 |
 | 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 / January 2009D3x versus D300 high ISO
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times better pictures, right? Wrong! Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a little brighter... Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who really needs that? Other thoughts: no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop format... I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-)  SignatureFocus > So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times > better pictures, right? Wrong! No,I didn't think that. Dave Cohen > Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the > comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price > I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) >> So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 >> times better pictures, right? Wrong! > > No,I didn't think that. Neither did I, but I did think "trim reply" and "set f-u" so as to not bother our bretheren in aus. photo. Try to be considerate, "Focus". Signaturelsmft > So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times > better pictures, right? Wrong! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price > I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and report back. Very good point Dave. The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200). But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. John >> So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times >> better pictures, right? Wrong! [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and > report back. The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other camera in this format is exceptional. Every other comparison is just nonsence. SignatureDimitris M dioltt@ath.forthnet.gr áöáéñÝóôå ôá äýï ôáö ðñéí ôï ðáðÜêé áðï ôçí äéåýèõíóç > Very good point Dave. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps > 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. Exactly! > The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or > landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps >> 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. > The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or > landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other > camera in this format is exceptional. Every other comparison is just > nonsence. Yeah, but it depends on the print size, too. On 4 X 5 " (10 X 15 cm) even a compact with 2 MP can print acceptable photos, while even at A4 size (8 X 10") a compact with 7 MP will print acceptable photos, too. > Dimitris M dioltt@ath.forthnet.gr > áöáéñÝóôå ôá äýï ôáö ðñéí ôï ðáðÜêé áðï ôçí äéåýèõíóç (to reply remove the 2t before the AT from the email address) >> Very good point Dave. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps >> 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. SignatureTzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr > Very good point Dave. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps > 0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20. 20x30 may be rare but a cropped (25%) 16x20 is a good size if you want to matte, frame, and hang and I think you would see a big advantage. I would say the same goes for the Canon 5DII and the 50D. > John > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and >> report back. What does "cropped (25%) 16x20" mean? How does 25% play into your statement? >> Very good point Dave. >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>> Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and >>> report back. > So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times > better pictures, right? Wrong! > Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the > comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest > possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. But how would you compare several D300 landscape and portrait shots against the D3X after you crop each about 25% and then print them at 16x25? On the D3X you are working with double the pixels and double the sensor. You should see a major difference. > It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the > difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone > before ;-) > So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times > better pictures, right? Wrong! Nikon made no such claim. Neither has anyone else. > Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the > comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest > possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer. I actually have both cameras. I don't need to download somebody else's images. > It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference > is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x. > I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on > her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a > little brighter... My wife was able to spot the difference instantly. So have most other non-photographers who have walked by. > Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who > really needs that? Portraitists, wedding photographers, landscape photographers, stock photographers (where image pixel count is everything, it seems), fine arts photographers, people who really need a medium format digital back but who either can't afford one or who don't want the weight or a tethered camera. The D3x is a poor choice for nature photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers, travel photographers, and all amateurs. > Other thoughts: > no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and > heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop > format... None of the top of the line DSLRs have built-in flash. Guess why. As for lenses, some would consider the DX crop an advantage. > I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price > I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-) Probably true. Which is one reason why the D3x is so expensive in the first place. Nikon does not expect that many people will want or need this camera, so production is limited. Even I only want one. I would get a second one, but I believe that a D700x will do the job of second high density camera just as well. I will continue to use the D300 for nature photography. Not only do I not care to lug a D3x on long hikes, but I do not want to subject it to the vicissitudes of nature photography (i.e. the D300 is expendable, whereas a bear eating my D3x would annoy me considerably). I have not been following this group for awhile. I thought you sold your D300? SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times >> better pictures, right? Wrong! