Adman222820
Leading Member
Okay, maybe not, but I don't feel quite so passionate about needing an "x" any more......
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
An argument against the D3x???
- Thread starter Adman222820
- Start date
Rickard Hansson
Senior Member
That image could have been taken with an D70 as well, is that something against the D3x or against your camera?
No offense, but I see no reason to show us that image and then ask if it is an argument againt the D3x.
--
Rickard Hansson
Sweden
No offense, but I see no reason to show us that image and then ask if it is an argument againt the D3x.
--
Rickard Hansson
Sweden
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Pretty confusing. Most amateurs absolutely have NO need for this camera! It is a camera designed for making serious money with very serious clients. If you don't have these clients, then it is an incredibly expensive TOY. End of story.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
Loren Soth
Well-known member
Enough said! 
--
Cheers!
Loren 'Lord Soth'
--
Cheers!
Loren 'Lord Soth'
What's wrong with having expensive toys? It's not hard to drop $8,000 in less than a minute in Vegas, at least the D3x will last about 18-months before the bottom falls out. The D3x is a cheap bet.
Adman222820
Leading Member
Adman222820
Leading Member
--
I seriously doubt the D70 would pick the detail out of the foiliage - but yes, the D70 could most certainly shoot the same scene.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
That photo is a pretty poor argument for not need a D3x. I do agree that most people really do not "need" a D3x. However, your photo does little to make that point, particularly at web sizing. If you're happy with it that's all that matters. I'm not saying it's a bad photo. It's just not a photo that screams "detail".Okay, maybe not, but I don't feel quite so passionate about needing
an "x" any more......
But my my first reaction from looking at this photo was that the buildings were all mush, no detail. If you put up a side-by-side comparison of a D3 and D3x and they both looked like mush then you'd have something. As it is I'm left wondering if the D3x could have provided more detail.
--
Mike Dawson
Adman222820
Leading Member
--
Your argument states I don't need the D3 either. I disagree that the "x" is an expensive "TOY" as you put it. Expense is relative. Some people buy fine wine, some people buy hifi equipment worth more that a home. One of the things I choose to spend money on is camera gear.
I really love how judgemental people are on this board. You are entitled to your opinion of course, however your comment isn't constructive at all.
Adman222820
Leading Member
--
Fair comment Mike however I think the 14-24 at the 14mm end (where this was shot) has more to do with the "mush" that you so eloquently describe.
Thanks for letting me know your thoughts though - that's exactly the kind of critique I'm looking for.
Cheers
Adam
Overexposed (or horrendeous post processing).
Was it shot in raw? If yes, pls upload the file.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
Was it shot in raw? If yes, pls upload the file.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
Adman222820
Leading Member
--
Hmmmm........beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.......here's the shot right out of the camera...., converted to jpg, no pp.
Beauty yes. Is overexposure and lack of contrast too in the eye of beholder?
Useless. I offered you to verify and show you if and how much is overexposed, in raw, before conversion . That is not what you see in and after raw processing.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
John200973
Senior Member
Crop it to just 1.5 and it becomes a very good arguement for a D3X. Then print it 16X20 YIKES>
Adman222820
Leading Member
Use yousendit.com
No registration is required up to 25 MB size; the registration is free and allows sendig files up to 100 MB. My email address is in my profile.
Pls understand it: I do not need your raw file for myself. I am offering to help you seeing it differently from what the raw converter is showing you. Talking about correct exposure while viewing a JPEG image is unserious.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
No registration is required up to 25 MB size; the registration is free and allows sendig files up to 100 MB. My email address is in my profile.
Pls understand it: I do not need your raw file for myself. I am offering to help you seeing it differently from what the raw converter is showing you. Talking about correct exposure while viewing a JPEG image is unserious.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
Adman222820
Leading Member
--
Hi Gabor
Would love to see what you can do with it. I just sent it to you. Feel free to post it back into this thread.
Cheers mate.
Adam
Adam, I need to say clearly:
the shot is not overexposed
Look at the raw histogram:
A few windows got clipped; negligable. In fact, you could have exposed one stop higher, causing clipping only on following area (and a tiny bit more):
However it would have been of more use to shoot it with ISO 100 (supposed you shot it from tripod), i.e. with more light; the foliage would be even cleaner.
Crops would do more justice to the image than what you posted. Btw, the image contains details, which need some work to bring out:
Apologies for the unfounded accusation.
Before I forget it: if you are using ACR, do apply a -0.25 EV "exposure adjustment", for ACR applies automatically +0.25 to all D3X images, except ISO 50. From that point, you may decide for increasing or decreasion the intensity, but first you should see the unadjusted status.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
the shot is not overexposed
Look at the raw histogram:
A few windows got clipped; negligable. In fact, you could have exposed one stop higher, causing clipping only on following area (and a tiny bit more):
However it would have been of more use to shoot it with ISO 100 (supposed you shot it from tripod), i.e. with more light; the foliage would be even cleaner.
Crops would do more justice to the image than what you posted. Btw, the image contains details, which need some work to bring out:
Apologies for the unfounded accusation.
Before I forget it: if you are using ACR, do apply a -0.25 EV "exposure adjustment", for ACR applies automatically +0.25 to all D3X images, except ISO 50. From that point, you may decide for increasing or decreasion the intensity, but first you should see the unadjusted status.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum