 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / September 2007OMG! The D3, A Wedding Photographer's Dream Come True!
Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to be a thing of the past. I'm starting to worry that the old Mk III just might be a lame duck and get its neck chopped before it fully matures in less than 18-month. AMAZING! <http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html> Rita > Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic > range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita Well, I wouldn't go that far yet. But it's shaping up to be one hell of a camera and priced at $5k AUD it's only twice the price of the amazing Fujifilm S5 and gives you about twice the functionality. Seems more value than the nearly $10K of the Canon. I'm still not convinced the dynamic range is there but I didn't get a chance to do much with the eval unit. Limit of 10 shots per person. Doug >> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > convinced the dynamic range is there but I didn't get a chance to do > much with the eval unit. Limit of 10 shots per person. Personally I think it is underpriced and going to be a steal at $5k. I've seen pics from the S5 and while they are much better than the D200 there is much room for improvement. I don't think the S5's functionality is nowhere near what the D200 is. The lame menus and layout of the S5 make it unusable for me. As for the D3's dynamic range, it is there. You're forgetting the samples you are seeing come straight out of the camera in JPG. I can't wait to see what can be done with RAW. The D3 seems like it is going to be a winner. Rita > Well, I wouldn't go that far yet. But it's shaping up to be one hell of a > camera .... Hey, D-Mac, who wrote this? "Yeah I read that one. I also analysed the images. I guess the old saying: "never let the truth interfere with a good story" applies in spades to these sites where the owner has signed an agreement with Nikon. Sort of like taking a picture with your hands tied behind your back." Actually, I changed the word Canon to Nikon. It was D-Mac's reply to when I showed him a link to MR's 40D preview. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-40D-handson.shtml D-Mac's point was that you should beware of the shills. >> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Doug Um I think someone is confused, it's actually $5k US not AUD, from what I have been told by NPS and several resellers, they are expecting it to be around the $7.5k mark AUD Mick Brown >>> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >>> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mick Brown IF, Mick IF you buy through the Australian "Channel". I got quoted February next year delivery for one. My local HK contact can deliver a couple 2 weeks after their release and at under $6k each. Doug >>>> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >>>> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Doug I have been told by NPS that if I buy from grey market, I will not get the support from them that I normally get. For example while my D2Xs is in getting repaired at the moment, NPS have given me a loaner. So even though it is cheaper, I can't afford to not get that support. Mick On Sep 24, 6:08 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > I'm starting to worry that the old Mk III just might be > a lame duck and get its neck chopped before it fully matures in less than > 18-month. AMAZING! Dibs. >> I'm starting to worry that the old Mk III just might be >> a lame duck and get its neck chopped before it fully matures in less than >> 18-month. AMAZING! > > Dibs. Er...on Rita or on the Mk.III? And his basis for comparison is what? Another Nikon? Agreed it looks good, but they all do. Didn't the 1DIII look great before the little focus issue cropped up? > Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic > range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita > And his basis for comparison is what? Another Nikon? Agreed it looks > good, but they all do. Didn't the 1DIII look great before the little > focus issue cropped up? It's irrelevant to even ask for a comparison since there isn't a dSLR on the market that even comes close to this level of image quality and performance. Sure, the Mk III has great image performance an really performs at high ISO, I just think that after looking at these JPG images from the D3 that the Mk III is going to be trailing in the performance arena. As for the "focus issue" of the Mk III, I'm sure Canon has fixed most of that by now. I don't think any Canon shooter think they will ever see a pro dSLR body that doesn't have any bugs and/or needs at least six firmware updates in the first year of release. I have absolutely no complaints about the Mk III and I would highly recommend it. Rita > It's irrelevant to even ask for a comparison since there isn't a dSLR on > the > market that even comes close to this level of image quality and > performance. Please post your production samples of RAW shots at full res for the rest of us to see. Be sure to shoot them under controlled conditions side by side with something like the 1DIII or the 5D so we can do an actual comparison, rather than all these idiotic "gee it looks great" posts. Then again, you're probably just trolling, as usual. >> It's irrelevant to even ask for a comparison since there isn't a >> dSLR on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > actual comparison, rather than all these idiotic "gee it looks great" > posts. NO! > Then again, you're probably just