D3 FRUSTRATIONS!!! Is just me??? Is there a solution?

[Drew Loker]

Ok, before anybody flames me...I am REALLY trying to like my D3. I don't have buyers remorse. I have only shot one small wedding...about a month ago...but have shot several events and numerous portraits. I love the camera for it's low light...and I have not even been much of a low light shooter...ever...until the D3. Who ever coined the phrase..."Master of the Night" in ref to the D3 is DEAD on. I can't wait to shoot football next year. I shot pictures under the safelights of our darkroom...truly amazing...a real paradigm shift when it comes to shooting at high ISO/low light. I am only at about 8k frames on the camera...and know things will improve with time.

But the FX impact on my available lenses is really starting to frustrate me. The focus sensors and overall focusing is also really frustrating me.

First, the lenses. I thought because I had several FX lenses...that I was going to be GOOD TO GO!

28-70 - a near perfect 42-105 lens on a DX body. I felt comfortable using it the entire wedding...or a bridal. Sometimes switching to 70-200 for some really shallow DOF...or for ceremonies. But for the most part...good for nearly 90% of the time. But now it is too wide. 70mm is just too short for closeup, tight shots. I had a person lean over to another and ask why I was standing so close when I was just barely filling the frame with the two of them. After that, I switched lenses for most the time remaining.

24-85 - on DX...36-127. Really nice on DX...used it when ever I needed something lighter...more versatility...mostly at receptions. Near perfect...absolute minimal loss in sharpness scarified from not using the 28-70. Definitely worth the extra range. On the D3...it vignettes to f8...making it almost useless as far as I am concerned. Probably not that big of a deal with many pictures. But enough of an issue to not want to use it.

28-105D - Just picked this up off Ebay this past week. Thought it was sharp enough...attempted to us it for three functions this weekend...and am COMPLETELY dissatisfied. I am not sure if is the focusing issue alone of the D3...or the fact that this is a used lens. First, it also has light fall off. Second, wide at 28mm is not acceptable. Focusing is definitely subpar. I knew going into the purchase that I was giving up AFs. I am not sure if it is a combination of the dimmer viewfinder, the lack of AFs, the lens itself, or the D3...but focusing on the 28-105 is subpar.

In fact, that brings up focusing in general. Sometimes, the D3 is stellar on focusing. Other times...it just plain does not focus as well as previous cameras. Maybe it is still a learning curve. I dunno. I meant to try a different number of AF points today...but it seems like that will lead to more inaccuracy challenges...of focusing on objects slightly out in front, etc. When the D3 locks on...it is dead on...and the 51 points helps make sure that it is in fact the eye socket in focus. But, that brings up the next thing. The spacing of the AF points. I don't understand how this is supposed to be acceptable. I know that there have been other threads about this...which is what brings me to the point of my post:

What is the solution? Is it just me? "I feel like I am taking crazy pills" (Zoolander)

D300? Sell D3? Use D3 for natural light stuff...shooting portraits with D200 (d300). Will Nikon fill the lens gap? Will Nikon make a D3 in a DX format..IOW...as capable in low light...but go back to the DX format?
--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

 

[J Kuek]

I shoot weddings with 80% 28-70mm (I appreciate the lens behaving like a REAL 28-70 again and DO NOT miss the DX crop at all... wide lenses were made wide for a reason and the DX sensor "wastes" this quality. For the other 8% I use the 14-24mm (brilliant) and the other 8% the 70-200mm and 1 5 the 60mmm and 3% the 85mm

Just LOVE this camera... focusing NEVER a problem once you get used to the different AF module - bang on and quick!

 

[Darth Vader II]

Update your lenses, perhaps? People never complain about 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3. Some states they're having little problem with 70-200mm (it front-focus sometimes).

The lenses I have since October (14-24mm and 24-70mm) works just fine for me. Calibrated my 70-200mm with in-camera focus adjustment feature.

