Nikon D3
- Started
- Last post
- 51 Responses
- ********
found this first hand report:
"I was covering the Mets game tonight and there were 2 D3's there.I was allowed to shoot with one for a bit and I have a few comments.
First, let me say, that several years ago, I was a Nikon shooter, and when the D2H came out, I was VERY vocal about it's problems.
I did detailed testing (if you search the messages you'll find some of the stuff) and the results were not good news for Nikon. As the result of that, I became a Canon shooter, and still am.
Tonights experience with the D3 has really changed my mind about Nikon.
The camera "FEELS" great in your hand. The controls are really well placed (as they have been in most Nikon Cameras). The Auto focus was SPOT on and VERY VERY fast (even under night time baseball lighting)
While all of that I expected from the camera, there was something I never expected. The image quality was BY FAR the BEST I HAVE EVER SEEN in a digital camera. The detail in the images was STUNNING.
The camera was set for iso 2000 when it was handed to me, and I must be honest and say that they looked BETTER then the iso 800 I was shooting with my Canon Mark II. The color was pure and rich.
Just for fun, I turned up the iso to 3200 and to my astonishment, it still looked BETTER then my 800 iso on my Mark II. Both in color and in noise.
The noise is NOT ONLY very low, BUT, the quality of what noise there is (unlike the D2H) was pleasing. One of the problems I had with the D2H was not only the amount of noise, but the QUALITY of it. The D3 changes all of that.
The final test came when I opened the images in Photoshop. I must say, if I didn't shoot them myself, I never ever would have believed that they were iso 2000 and 3200. They look like 400 and 640 (only better) then my Mark II.
Finally, the level of detail that the camera captures goes FAR BEYOND anything I have ever experienced in ANY digital camera .
So, my hats off to you NIKON.... I only wish you would have done this sooner, before I spent tens of thousands switching to Canon.......
Perhaps there is a Nikon switch in my future.
Ed
--
Ed Betz
- Chief0
nice find. i'm trying to decide between the d300 and d40.
- ********0
I preordered the d300
- monkeyshine0
I've used the d40 a bit and absolutely love it. I compared it next to a Canon 80d and much prefer the d40.
It feels great in your hand, the interface is so intuitive. Nikon is finally getting the consumer market.
- danthon0
I wish I could afford the D3, but I am stoked that I waited long enough for the D300.. my next camera.
Good to see Nikon is back in the game.
- ********0
from another hands-on tester:
""Still not have had the opportunity to run comparisons directly, but my impression is that 6400 on D3 is cleaner than 800 on the D2X, and 25600 looks more or less as 1600. All of this will be tested throroughly later, of course. For the D300, my guess at this time is that 3200 is on the level of 800 for D200, but take this statment with a big pinch of salt. Since we now use cameras with embargo on the jpgs and no RAW converter is currently available, too much remains speculative."
- jaylarson0
any hands on of the mark III ? $8k is a lot to lose if you break the camers...
- neue75_bold0
You're on fire...
- neue75_bold0
You're on fire...
- ********0
you too
- neue75_bold0
I'm wearing a tutu...
- ********0
that's aces, desmond
- ********0
too bad it's (D3) goddamn pricey. but worth it i guess.
- ********0
yeah, I wish I could justify that kind of expense, but no way
- level2b0
Hmmm. I just bought a D200 before D300 was announced. It seems the only thing I'm missing is the insane amount of focus points.
- superbaka0
i'm about to buy a leica M8 and curious to hear comparisons to the D3 regarding ccd/image quality..
- ********0
If I had that amount to spend I would wait for the D3, but that's just me
- ********0
"For the D300, my guess at this time is that 3200 is on the level of 800 for D200"
- ********0
D3
- ********0
more from Ed Betz:
"When I got to work on Saturday at Shea Stadium in NY, I was surprised to see the Nikon Rep back for a Day Game.He had with him the D3 again and a 600mm lens to go along with the 400mm lens I shot the night before.
Now keep in mind, most of the conversations I had with him were between innings, or pitcher changes. So there were a short series of conversations.
I expressed interest in using the camera again in the daylight. He happily agreed.
I will say, I was prepared to be less impressed with the daytime images. I fully expect an image that is shot at 100 iso or 200 iso to look great with any camera.
In my hand the camera felt really good again. I spent a little more time messing around with the focus, tracking moving people, trying to lock on to something and something else passed by, turning and locking on something else quickly (as in – fly ball, go from batter to shortstop – and nail him, no jumping around).
The Nikon performed flawlessly in every instance. The autofocus was outstanding in daylight.
The 600 lens was sharp, and it was nice to be able to shoot a pitcher with a 600 again. Shooting him with a 400 just doesn’t look the same. For those who don’t understand the difference, its really about depth of field and compression. The 600 looks much nicer, but I digress.
So, after shooting, I put the card into my laptop and the fun began
Let me stress that the lighting was HARSH. There was bright sunlight, not a cloud in the sky and heavy shadows - ball players wearing white uniforms, and black hats with heavy shadows over their eyes. This can be a real nightmare; you are between a rock and a hard place. If you shoot for the shadow the whites are blown out and if you shoot for the whites the shadows turn almost black.
Man was I surprised by two things. First, the white were never hot or blown out and the shadows had plenty of detail. It confirmed what I had heard about the dynamic range of the camera. I can say for certain, My Mark II doesn’t handle that lighting condition well.
The images had a really nice creamy quality to the out of focus background, and the images were tack sharp. How sharp? Like nothing I have ever seen before.
Every hair on the back of a players neck (yes those little almost white hairs) can be seen and counted. Every eyelash, perfectly defined in a way I have never experienced before.
One of the things I have to do from time to time is upsize a photo. The place I was shooting for has minimum requirements for file size. So every now and then I have to take an image in photoshop and res it up a little.
Not all images (cameras) handles this the same way. In some instances, it becomes clear right away that while the file is bigger, the images looks like hell.
Just for fun, I took a photo, cropped it to about 900 pixels in one direction and then res’ed it up to 2000 pixels (nothing fancy, just did it in four steps – 1100 – 1300 – 1600 – 2000) like I always would.
The D3 handled that better then anything I had ever seen.
WOW – I could not only count every eyelash, but I noticed – I can see the veins in the pitchers eyes... Very unexpected!
Just for fun, I also shot into the fans (the upper section) and there were about 30 people in the frame. I zoomed in, and sure enough I could tell what time it said on one man’s watch. UNREAL...
The level of detail (I’ve come to understand pixels aren’t everything – it’s about detail) is extraordinary.
So, as with my night time shooting, the daytime shooting left me very impressed with the D3.
I wish I spent more time with it. I’d loved to get my hands on one for a week or two and really put it through some paces.
If I could afford it, I would probably switch back for this camera. I never wanted to leave Nikon. In fact – Like Ronald Reagan said about becoming a Republican, he never left the Democrat party, they left him. I feel that way about Nikon, I didn’t leave them, they left me. Perhaps it’s time to return... There are other issues for me now (pool glass etc) but who knows."
- ********0