
Yes, the D3 will give you better IQ. It gives you better color. I
usually tell people that to me, the difference in color is like the
difference in color with 'regular' glass and ED glass. There's just
more 'there'

I noticed the same when I got a 5d. When I traded up to a 1d mark
III, I went to an APS-H sensor and the image just looked a little
flatter.
--
http://www.flickr.com/joostassink
Click to expand...
Joost - is the D3 a significant step up in quality from the 5D? Don't you miss the lenses like 85 1.2?

Cheers,
Rob

--
Rob
5D / 24-70 2.8L / 85 1.2L II
 
carauction said:
I have a feeling that the D3 would be more satisfying to me
as far as resolve, texture, Dynamic range, and shadow noise. I shoot
raw, and was extremely impressed by Phil's review of how raw capture
can increase DR very close to the Fuji S5.
Click to expand...
Whatever people (who own the D3) may say here, it is less relevant than improving your shooting and processing skill. Yes the D3 may be better technically, but the pics you showed are less than optimal because of tonality etc. One cannot say it often enough: Normally it is the hobbyists who spend thousands in the hope that this gives them better pictures. It doesn't. Maybe sometimes sharper pictures with a little bit less noise, but this is irrelevant next to the difference between a good photograph and a boring one and between a well processed image and a poorly done.
carauction said:
I am a serious hobbyist, and am thinking about trading up to the D3.
The D3 seems like a camera that I would be content with for a couple
of years.
Click to expand...
Well, you think you will NOT feel tempted by a higher pixel model next year, with more bells and wistles? Come on....
carauction said:
Like I said, I am very critical of my images. Assuming I shot these
exact same D300 images with the D3.
Click to expand...
You would most likely not shoot exactly the same images, because you would have to use a longer (and more expensive) lens that handles differently etc.

But honestly: IF you are critical of your images - and it is almost the most important thing - first work on your technique, improve your ability to see interesting perspectives and to process the shots accordingly. You haven't done optimal processing in these pictures, and it doesn't cost anything except time and effort.

But if you want to play with tech toys, buy the D3 today. "it rocks", as they say, it just won't make you a better photographer...

regards
bernie
 
I have to agree heartily with the above.

Ultimately, the answer to the OP's question is yes, the D3 should give you better image quality. I think the IQ is quite amazing myself. However, the D300 I don't think is that far behind and the difference will be very small at the lower ISOs anyway. You may be disappointed if your new toy doesn't deliver on some pretty lofty expectations. Your images could probably really pop if you did some minor PP on them, such as pulling down some highlights, increasing contrast, etc. The basic raw material I have to assume is pretty good already.

Just be careful about what you expect from full frame -- it's not the panacea many people think it is. You'll run into vignetting and sharpness issues you didn't on the D300. You'll be tempted to stop down to get more DoF or sharpness, thereby mitigating any speed improvement on the D3. Or you'll have to run a 1.4x converter on your lenses to gain back the loss in reach, again to the detriment of quality (not necessarily from the converter, but from having to increase ISO to compensate for the slower lens combination).

On the other hand, I've been blown away many times with the D200 under studio conditions. I had been prepared to write it off as junk when the D3 came out until I took some properly exposed studio images with a basic CLS umbrella setup that were stunning. So, as it has been mentioned, proper lighting and exposure is key to any good shot. Excellent IQ has been in reach for a long time and was possible before the D3 -- just that the D3 allows you to get this great IQ well into high ISOs.

That being said, I love my D3, so you have my permission to buy one immediately. :)

Martin
 
Hi Rob,

Yes, the D3 is a significant step up from the 5D. The sensor IQ is very similar at low ISOs but as soon as you reach ISO 1600, the D3 takes off. I have biased my WB to A2 to get the slightly warmer feel of the 5D images, but the D3 is what I wanted the 1d mark III to be.

The biggest differences are build and most importantly speed. The AF, shutter (9 fps and 300.000 actuations!) and image processing is on a whole new level from the 5d. I hated shooting RAW on the 5D because it was so slow. So, you get the sensor IQ from the 5d, with increased high ISO performance and the build and speed that matches the 1d series (although the AF on the D3 puts the 1d mark III to shame.)