--
Joseph Nicholas Spina
http://www.photozoid4d.com

 

[Drew Loker]

I don't understand why this is just me. Take a look at this gallery:

http://loker.smugmug.com/gallery/4451880_vAfus/1/261718326_EEtbQ

This was a couple of weeks ago. I was shooting with the 28-70. Feeling awkward. To fill the frame with one or two people, tight crop, I was standing just a few feet in front of them. WAY too close. Not to mention that facial features seem too elongated.

Then, at a bridal the next day (which I really can't open yet as she hasn't gotten married)...I did some shots with upper body...flowers held up hight. I had left my 70+ lenses behind...so was stuck with the 28-70. And ALL of the closeups make the poor bride's kind of large nose look even larger! It wasn't right.

I understand having different shooting styles. No problem. But the ideal portrait FL wasn't conjured up by me. 90-105 is the best focal length for people shots. And when it was a film, a 35-105 was a GREAT wedding lens. Just enough length to pull people in with out having to stand in their face.

But this is what is so confusing. The 28-70 was a popular lens way before digital SLRs. I just don't understand why. Why does it seem to be just me that is frustrated with the 28-70 being too short. At today's event, I was in a small room...and the minimum focusing distance for the 70-200 kept kicking me in the rear. Also, it was in a bar and VERY low light. The 28-105 was a dead stick from the first two shots. Even the 70-200 had trouble. Maybe I just haven't learned the best focusing mode yet...but I KNOW the D2h would have locked in with the SB-800 AF assist lamp. It was as if the D3 couldn't see the AF assist lamp.

Ok, so, obviously there are people who like wide shots over closeup tele shots. I get it. But why aren't there others having trouble with this? Surely not everybody is happy about shooting a wedding or a portrait at 70 or less? Surely others are not happy about flinging the flash bracket mounted 70-200 back and forth for verticals, etc. Somebody please tell me that I am not alone...or that you have come up with a solution. Because, all I know...is that since July 2002 I have been shooting with the DX format...and I am feeling REALLY uncomfortable right now!!!
--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

 

[Higuma]

Many of us have all been cursed to "settle" for the DX crop factor and thus either never learned - if young - or forgot - if old - to how to use wide angle to your advantage...

Before FX ( BFX ) I considered myself a "telephoto" shooter even with 75% of my portfolio coming from "event" work with most shots I made averaging around 70 - 120 mm effective FL...

Post FX ( PFX ) I shoot 80% with the 17-35 and 20% with 24-70 - I virtually NEVER shoot anything longer at events now AND my event shots have improved IMHO...

Bottom line is - it's a curve that many of us never even considered existed when making the "switch" to FX... But now that it's here, if you embrace it rather than fighting it you will be rewarded...

I realized PFX that the vast majority of my shooting with DX was simply too tight and - considering that most event clients RARELY want anything bigger than A4 - I have a TREMENDOUS latitude to crop a D3 file down to even 1/2 size and still make a wonderful A4 print... So even being too wide with FX is nowhere near a waste it was with sensors of 1 year ago...

In the end my ultimate solution was to have both a D3 and D300 on each shoulder during an event -- D3 & 17-35 D300 & 24-70 -- but the later still seldom gets used as the D3 is just that much better...

Remember as well that the added benefit of not shooting too tight is that we can make better "effective" use of the focus point layout of the D3...

I feel for your frustration - I had it too - but if you embrace and adopt you'll be rewarded... OTOH if you can't succumb to change then go a buy a couple of D300's and shoot away...

Cheers...

 

[C_4]

FX is simply not for everyone... Personally, I have less than zero use for an FX format sensor because I don't do wide shots.. For me, FX sux.. I came from a D2Hs, and a year ago with all the speculation as to whether the D2Xs successor would be another DX or a full-frame, I was really hoping for a simple upgrade of the D2Xs with faster continuous speeds (8-10 fps instead of 6 fps) and a major improvement in high ISO capabilities).. Instead, we got the D3.. Yes, it's an amazing sensor, but it's also full frame and with my suite of lenses, I simply can't use this camera; somebody argued to update your lens selection, but even if the cost of that was not an issue, I submit that there doesn't yet exist a lens/set of lenses (zooms, I don't do primes) that would fit the range required for my everyday needs in FX format.. I think Thom Hogan's zoom chart that he published recently says it all- there's like 3 zooms that cover a rather awkward range in FX and for me, the end points would force a heck of a lot of lens swapping..

