Nikon's advertising just may.....

[dave_s93]

It's hard to believe, I'm really at a loss for words. Anyway, thanks
for showing the picture.

I got it from the Nikon site. The site uses flash and resizes the image to your browser, so I took a screen dump of the image. Not exactly the best resampling algorithm either, since at some browser sizes, I could see jaggies.

It gets impressive due to the high shutter speed at low light (dusk) and the perspective from a true super WA lens.

 

[natureman]

NO, NO, NO, that is NOT the image in the ad here on DPR. I don't care what Flash does or how many other lame arguments people make. The image in the ad here on DPR is the small one I posted.

By the way, the image you posted looks pretty bad. Jaggies, noise, etc. (not your fault, I know).

 

[natureman]

Actually, you did say more than that.

Not possible with a 5D?? I disagree.

Whether I can do it isn't the question, or at least shouldn't be.
Nikon claims that only the D3 can get that shot. I say that's BS.

Motorcycle racing like that only occurs in my area in the summer and
very little even then. Right now it's very cold and raining here and
there are no motorcycle races going on. I don't photograph motorcycle
racing but I don't have to to know that that shot can be taken with
cameras other than a D3.

Besides, I doubt that many, if any, race tracks would let me position
a camera/tripod or myself and a camera so close to the action unless
I had the money from Nikon or another camera company to buy the
opportunity.

You dont believe that the photographer just went out to the edge of
the track and set up the camera so close to the action without
special permission, do you?

Money talks.

Actually all I said was that shot is not possible with the 5D or any
other current Canon save the 1D-MkIII. Not that it couldn't be done
by Canon.

Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

 

[Tuvok]

NO, NO, NO, that is NOT the image in the ad here on DPR. I don't care
what Flash does or how many other lame arguments people make. The
image in the ad here on DPR is the small one I posted.

I don't get it.

It's the same photo, just a different size. You even admit this. yet somehow you seem to think that because it was resized for the ad, that makes it a different photograph??!!

Tell me....If you have a photo, and you resize it for a web gallery, do you call it a different photo? If someone sends you an email saying "I want to buy a print of IMG_0156 from your gallery, do you print the 0.5MP web gallery version, or do you go to the high-res file and print that?

 

[dave_s93]

NO, NO, NO, that is NOT the image in the ad here on DPR. I don't care
what Flash does or how many other lame arguments people make. The
image in the ad here on DPR is the small one I posted.

Hmm. It looks like the same photo to me. The ad only had so much banner space, so it showed a crop of the photo. However, it is still the same photo. When the ad said that no other camera could take that photo, the were referring to the full photo, not just the crop that was shown in the banner.

By the way, the image you posted looks pretty bad. Jaggies, noise,
etc. (not your fault, I know).

I got it from the Nikon site. The site uses flash and resizes the
image to your browser, so I took a screen dump of the image. Not
exactly the best resampling algorithm either, since at some browser
sizes, I could see jaggies.

You evidently have reading comprehension issues with this paragraph. Let me rephrase this. The Nikon site uses Macromedia Flash to resize the photo to your web browser size. I could not save the photo, so I had to do a screen print, then crop out my browser. Like I said, the flash player does not do a great job of resampling, hence the jaggies. I had two choices, resize my browser to optimize the photo in terms or resampling, or to size my browser full screen and let people know that the resampling algorithm is not perfect. I chose to use full screen to get the largest image possible.

 

[natureman]

The version/size they used in their ad is the ONLY thing that really
matters, since that's the image they used in their ad.

You have to be kidding? Would you like Nikon to post 4200 pixel-wide
versions of their web ads in future?

I'd like them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Nikon are saying that no other camera can take that photograph. And
they are right. The fact that they have reduced the size of the
photograph in order to present it in a viewable fashion is
completely irrelevant to their contention.

No, it's the image in their ad where they make their ridiculous claim. That makes it relevant.

There's no
asterisk or anything else in the ad that says anything about other
image sizes being the standard or anything else that changes anything
about my original contention.

But there is a link to http://www.stunningnikon.com , where the viewer can
see the complete photograph that the ad refers to.

Their ridiculous claim is made in the ad itself.

Nikon didn't say "no other dslr on the planet could take a photo that
could be cropped and downsized and then compared to this
massively-downsized, cropped version of our 12MP photograph which
we've put in this ad".

Maybe they should have.

Come off it.

Why?

Apparently you missed my post where I said the method used to take
that shot isn't necessarily the only one that could be used.

No I didn't. I ignored it. Because then it wouldn't be the same shot.
Which takes us right back the the point....No other DSLR could have
taken that photograph. Some may have come close, but in one way or
another the shot would be substantially different. Either in DOF,
perspective, quality or all of the above. Different = Not the same.

So, you're saying that the way that photographer got that shot is the ONLY way anyone could do it? What if, instead of putting the camera on a tripod and using a remote control, he had sat on the track and shot it handheld? That would be a different method, you know. What if he had used a 5D and a 14mm lens and pushed it to ISO 6400? There are other methods that could be used too. Use your imagination.