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I actually have both cameras. I don't need to download somebody else's > images. But for good comparison, you'll need a good studio with lab conditions. >> It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the >> difference [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My wife was able to spot the difference instantly. So have most other > non-photographers who have walked by. By me it was the other way around, they tought the D300 was the better print. >> Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who >> really needs that? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photographers, people who really need a medium format digital back but who > either can't afford one or who don't want the weight or a tethered camera. Most weddings are printed in a digital album that is about A4 size, for which most people will not be able to tell the difference. > The D3x is a poor choice for nature photographers, photojournalists, > sports photographers, travel photographers, and all amateurs. Except for all of the above with far too much money ;-) >> Other thoughts: >> no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > None of the top of the line DSLRs have built-in flash. Guess why. As for > lenses, some would consider the DX crop an advantage. The D700 has and it would persuade me to go FX format. It's exactly why the D3 has put me off. I don't understand why the others don't have it. Like the cleaning sensor that the D3 lacks. Now Nikon honestly confirms, that it simply wasn't ready at the time of fabrication. >> I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in >> price [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > D300 is expendable, whereas a bear eating my D3x would annoy me > considerably). A D700x, let's just say it has the same difference between it and the D700 as the D3 to the D3x. A camera like that would definitely have my full and undevided attention ;-) I think I'm not alone either... > I have not been following this group for awhile. I thought you sold your > D300? Sold it, went Canon 40D for a while, then Sony 350, but back to the D300. In DX I don't think there is anything better. Besides with the other brands I missed the fantastic raw editing possibilities of Nikon. Now I have Nik Color efex in CaptureNX and hardly use PS anymore. SignatureFocus > "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Most weddings are printed in a digital album that is about A4 size, for > which most people will not be able to tell the difference. I am not talking about "most" weddings. "Most" weddings are now just a CD which is handed to the bride. We call them "orphan brides" because they have been abandoned by their photographer. The pictures never get printed at all. Some wedding photographers have made a pretty good business of marketing albums and edited prints to orphan brides. A talented fellow can charge $2-3,000 producing the wedding mementos that brides later wish they had. There is a market for high end weddings and portraiture that is shot with digital backs and high resolution DSLRs. There are wedding and portrait photographers that consider 16"x20" a minimum size. These guys start at $30,000 per event and go up from there. They are usually solidly booked, often years in advance. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > $30,000 per event and go up from there. They are usually solidly booked, > often years in advance. Holy .... shift! I'm in the wrong country! Here there's so much competition. And money is hard to find. Where do you find clients in the USA? Here in Portugal there's a special site visited by hundreds of couples each day. SignatureFocus >>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Where do you find clients in the USA? Here in Portugal there's a special > site visited by hundreds of couples each day. I went to a marketing class at WPPI last year put on by a wedding photographer who works like this. He works hard, I can tell you that. He limits himself to no more than 20 weddings a year and no more than two in a week. He lives in the Washington, DC area, but will go anywhere. He has shot weddings in California, the Caribbean, Morocco, etc. Marketing is basically word of mouth -- with considerable attention given to people who cater to this market. Most of his clients are attorneys, female, in their late 20s. Tough crowd to please. Another I know works in England. I have seen his work shot in the Mediterranean, North Africa, India, and other places around the world. So, yes. It is possible. Breaking into this market is tough. Some guys will pay kickbacks for referrals, but I would not. Neither do the men described here. Funny thing is, neither one thinks he is all that great of a photographer. But they are superb marketers. I met another one from New Zealand. He does think he is a great photographer -- but that anyone can learn it if they are willing to put in the time and effort. It is amazing, really, what paying constant attention to the social calendar, investing money in a decent web site and slick brochures, maintaining a first rate studio, etc, can do for a business. As one presenter said last year: "In the image business, image is everything." So, yeah. Want to be the top wedding photographer in Portugal? Easy -- just build the image that you are the top wedding photographer in Portugal. It costs big bucks. You might have to break down and buy a Nikon D3x (the best wedding photographer would not be caught dead with a cheap camera, after all -- people would think you are a crummy photographer), but, hey, you you can pay for it and all of its lenses with one wedding, right? ;-) Oh, and use professional models for your brochures if you haven't got any pictures of real brides that look like supermodels. Dress them in the latest Vera Wang gowns (you have to do this every season, too). Get a caterer to set up some expensive food and cakes (pay him with pictures, if you can). Get those brochures done and start marketing. The brochure should look like a slick, 20 page magazine. When you get a client, treat her like royalty -- she is used to it. And do not ever, EVER screw it up. Or you are dead. So very, very dead. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > her like royalty -- she is used to it. And do not ever, EVER screw it up. > Or you are dead. So very, very dead. It makes me think of that captain in "Pearl Harbor": "That's bullshit, but it's very, very good bullshit..." Thanks for that info, C.J. Do you happen to know the websites of the guys you talked about? Just curious what they put on it. You did put my mind to work and I already have some ideas. Sometimes it's not what you write, but what people read.... SignatureFocus >>>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > You did put my mind to work and I already have some ideas. > Sometimes it's not what you write, but what people read.... Try this one: http://www.roberttwilliams.com/ Always glad to help. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
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
|
©2010 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.