Thus, although I was fully prepared to pay whatever it cost for an upgrade, because of the DX vs. FX issue, I ended up with the D300 and MB-D10 instead of the D3.. I would have preferred a real pro-body with integrated grip vs. the semi-pro body and separate grip, but that's what Nikon chose to offer in a DX-crop product and since I can't stand Canon ergonomics, if I wanted an upgrade, my only choice was the D300 route.. Yes, you can use the D3 in DX crop mode, but honestly, at a measly 5 Megapixels, it's just not a compelling upgrade from a 4.2 Megapixel D2Hs.. If it was at least 6 Mpix in crop mode, like the D2Xs offered in their HSC mode, we might have talked, but as it is, full frame is simply not the right choice for me..

If the Tamron 28-300VC was out and was on-par optically with the 18-200VR, again, I might have thought a bit more seriously about the D3, but that's just one lens, and it's spec'ed F6.3 at the long end, so in the end, it's not a really compelling reason, plus, the fact that Tamron seems to be even less reliable than Nikon at releasing products in a timely manner didn't help the argument much either (didn't they announce this lens like 10 years ago, and it's still not out? It certainly seems about that long since the annoucement)...

 

[Higuma]

"Events" and "Wedding Portraits" are different animals that require different techniques and equipment -- I agree that no many people look good shot with anything under 50mm - except Roger Rabbit's bride...

Events need one thing and Wedding formals another - perhaps a D300 in your kit would serve you better or supplement your style if used in conjunction with your current lenses as opposed to buying the glass you need to work with the D3 or changing your style too much...

Still think a D3 and D300 as secondary / supplement is your best bet...

Cheers...

 

[Drew Loker]

Thanks for the feedback. You certainly make some good points. Such as not shooting so tight to better use the AF point layout. And, because of the high res, it is not so necessary to crop so tightly...knowing it can be cropped in post. It is just that this goes against so many years of personal training and my own teaching in the classroom to CROP in the camera first.

You also mention shooting with the 24-70 on your D300. That is what I am drawing my conclusion today...to go back to two cameras..with the 28-70 on a DX body. I'll have to get a 17-35...but that does sound like a plausible plan. Do you really think it is necessary to upgrade my D200 to a D300? I also have a D2h that is pretty much relegated to BU duty.

But I don't get the idea of taking advantage of the opportunity to shoot wider. I mean, I understand wide. I feel like I know how to use it effectively. But how do you shoot people portraits, like table shots, and the bride and her made of honor standing in front of you...and you want a good tight shot. I mean, there are tons of examples when 70+ is needed. Sure, wide perspective is cool...but I just can't see how it is realistic to shoot even the majority of pictures at a wedding reception. I read your other reply...and I understand different equipment for different events. I understand this better than anybody I think. I have four DSLRs...ok, 3 pre-D3...and they all had their nitch. And I have a closet full of lenses. I love the 18-200 for lots of things...but it is useless on D3 (IMHO). I guess this is part of why I am so frustrated. BFX...I had the 28-70 for stuff that matter...and 24-85 for stuff that didn't (wife pretty much took over the 18-200 on D200 at weddings (and D40 when not shooting weddings).