No matter how you try to spin it, Nikon are right. There is no other
current DSLR that could take that photograph.

Hogwash.

As someone else has said, prove them wrong. Or if you can't, find
someone who already has. If you're so convinced that the shot is
easily reproducible, then surely someone over the last 30 years has
done it. Best of luck.

Yeah, like I have the time to do that, or the access to the millions of motorcycle racing photographs that have been shot over the last 30 years. Besides, I doubt that anything I could produce would satisfy you anyway.

5D's AF and lag are woefully inadequate.

That's where skill comes in.

No, that's where luck comes in. And patience. And overnight
accommodation, so you can try again the next day.

No, skill.

There is no comparable lens available for the 1DIII, and the 1DsIII
doesn't get to 6400. And if it did, it would be too noisy.

There are lots of comparable lenses. Like I said before, it wouldn't
have to be a Canon lens.

Yeah? Name one. The closest would be the Sigma 12-24, but it's slower
and 16mm on a 1DIII. At over a stop slower, I doubt the 1DIII's AF
could have kept up compared to the Nikon 2.8. Also a rather large
change in perspective, taking us back to the point once more...No
other DSLR could have taken that photograph.

Any good 14mm lens ever made that can be set to f4. F4 is what was used to get that shot. With the resultant large DOF with a lens that short, critical focus is not a major concern. Even manual focus could be used. That's where some skill comes in. Again, use your imagination.

I think some people might debate your noise
statement regarding the 1Ds MKIII, especially with the image size in
the ad, and even larger.

I really don't get this obsession you have with taking about the tiny
web version of the ad???? It's weird. If Toyota had a car web-ad that
said "No other car uses less fuel than this one[pictured], would you
claim that it's obvious, because the picture in the ad isn't a real
car, it's just a photo of one? So it doesn't use any fuel. Sounds
stupid, doesn't it.

Your comparison is flawed. Nikon isn't promoting the motorcycle in the ad, they're promoting the picture itself, and the camera that shot it. In your example, Toyota would be promoting the car, not the picture of the car.

With a 14mm lens and the subsequent large DOF, critical focus
wouldn't be a major concern. Take a look at the full image on the
Nikon website. There's a ton of DOF.

Right. So you're now saying a 5D might be able to do it, so long as
focus isn't really important?

No, I'm saying that with the large DOF of a 14mm lens, critical focus wouldn't be a major concern. The DOF in that shot is huge.

No, I said that with the large DOF of a 14mm lens, that "critical
focus" wouldn't be a major concern. Just look at the full image at
Nikon and notice the abundant DOF. Seems to me there's a lot there to
work with.

Right, so you're saying exactly what I said.....That a 5D may not be
able to nail it, but it doesn't really matter???!!!

See above.

Nikon, and all the other companies, should just get real and quit
saying ridiculous things in their ads.

OK, so prove them wrong [or find someone who has], and sue them. Best
of luck, because you haven't got a snowball's chance.....

Do you work for Nikon by any chance?

 

[blankj]

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, tooth fairy...get the picture? And then we grew up.

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Me either, and I shoot motor sports for a living, glad to see this forum is just as ridiculous as the Nikon ones

regards
Ray

No flash, very low light, inches away from a motorcycle going at very
high speeds

Ive never seen it before . . .

--
http://www.insidewithin.com

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[gtrookie]

Can anyone name another DSLR that can produce a very usable photo with similar or better IQ at 14mm, iso 6400, 1/5000, f4? If not then the D3 IS the only one and therefore the ad is right!

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Obviously you have never been close to a race bike moving directly across you FOV, close and across is a world of difference vs. coming more towards you 100+ feet away... besides I think the goal here was to freeze each spark.

Being inside on a corner is totally safe as long as you dont move onto the track, its 100% impossible to crash to the inside, imagine falling on a high speed merry go round, your sure as heck not going to fall towards the center.



No doubt about it bikes are always going to move out and in the general direction they are going, cars....not a chance in heck I would be anywhere near the track inside or out....I will take my 400 thank you



Look at all the motion blur, this is a slow corner and I was farther away and panning from a cherry picker (1/640th) , closer and with a static camera you would easily need 1/5000th to compliantly freeze the bike (and sparks)



just an FYI the sparks are from titanium screws in the pucks, it would suck to be the guy behind you really get a shower

I dont think Nikon ad was saying its the best image around, but the poster I got looked like my D2x shots at only 800iso, that ad is 6400 folks! wedding shooters are probably wetting themselves thinking about it!

regards
Ray

Besides, to get a shot like that, it isn't necessarily a must that
ISO 6400 be used.

The 1ds III can't do 6400
The 1d III can't do 14mm

Case solved, that was simple.