I have had the 1d mark III and was so fed up with the problems after receiving my 3rd body with no improvement that I made the step and I am still glad I did.

I think many things on the Nikon system are much smarter/better thought out. Nikon's philosophy is that you must be able to control the camera with as many mechanical buttons and levers as possible to be able to switch blindly (like AF) or have direct access to important features like Mirror-Lock up, Bracketing, and flash options, like slow synch or rear curtain synch.

Canon has most of these features in menus that require you look at the LCD or dive deep into the menus when changing them. Also, the Nikon flash system is much better than the Canon system. Combined with the D3, I got better flash exposure and white balance. Nikon CLS rocks and you get much more control with flash programmes etc.

Even the LCD on the SB-800 gives you much more information than the 580EXII even though the latter is a much more recent design (which stole from the SB-800). The SU-800 is a breath of fresh air after having used the ST-E2 for a few years.

Having said that, I just posted another thread that I do miss the 85mm f/1.2 II. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is not bad, but it can't match the Canon lens. However, the 85mm f/1.4 will very likely be updated in the months/years to come.

The other things I miss from the 1d mark III (I wrote this in another post recently) are the comfort of the vertical grip of the mark III (it's deeper, so it feels more like the horizontal grip and you can wrap all your fingers around it completely) and the ISO button at your fingertips, so you can change ISO without taking the camera from you eye. I also liked that the 1d mark III showed both exposure compensation and flash exposure compensation on the vertical scale in the viewfinder. However, none of these things matter to you if you are switching from a 5d, because it has none of those features.

Finally, I don't like that Nikon's shutter release buttons are flush with the body (whereas Canon's are not). On the Nikon camera I have trouble not pressing the vertical shutter release when I am holding the camera with one hand, like when I'm reviewing and deleting images (especially with a large lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 VR). The mouse of my right hand then presses the vertical shutter release, which is a pain when you're chimping. I know you can turn it off, but that's a pain and it has made me miss pictures, because I forgot I had turned it off. I wish the design would be more like the Canon design where it's hard to push that button inadvertently since they lowered the button by taking a 'scoop' out of the vertical and horizontal grip.

Sorry for the long OT post. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming

Having
Rob UK said:
JoostA said:
Yes, the D3 will give you better IQ. It gives you better color. I
usually tell people that to me, the difference in color is like the
difference in color with 'regular' glass and ED glass. There's just
more 'there'

I noticed the same when I got a 5d. When I traded up to a 1d mark
III, I went to an APS-H sensor and the image just looked a little
flatter.
--
http://www.flickr.com/joostassink
Click to expand...
Joost - is the D3 a significant step up in quality from the 5D?
Don't you miss the lenses like 85 1.2?

Cheers,
Rob

--
Rob
5D / 24-70 2.8L / 85 1.2L II
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/joostassink
 
carauction said:
I am very happy with my D300 ergonomics wise. But I am very critical
of IQ. I have a feeling that the D3 would be more satisfying to me
as far as resolve, texture, Dynamic range, and shadow noise. I shoot
raw, and was extremely impressed by Phil's review of how raw capture
can increase DR very close to the Fuji S5.

I am a serious hobbyist, and am thinking about trading up to the D3.
The D3 seems like a camera that I would be content with for a couple
of years.

Like I said, I am very critical of my images. Assuming I shot these
exact same D300 images with the D3. Would I be able to see a
difference in the areas that I have mentioned above? And I do shoot
raw, so any headroom that is available, I will pull out.

I could possibly have used a CP to remove some background haze, but
that is not the issue.
Click to expand...
These pictures wouldn't have been different if you had taken them with the D3 and used the same postprocessing as in the samples you showed.

The flat looking pictures and bluish colour cast is your fault, and I have a strange feeling these pictures are converted with an Adobe converter. Try to use CaptureNX2 and the colours would have been improved dramatically.

Regards
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen
  • OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)
 
Great posts. Some thinking to do.

Thanks all, you have been very helpful and honest.

mike
 
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