trolling, as usual. Looks like I must have hooked a sucker. Rita > Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic > range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html> All that is fine, but the really important question is, how does its STRAP rate?? >> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >> dynamic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > All that is fine, but the really important question is, how does its STRAP > rate?? It's a Nikon; there's no question that the strap will be wonderful. Rita is definitely right here: the strap will be the best thing about the camera. David J. Littleboy davidjl@ducking.for.cover.com Tokyo, Japan On Sep 25, 8:08 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic > range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to be a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rita Given the quality of those images, I don't want to rain too heavily on this parade... but I would make the following comments: 1. Those are *superb* wedding shots. (He's almost as good as I used to be (cough).. (O; ) Seriously, his 'eye' is excellent, he has a great knack for being in the right place and shooting at the right moment, and of course he is working in a wonderful location (and one he is probably used to, which makes a big difference). By the way, Doug, can you post *anything* at all in this league? (O; 2. Those images are only ~600 pixels wide for chrissakes!!! Even a god-awful Panasonic FZ50 (and certainly my Fuji 9500) will give smooth noise-free-looking high-ISO images at *that* size. Here's a slightly exaggerated example - a snapshot taken a couple of days ago on my Fuji *prosumer* at 1600 ISO, in far lower light levels, reduced from 3400 pixels to 600. Byebye noise. (Hand-held, leaning against a post on a pub balcony, 1/4 sec, f2.8). http://www.marktphoto.com/coonabarabran.jpg That's clearly not meant to be an artistic masterpiece, just a simple demo of how ridiculous it is to make any judgement of a camera's high iso ability from an image of *that* size. It looks fine, but note the bloody awful noise in the full-res crop... By the way, I can thoroughly recommend the Imperial pub at Coonabarabran - I got a pork/ beef roast meal there to die for (skip the garlic bread tho..) Now what were we talking about.. oh yeah.. I'm not suggesting that the D3 is not going to be a great camera, but those shots are great because of the photographer. And while they say very little about the D3's noise characteristics, I'll concede the colour looks pretty good. Kudos to the photographer - great work. On Sep 25, 6:11 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > 2. Those images are only ~600 pixels wide for chrissakes!!! Even a > god-awful Panasonic FZ50 (and certainly my Fuji 9500) will give smooth > noise-free-looking high-ISO images at *that* size. Yessir, at web resolutions Noise becomes Detail. Your point is a good one. The D3 might turn out to be a fine camera, but we'll never know by looking at small JPGs from pre-release versions. BTW, has Nikon chosen a year for release yet? > On Sep 25, 6:11 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > BTW, has Nikon chosen a year for release yet? Won't see this camera for about a year LOL! BTW, Walmart sells a Spider man camera that shoots VGA resolution pix for just $19 >> BTW, has Nikon chosen a year for release yet? > > Won't see this camera for about a year LOL! Bullshit! I've already got my D3 and have been enjoying it. <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/Nikon_D3.htm> Rita On Sep 25, 8:11 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > 1. Those are *superb* wedding shots. (He's almost as good as I used > to be (cough).. (O; ) Seriously, his 'eye' is excellent, he has a > great knack for being in the right place and shooting at the right > moment, and of course he is working in a wonderful location (and one > he is probably used to, which makes a big difference). Too true. The first shot in particular is absolutely amazing: what a moment! I wish I could shoot anywhere near that. And it's not a particularly challenging technical shot: just an absolutely magical moment! > 2. Those images are only ~600 pixels wide for chrissakes!!! Even a > god-awful Panasonic FZ50 (and certainly my Fuji 9500) will give smooth > noise-free-looking high-ISO images at *that* size. Thank you for pointing this out. I've only been saying it for years, but it's good to see others start to draw it out as well. However: given some of the claimed ISO settings, I have to be impressed by the intensity of the colours and how well gradated and detailed they look. Something I can't see in most high iso 1dm3 shots: they look like someone brushed a watercolour with a wet rag. > against a post on a pub balcony, 1/4 sec, f2.8).http://www.marktphoto.com/coonabarabran.jpg yeah sure, but the thing is: the colours look a bit drab and sort of the overall olive brown tone of a stretched ISO shot. The colours in the high ISO d3 examples are brilliant, well saturated and very contrasty. That augurs well in my book. > bloody awful noise in the full-res crop... By the way, I can > thoroughly recommend the Imperial pub at Coonabarabran - I got a pork/ > beef roast meal there to die for (skip the garlic bread tho..) Crap! You had to mention pork pies and a beer in Coona, dijntya? :-) > I'm not suggesting that the D3 is not going to be a great camera, but > those shots are great because of the photographer. And while they say > very little about the D3's noise characteristics, I'll concede the > colour looks pretty good. Kudos to the photographer - great work. Yeah, it's the high iso intense colours that I'm finding amazing as well. We'll see: still early days. > > 2. Those images are only ~600 pixels wide for chrissakes!!! Even a > > god-awful Panasonic FZ50 (and certainly my Fuji 9500) will give smooth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but it's good to see others start > to draw it out as well. I can't remember who it was, maybe Scott W or Mark M, who posted a really good example of this. He posted a small image that looked fine, and then posted the original from which it came - half of it was absolutely horrible, and yet when reduced, you couldn't pick it from the good side. > I have to be impressed by the intensity of the colours > and how well gradated and detailed they look. I agree, and we have to take his word that they are straight out of camera. But then you also need to take into account the environment he was shooting in - the (no doubt expensive) lighting looks as if it was wonderfully soft and even, if low. That makes for good results, like shooting in the golden hours, or with a huge softbox/reflectors, or even just a suitable sheer-curtained window.. > Something I can't see in most high iso 1dm3 shots: > they look like someone brushed a watercolour > with a wet rag. Yes, I have seen some of those.. )O: > yeah sure, but the thing is: the colours look a bit > drab and sort of the overall olive brown tone of > a stretched ISO shot. No, that's the drab colour of old regional street lighting... (O: But your point is taken - I wouldn't put the Fuji's colours and dynamic range up against a DSLR of the D3's calibre. My point was just about noise. > Crap! You had to mention pork pies and a beer > in Coona, dijntya? :-) Haha! One of my very favorite towns, especially as I have an interest in astronomy (for astro heads, Coonabarabran=Siding Springs=AngloAustObservatory=David Malin (now retired)=the best astrophotography ever...). And it's a good 'two thirds' point for my trips from Pt Lincoln to Brisbane, which are rather frequent. Long drive, that one... But I digress... > Yeah, it's the high iso intense colours that > I'm finding amazing as well. We'll see: still > early days. It certainly looks as though the D3 is going to be a talking point. Maybe in ten years I'll buy a second hand one, when it comes into line with my budget.. (O: On Sep 26, 6:34 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > trips from Pt Lincoln to Brisbane, which are rather frequent. Long > drive, that one... Holy cow! You're not wrong!... > It certainly looks as though the D3 is going to be a talking point. > Maybe in ten years I'll buy a second hand one, when it comes into line > with my budget.. (O: Welcome to the club... On Sep 25, 6:11 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > 1. Those are *superb* wedding shots. (He's almost as good as I used > to be (cough).. (O; ) Seriously, his 'eye' is excellent, he has a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > By the way, Doug, can you post *anything* at all in this league? I think you give that Nikon guy too much credit. I mean he totally missed the traditional Wedding Cake / Filing Cabinet shot! > Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic > range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita Without the white borders, these images are NOT EVEN basic VGA sized! I love it when someone rants and raves about a camera or lens then posts little postcard images. Full sized crops please! >> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > posts little postcard images. > Full sized crops please! They look just as good. Rita > Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great dynamic > range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography is going to be a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html> Well, he is a heck of a wedding photographer, anyway. You still have to pay attention to lighting, even with a D3.  SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, he is a heck of a wedding photographer, anyway. D-Mac > You still have to pay attention to lighting, even with a D3. Absolutely. I find that true with the Mk III as well. You have to admit that there is a hell of a lot of dynamic range in the church and candle shots. I know with the Mk III that was my first "WOW" factor. And the Mk III still amazes me. The D2x(s) never wowed my like the Mk III in the area of dynamic range. Rita >>> Simply amazing! The D3 simply sees in the dark and has such great >>> dynamic range it is beyond belief! It looks like flash photography [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Rita I originally bought my first Panasonic for it's low light capabilities. Sounds odd, doesn't it? A camera know for it's high ISO noise being a good low light camera. The thing is... These little critters can take a pin sharp picture at 1/15th of a second if you rest your elbow on a wall or something solid so using high ISO is unnecessary. They don't produce any horrible shadow problems like Canon's croped sensor cameras do either. Few people move at a church ceremony and I can switch off the speaker so the camera works silently. The deciples all think you have to use ISO 3200 and 1/125th to do the same thing. Wrong! Well you do when a bloody great mirror is rattling the hell out of camera with foot long glass lens on it and you're trying get creative while hand holding it all. As for having shots like those? Sure do but after the sheep did me over stealing some proof I posted for a