--
http://www.insidewithin.com

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Where where you when my friends and co workers bought there Canons, these fools bought MKII's, they are going to be ticked when they read they could have saved thousands and bought 5d's

regards
Ray

5d cant match that iso performance and youd have to have the guys
whiz around the track for quite a while while you try your luck with
the focus. Your best bet would be to have some kind of trigger
system with the focus preset. If the 5d's focus could do that thered
be no point to the 1d III. Have you shot much with a 5d? Its a
killer camera that im very pleased with but its not a sports camera
by any stretch of the imagination let alone extreme settings. The 5d
cant track a person running in circles in a living room, try it!

--
http://www.insidewithin.com

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Your DOF would be way to shallow at 50 f1.2.....next

Lets put a 50mm 1.2 on a 5d and move back a few feet and build a
remote shutter release with a super long cable.

Sure the perspective would be a little different but the shutter
speed would be fast because the 1.2 Canon lens is much faster than
the slower Nikon zoom. And you really would not need ISO 6400 again
because the 1.2 Canon is so much faster than the much slower Nikon
zoom.

Not to mention Nikon still has a really big weakness in its lens line
up with no super fast short focal length primes.

And the plain fact of the matter is you always get better IQ with a
fast prime than by bumping up the ISO.

I seriously doubt anyone would care about the perspective difference
if this image was captured using a d3 and a 14mm zoom or a 1ds2, 5d,
or 1d3 and super fast prime.

Unless it was a photographer whose camera and lens were destroyed
because an out of control bike ran over it.

--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[PerL]

Nikons does deceptive marketing because a 14 mm super WA shot with dramatic perspective could just as well have been shot with a Canon 50 mm at F 1.2??

Can anyone name another DSLR that can produce a very usable photo
with similar or better IQ at 14mm, iso 6400, 1/5000, f4? If not then
the D3 IS the only one and therefore the ad is right!

--
Small first D300 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d300_first
Small D200 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d200_12
Small D40 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d40_12
Small Nikon P5000 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/nikonp5000_12
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

 

[RedFox88]

I think they were getting at the fact they used iso6400 and 14mm for the image. But they also used 1/5000 which was unnecessary.

A 5D could have gotten the shot at iso3200 1/2500. There were other images posted of their setups and they had 3 d3's with flashes setup on the track remotely controlled.

 

[RedFox88]

The 1ds III can't do 6400
The 1d III can't do 14mm

They used iso6400 for the sake of using iso6400

The 5D (over 2 years old now) could have captured the same image with a 14mm prime, iso3200, f4, 1/2500. The nikon also used a fill flash to illuminate the subject to reduce the noise that would have resulted from a backlit subject.

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Obviously you have never been close to a race bike moving directly across you FOV, close and across is a world of difference vs. coming more towards you 100+ feet away... besides I think the goal here was to freeze each spark.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=26049457

again I think the thing Nikon wanted people to take away from this is that is was at 6400iso, have you been able to check out the poster from the ad?

regards
Ray

I think they were getting at the fact they used iso6400 and 14mm for
the image. But they also used 1/5000 which was unnecessary.

A 5D could have gotten the shot at iso3200 1/2500. There were other
images posted of their setups and they had 3 d3's with flashes setup
on the track remotely controlled.

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[Cultured Vulture]

The 1ds III can't do 6400
The 1d III can't do 14mm

They used iso6400 for the sake of using iso6400

The 5D (over 2 years old now) could have captured the same image with
a 14mm prime, iso3200, f4, 1/2500. The nikon also used a fill flash
to illuminate the subject to reduce the noise that would have
resulted from a backlit subject.

No, you couldn't. If you shot at 1/2500 the motion would not have been frozen as it was. Look at the full image. Take a look at the front brake rotor. The cooling holes are only slightly elongated. Slow the shutter speed down and they would be a streak. If you see the poster of the image you can see the highlights in the riders eye. Blue by the way. The 1DIII backed up a little would have had a better shot. The 5D, no way.

--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

 

[PerL]

I think they were getting at the fact they used iso6400 and 14mm for
the image. But they also used 1/5000 which was unnecessary.

Freezing action with a super WA close is something else than with a tele.

A 5D could have gotten the shot at iso3200 1/2500. There were other
images posted of their setups and they had 3 d3's with flashes setup
on the track remotely controlled.

Is that flashes - looks like receivers for remote control?

--
Small first D300 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d300_first
Small D200 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d200_12
Small D40 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d40_12
Small Nikon P5000 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/nikonp5000_12
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

 

[Canoneyesed]

If you didn't see the technical details such as ISO, aperture, etc. would you think this was such a great shot that no other camera could have taken?

Because usually those details are not shown in most advertisements.

 

[Canoneyesed]

You really think you'd have noticed the holes weren't there if the shot was taken without them visible? Talk about nit picking. You think switching to ISO6400, and ending up with more grain in the shot is worth seeing some holes in the shadows where no one even looks?

Let's face it, Nikon liked the shot because it was ISO6400 so they can tout that one feature they have over the competition.

Technically speaking, the photographer did a poor job of taking the pic because he should have chosen better lighting for the situation. This was after all an ad shoot not a spur of the moment race shot.

Tell the truth the shot would actually look better if it was at ISO3200 1/2500 with less grain, and without the holes that are barely noticeable anyway.