I just don't know what to do to replace the 28-70 on the D3. The 24-85 isn't it. 28-105 isn't it. And I guess I am disappointed that I am going to have to put something else on the D3. I had already decided to keep my 10-20 as a great lens for the D200...not so much for weddings...but for non-wedding, non portrait stuff I like to do. It seems to me that the ultrahigh ISO benefit is minimized when you area talking about wide and ultra wide because it doesn't take super high ISO and shutter speeds to freeze that action.
--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

 

[Drew Loker]

Thanks for the feedback. That is exactly what I am trying to do. I just bought a 28-105 hoping it would be good enough. And either the one I bought isn't good enough...or my expectations where just too high. Slow focusing...and not good wide open.

I realize MANY, MANY people are happy with their 24/28-70s. I was too BFX. I just don't know what to get now. Trading in a 28-70 to get a 24-70 is a moot point. I want a GOOD lens for the 70-105 range...WITH OUT carrying around the 70-200.

--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

 

[goodpics]

Have you guys forgot that you can use the D3 in the DX mode. Don't worry about the 6MP, the D3 is a high res camera and the pictures will look great.

I have been to more than a few weddings where the photographers had D2x's and they were taking pictures at weddings using 6 MP and not the 12.

I always asked them why they used 6mp on a 12mp camera. Here are their answers.

1. Lower MP - easy file management
2. Less memory needed
3. faster in PP.
4. smaller memory card can be used.

None of them said anything about reduced image quality. Sure they took a few pictures at the higher MP, but 95% was at 6MP.

Did I miss something about D3 in DX mode. What's the problem with D3 in DX mode for certain shots.

 

[Drew Loker]

Thanks for the reply. It is something I need to consider more. But I KNOW I don't like the crop mode. I don't like still seeing the background. Annoying as all get out. it is like in Photoshop. I don't know why the set the shield for cropping at 75%. I always turn that thing to 98 or 99%. Somehow it is always getting reset...so that I am always having to change it back. Point is...Nikon should have made the shield darker. And that is just for starters. It just feels cramped. I dismissed it pretty quick...before I know what a challenge FX was going to be...perhaps I need to rethink it.

Although...it is only 5.2mp...not 6. Not that it is going to matter. I was using a D2h prior to the D3. AND I do NOT shoot a wedding on high res. Portraits and landscape as the only thing I shoot on the highest res.
--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

 

[D3 pusher]

you might laugh but I have a friend who just bought a 24-120vr for D3, I sold mine long time ago but seeing some of his new pix left me thinking about general purpose lense. He syas its toatally diffrent then was on my D200 that I used it with, dont know you might want to give the old girl another look!

Stan

Thanks for the feedback. That is exactly what I am trying to do. I
just bought a 28-105 hoping it would be good enough. And either the
one I bought isn't good enough...or my expectations where just too
high. Slow focusing...and not good wide open.

I realize MANY, MANY people are happy with their 24/28-70s. I was too
BFX. I just don't know what to get now. Trading in a 28-70 to get a
24-70 is a moot point. I want a GOOD lens for the 70-105 range...WITH
OUT carrying around the 70-200.

--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

 

[dehlers]

AF will be subpar with some of those lenses you mentioned. If it does not say "AF-S",

get rid of it. Also, sell your 28-70 and buy the 24-70. The 24-70 was designed with the D3 in mind.

 

[Higuma]

I'll have to get a 17-35...

This lens is not only great on DX but I honestly think that my D3 breathed a whole new life into it and at less than half the cost in a good used version it's a bargain compared to the superior new 14-24....

Do you really think it is necessary to upgrade
my D200 to a D300?

NO CONTEST = the D300 is a far superior piece of equipment to the D200 -Active D-lighting = sensor cleaner = higher shutter life = WAY better power management and then there is the grip with the amazing battery options = Lens Fine tune adjustments = UDMA write speeds = = = = = NO CONTEST

I also have a D2h that is pretty much relegated to BU duty.

It will serve this purpose VERY WELL too... Reliable and fast...

But I don't get the idea of taking advantage of the opportunity to
shoot wider.

It's a state of mind I think - give yourself over to the WIDE side Drew.....

I mean, I understand wide. I feel like I know how to use it effectively.