client, I'm not about to show them here, no matter how good they are. Doug > As for having shots like those? Sure do but after the sheep did me over > stealing some proof I posted for a client, I'm not about to show them here, > no matter how good they are. > > Doug Douggie, not even in the wettest of your wet dreams do you have shots like those. Don't make me prove it. Try as we might it is hard to forget Bridezilla and the back of people's heads lit up with horrible shadows on the walls. >> As for having shots like those? Sure do but after the sheep did me over >> stealing some proof I posted for a client, I'm not about to show them [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Try as we might it is hard to forget Bridezilla and the back of > people's heads lit up with horrible shadows on the walls. Well for that matter... I've got some amazing pieces of absolute sh.t from a leading (in his own mind) wildlife photographer working out of Chattanooga, Tennessee just sitting in a directory on a web site I maintain in his honour... Wanna play? Doug Sorry, left out the link. Here's Dougie's best: http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/ Note the superb use of vignetting, the arm coming out of her cheek... Genius. Compare Doug's work to: http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html (Rita's original link) http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/weddings/index.html Scroll down and take copious notes, aspiring wedding photographers... You can see why they gave Cliff the camera to try out on a wedding. Didn't Doug say he was only allowed a 10 shot trial on a new camera recently? (O; On Sep 26, 6:51 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > Compare Doug's work to:http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html while we are on comparisons, this guy got to me a while ago: http://www.phototeka.net/index.php in particular, this one: http://www.phototeka.net/weddings/preparation/index.php?num=3 has never left my mind. I prefer it in b&w, but colour is not bad either. A simple shot, but to anyone who is a father of a little girl, it touches deep. Amazing how much can be achieved with so little. > in particular, this one:http://www.phototeka.net/weddings/preparation/index.php?num=3 > has never left my mind. I prefer it in b&w, but colour is not bad [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > father of a little girl, it touches deep. > Amazing how much can be achieved with so little. I think a nice caption could make it even better. "OK, who left Uncle Pervy in charge of the Bridesmaids?" http://www.phototeka.net/weddings/preparation/popup_img.php?img=/04.jpg > I think a nice caption could make it even better. > "OK, who left Uncle Pervy in charge of the Bridesmaids?" for someone incapable of being a father, you are remarkably up to speed with perving. I suppose it comes with the territory... > > I think a nice caption could make it even better. > > "OK, who left Uncle Pervy in charge of the Bridesmaids?" > > for someone incapable of being a father, > you are remarkably up to speed with perving. > I suppose it comes with the territory... You really are a piece of crap, aren't you, Loons? Why don't you stop and look around for a minute and see how many people are calling you out for being such a butthole. I thought the guy that called you a "turd burglar" had it about right. You offer nothing to the group but anger and hostility, even going so far as to call the Angel, Helen, a "BITCH." You are a loser, Noons, so I'm flushing you like I would any smelly turd. I'd done with your ignorant a.s. > I'd done with your ignorant a.s. That should have read, "I'm done with your ignorant a.s." FLUSH! >> I'd done with your ignorant a.s. > > That should have read, "I'm done with your ignorant a.s." > > FLUSH! Me too please! Doug > You really are a piece of crap, aren't you, Loons? I learned from the master: you! > Why don't you stop and look around for a minute and see how many > people are calling you out for being such a butthole. Really? All I hear is you, butthole, and your cohort of trolls. NO one else. Why would that be? > You offer > nothing to the group but anger and hostility This from the pice of sh.t crap troll that has not once provided ANY information to anyone else other than "the 20d does it this way because I say so". >, even going so far as to > call the Angel, Helen, only in your mind, low-life pimp. > a "BITCH." Every single time she puts up cross-posted or off-topic crap in aus.photo. And guess what: it ain't gonna stop, no matter what you and your butthole trolls do! > You are a loser, Noons, so I'm flushing you like I would any smelly > turd. Good. Now, f.ck OFF aus.photo, you and your pack of trolls. > I'd done with your ignorant a.s. don't fool yourself, fuckwit: you never had it. > > You really are a piece of crap, aren't you, Loons? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to anyone else other than "the 20d > does it this way because I say so". Facta non verba w.. > As for having shots like those? Sure do but after the sheep did me over > stealing some proof I posted for a client, I'm not about to show them here, > no matter how good they are. > > Doug Bwaaahahhahaah! or should i say "Baaaaa". You mean these aren't your best? Tell us exactly what anyone would do with a 600 pixel wide picture of people getting married. Yeah, they have immense commercial value. Clearly Mr Mautner has no problem posting his good work, but Doug? (O; ANY excuse will do. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.