real world example wedding photos Nikon D3 v Panasonic GH1

photo shot by newspaper reporter with some kind of Nikon D3

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2010/08/05/injured-soldier-walks-down-aisle-for-bride-84229-27002936/2/

compare

photo shot by wedding photographer with GH1 and Leica 25mm

http://youdidntdidyou.com/photostore/Victoria_and_Jonatho_g1901-Victoria_and_Jonathons_Saint_Patricks_Church_Hartlepool_wedding_photos_p49542.html

ps
shot by different reporter with a Nikon
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Hero-soldier39s-battle-to-make.6451750.jp

--
'the rule of 4 thirds'

Ha! Really? I don't think this speaks to the quality or either camera, nor would any one comparison. A bad photographer with a D3 is still a bad photographer.

That's exactly what I thought while looking at the pictures.

These look like snapshots with no or bad post processing and surely something went wrong when they were resized for the web.

Martin

PS: Gimme a Nikon D3x and I can take pictures even more worse than these

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Carpe diem' or 'go out and shoot some pictures' ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that the point and what everyone says? It is the photographer that matters most and not the equipment?

that was the point I was making that it's the photographer not the camera.
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'

The D3 is many times better than the GH-1. I owned the D3 for over a year but now shoot with the GH-1.

The D3 is in another class (as it's supposed to be)

But, I can still get incredible images from my GH-1 (it just takes a little more work)

--
'More mega-pixels does not mean better photos!'

M4/3 is a nice format and I like it a lot but comparing it to my D3 is just not even close. I have yet to get an image that I have said wow that is as good as my Nikon. The image from the D3 are not a little better they are way better. This is my experience you of course are free to believe whatever you like.
--
Enjoy the Day

Paul Guba New Jersey Photographer
http://www.gubavision.com

the wedding I photographed was attending by 2 press photographers who ended being a nuisance (interupting my work flow, blocking shots, trying to take wedding away).

The link to my picture I posted I chose because it was similar in position to the press photographers (wasn't for artistic merit/composition etc)
anyway side by side comparisions



his D3 image, he was also either bracketing or shooting in burst mode



my image shot as a jpeg with GH1
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'

I am a wedding shooter using D3s and D3x and also for leisure a very happy mFT user but there is absolutely no comparison between the 2 cameras. For all significant photographic purposes the D3 is a far better camera from AF to DR to noise ,and you posted tiny web sized images from a website as the your evidence . Put both cameras in competent hands and processed equally well and the advantages of the D3 will be very clear.
Jim

--

the annoying press photographer with the D3 obviously thought they were "good enough" for national print and web, should wedding images need lots of post processing?
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'

YouDidntDidYou said:

the annoying press photographer with the D3 obviously thought they were "good enough" for national print and web, should wedding images need lots of post processing?
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are not going to win this argument.

What you are comparing here is a cr@ppy shot taken with a D3 to a better shot taken with a GH-1.

The Nikon D3 is a way better camera period!

Now, is it $3000 better? That's another debate! (I will never spend the sort of money I spent on my D3 ever again. Technology has advanced too much. I believe within the next 3-5 years, high end camera's will be no more than $2500-3000)

--
'More mega-pixels does not mean better photos!'

Neil, in 3- 5 years from now the definition of high end camera will change, and perhaps, you will have to pay hefty extras for this high end camera (it definitely will not be D3)

NeilJones said:

The Nikon D3 is a way better camera period!

Now, is it $3000 better? That's another debate! (I will never spend the sort of money I spent on my D3 ever again. Technology has advanced too much. I believe within the next 3-5 years, high end camera's will be no more than $2500-3000)

--
'More mega-pixels does not mean better photos!'

Click to expand...

--
DSC-R1, DMC-G1(14-45)

YouDidntDidYou said:

the annoying press photographer with the D3 obviously thought they were "good enough" for national print and web,

Click to expand...