No offense - - I felt the same way until the D3 taught me that I really didn't understand wide as well as I thought - Big Wake up call... I too understood how it worked but it took me a long time to "GET IT"...

But how do you shoot people portraits, like table
shots, and the bride and her made of honor standing in front of
you...and you want a good tight shot.

Well ideally it would be very useful to have a 18-200 FX equivalent but we aren't just there "yet"...

This is were a 2 camera set up comes in.... 17-35@FX with 24-70@DX gives me 17-105 F2.8 constant with gold ring / L-glass quality optics = = = True I would die for that in just one lens - someday perhaps ???

I just don't know what to do to replace the 28-70 on the D3.

Don't replace it - put it on a D300 = great combo... then put a 70-200 on a D3 and you can shoot with only a 35mm overlap from 42-200...

At F2.8 constant with VR on the long end in combo with the BEST low Light sensor on the market - killer combo considering you like to shoot longer and tighter...

You need a D300 as secondary for your style and clients .......................

Cheers...

 

[Moonwalker]

Drew,

I've done lots of candids in the last 5 years, using DX cameras. Now I'm also in the process of getting used to the "new range" (or should I say old range?) of my lenses with FX. When you use DX cameras for 5 years on a daily base it's quite natural that you feel uncomfortable in the first few weeks. And DX actually did have one advantage: You could get an impressive reach compact lenses.

At the moment, I check each and every lens for sharpness, contrast and suitability. I try to figure out which lens combination suits me best.

First, I would change to the new 24-70mm lens. It's better than the old one (more contrast, better sharpness, I've done lots of tests with both lenses). I see the 24-70mm as my 17-35mm on DX - but with more reach at both ends (yes, it's wider AND longer). Of course, it's also heavier.

For the longer shots (candids) I'm still not sure. I'm currently testing a combination of primes (Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D, AF 105mm f/2D DC, AF 180mm f/2.8D lens). They are very compact compared to some zooms. I need a few more events to finally settle on a new solution. Of course, the 70-200mm lens would cover everything when combined with the 24-70mm lens, but the 70-200mm is very large and heavy.

Markus

 

[Lisperit]

Silly of me but looking at the gallery and reading your post I have the feeling that your height and the reduced distance make you shooting "down" , all the shots you took in that event suffer from this bad angle of view.
--
Lisperit

 

[paratom]

I can see your problem and while I am not a wedding photographer (just do hobby stuff) I allways found 70mm kind of short on film and same on fx.

Leica designed a 28-90/2.8-4.0 lens and this is something I wish Nikon would offer.

On dx they have the 17-55 and I really wodner why they did not design something comparable for fx.

Now Canon has the 24-105/4.0 (vignettes heavily at 24mm but seem sfine at 28mm) and hopefully Nikon will bring something comparable one day.

On the other side I nowaday use 50mm on the M8 (1.3x crop) a lot for portraits and it works pretty good. So is 70mm really that limiting? And a little crop can done easily.

Now I guess if 70 is too short and you want the high ISO of the D3 you might need to carry 2 D3-bodies, one with 24-70 and one with a 105/2.0DC, or, if 1600 ISO is enough for you maybe just use a D300 instead of the D3.

Something I also wondered: Has anybody tried to use the 24-70 with the TC1.4???

 

[jtan]

yup just you.... ;-)

 

[Georgi]

What about renting a couple of lenses before you decide to give up your D3?

Problem of course is that we now have so few FX lenses to choose from compared to crop lenses.

The 24-120 should suit you well and someone here was talking real good about the 24-85 or 28-85 or whatever

Tamrons 28-75 is supposed to be good too.

I had three rentals last week but my damn camera broke so I couldnt try them much.

I did take a few shots though but mostly fairly close up

 

[Georgi]

the 85/1.4>

There should be something similar to that 35-zoom you were talking about now, isn't there?

Also, why shoot flash when you have the D3? I don't. At 2.8 in a bar you should still be able to do it if you drop to 125th