Obviously so did the editors of the website , and do you really think a 460 x 280 website image gives any indication of a cameras true output ,

YouDidntDidYou said:

should wedding images need lots of post processing?

Click to expand...

Did i mention "lots of processing “i believe I very clearly said "equally processed" and all images are processed to one degree or another?. Either using RAW conversion to personally control as many parameters as you can or by using OOC jpegs and relying on the in-camera processing. There are no areas of image quality in which the D3 does not outperform any mFT camera, and the only factors which favour the GH1 are size and price.

--

You've provided us with links to low resolution images that are poorly posed and executed. Of course the differences have to be the camera! If you believe that, then I suggest that none of the cameras involved are worth a nickel.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT

I bet there are people with medium format cameras who do not consider the D3S high end at all. I know NASA has cameras that make the D3S look like a P&S. Conversely, there are still people using E-3s and D2S's. It's all relative. You just have to pick where you draw the line at what is good enough.

With apologies, but that's what I thought, too.

It's first of all a back lit situation. The staging itself was poor. The Nikon did it's best to properly expose the subject, and could have been adjusted. The Panny clipped black severly it seems to me.

But more importantly the Panny is very heavily distorted.

Oh well. Nice try anyway.
--

I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.

This is just plain silly. Do you have any training in science to know how to compare A to B to see any real difference?

YouDidntDidYou said:

photo shot by newspaper reporter with some kind of Nikon D3

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2010/08/05/injured-soldier-walks-down-aisle-for-bride-84229-27002936/2/

compare

photo shot by wedding photographer with GH1 and Leica 25mm

http://youdidntdidyou.com/photostore/Victoria_and_Jonatho_g1901-Victoria_and_Jonathons_Saint_Patricks_Church_Hartlepool_wedding_photos_p49542.html

ps
shot by different reporter with a Nikon
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Hero-soldier39s-battle-to-make.6451750.jp

--
'the rule of 4 thirds'

Click to expand...

obviously this wedding comparison proves nothing. But then the comments that the D3 produce clearly superior results is equally unsubstantiated. So far I can only compare results with the G1 and 14-45 v the D700 (which should be much the same as the D3) using the 17-35, 50 1.8 AIS or 70-300 VR. As the 17-35 is my favourite of these lenses (although the 50 is also good), I prefer to test against this. A kit lens v a pro lens should heavily favour the FF camera. In RAW, with images from both cameras receiving standard precessing best suited to them, I find usually virtually no difference in pixel peeping, other than a fractionally cleaner look to the Nikon. Certainly the D700 can deal better with badly exposed shots as there is somewhat more exposure latitude and the superior high ISO means that dark interiors are more likely to be successful as well though the difference I have found to be surprisingly marginal as often you can use a lower ISO with the G1 (both because of the greater depth of field and, in my case, the absence of IS on the Nikon which I realise is not entirely fair but then you might also say that it's only fair if everything is done on a tripod in which case of course ISO is irrelevant) -- if you have dark and movement though I guess faster glass such as the 20 is needed, otherwise the G1 could struggle here.

So, for those who maintain the difference between the two cameras is like night and day, I would very much like to hear what kind of shots we are talking about and if the superiority is because top of the line pro lenses are used for instance? Even better would be 100% crops

thanks,
David

David

Interestin arguments. Consider that the standard ought to be 35mm film imagery coulpled with the "Good Enough" measure. That is, do the images look like the come from a Nikon F1 shooting medium speed slide film? If so are they not "good enough" for a wedding album and isn't anything more useless overkill?

tedolf said:

Interestin arguments. Consider that the standard ought to be 35mm film imagery coulpled with the "Good Enough" measure.

Click to expand...

Aye, my thoughts as well. I have become more fussy of late about what defines "good enough" but again and again I'm surprised what this baby can do and I guess with the 20 it would do even more. Post-processing is critical, as of course is shooting in RAW so you can do proper post-processing in the first place.