D3 is it the best D-SLR to date

[Duke Leto]

This weeks Amateur Photographer has rated the D3 better in many ways that any Canon 1D body and the best D-SLR to date, will this cause Canon Users to flock back too Nikon?

[ccsial]

I doubt it. Most people have too much vested in lenes and flash to jump ship. Some may come back. New buyers will look more seriously at Nikon. Now that they have VR on the long lenes that argument can go too.

There is still the issue of the 500-600VR being a few thousand (US) more than Canon though.

When I got into bird photograpy seriously I almost switched to Canon just for my bird camera. I wouldn't switch completely because I have too many lenes. I stayed with Nikon because I was pretty sure operating two different cameras would drive me nuts. I have two D200's now. I could have bought a EOS30D and 500IS for about the price I paid for the 500AFSII, but I didn't switch.

[postcardcv]

Personally I doubt that it will cause a huge flood from Canon, though no doubt some will change. I'm a Canon user and cannot afford to swicth no matter how good this camera is. I do hope however that it is as good as this review suggest, with Canon and Nikon pushing each other we'll all see the benefits.

[IanC_UK]

No way i would change to Nikon now, too much invested in the Canon gear i have, specially on 1 magazines review, but as postcardcv says, its about time Nikon pushed Canon a bit harder, it can only be good for us all.

[nigelblake]

They must have had David Blunkett doing the review then. I've had the opportunity to shoot a couple of gig on a D3 this week, its good, but anything not exposed very near to correctly (i.e. +/- 1/3rd stop) starts to show chroma noise when corrected during RAW processing. In fact the RAW files look sharpened and noise reduced straight out of the camera.
But quite frankly it don't produce anything better than the 1D MkII or III, and it ain't anywhere near as good as the 1Ds MkII, and clearly "Immature pornographer' havn't seen the 1Ds MkIII yet!

[gasjkh2]

Nikon really appear to be getting there act together, with the D300 & D3.

[pe'rigin]

I think that it is very difficult to judge these differences between cameras. It’s well worth staying away from the ‘which is best’ debate, because we just go round in circles. Peoples biases will prevail.

It does really depend on the final print destination for the image and expertise in preparing these images. The majority of people and I will include professionals do not know how to prepare an image for reproduction. The make or cost of the camera is irrelevant in these circumstances.

More frightening than that is the lack of expertise in photography. I would class Nigel as a ‘proper photographer’ of the old school, (hopefully he doesn’t mind that), i.e. we would produce a storyboard and I would expect him to shoot to those drawings adding his own input and technical skill.

His sort is a rare breed now-a-days.

[nigelblake]

I would class Nigel as a ‘proper photographer’ of the old school, (hopefully he doesn’t mind that).

Certainly not offended by this compliment.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here pe'rigin, in the right hands, (both; photographers and post processors) the majority of cameras will surpass many of the requirements that are needed for all kinds of reproduction.

The problem is that there are now a lot of point and shooters (and no doubt this will offend some people) who have invested in high end gear that to their untrained eye gives them amazing images compared to what they have produced before, but close inspection reveals a woeful lack of any creative understanding of the fundementals of what makes good images.

Sadly also there are a good few people involved in the selection of and art direction of images who also lack a basic understanding of what makes great images too, you only need to look at some of the shots reproduced in the magazines to see poor focus point selection and lack of DOF and other basic mistakes.

However, in the main you will also notice that despite the huge increase in the number of wildlife photographers, it is generally the same names seen alongside most of the 'jump off the page' published images (whether Canon or Nikon users) this fact alone proves its the craftsman and not the tools that produce the goods, and you can apply that same logic to sculptor's chisels, artist's brushes or golfer's clubs.

[stevo]

I`ve been thinking this for a long time about image quality in magazines wondering how the HELL a photo of such poor quality has made into the mag.

Steve.

[Outboard]

The D3 is a new camera and I don't care how good anybody is, or thinks they are, it takes a while to arrive at settings that get the best out of a new camera.
Here are a selection of links that make interesting reading.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/12-2007.htm

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/75187-nikon-nikon-d3-camera-interactive-review.html?garpg=2

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/12/nikon-vs-canon-introduction.html

[a.dancy]

Certainly not offended by this compliment.

.

The problem is that there are now a lot of point and shooters (and no doubt this will offend some people) who have invested in high end gear that to their untrained eye gives them amazing images compared to what they have produced before, but close inspection reveals a woeful lack of any creative understanding of the fundementals of what makes good images.

Sadly also there are a good few people involved in the selection of and art direction of images who also lack a basic understanding of what makes great images too, you only need to look at some of the shots reproduced in the magazines to see poor focus point selection and lack of DOF and other basic mistakes.

However, in the main you will also notice that despite the huge increase in the number of wildlife photographers, it is generally the same names seen alongside most of the 'jump off the page' published images (whether Canon or Nikon users) this fact alone proves its the craftsman and not the tools that produce the goods, and you can apply that same logic to sculptor's chisels, artist's brushes or golfer's clubs.

I am probably in the 'point and shoot' category and certainly not offended by the comment although I cannot claim to have 'high end gear'. I have previously described myself as a 'bog standard amateur' (euphemistically of course, I am not even a good amateur). However, I am not guilty of swamping magazines with mediocre images and I wonder why those that do, do. In fact I have only submitted to magazines a couple of rarity shots in 4 years. I see no reason why those like me should reduce the standards in magazines and displace a clutch of very able pro photographers and put them on the brink of professional extinction...unless their work can be matched or bettered by what I or others like me can produce. Contrary to that argument I see no reason why an amateur should not keep the pro's on their heels. (not much chance of that I hear Nigel say3:-) )

I would not want to argue the point with Nigel regarding DOF if I am understanding the point that Nigel is making save that I do actually like (some) pictures with a very shallow DOF. The circumstances are limited where it is appropriate (in my view) but I feel that seeing less detail can sometimes give you more.

As for the argument between Canon v Nikon I really can't be bothered, everyone knows that Nikon have dragged their heels just a bit when it comes to innovation. Perhaps when Nikon catches up we will all benefit by a drop in price when we have real competition3:-)

Cheers

AD

[Outboard]

Perhaps when Nikon catches up we will all benefit by a drop in price when we have real competition3:-)


There are many well respected organisations and photographers that say the Nikon D300 and D3 have not only caught up but surpassed Canon.

[Adey Baker]

Sadly also there are a good few people involved in the selection of and art direction of images who also lack a basic understanding of what makes great images too, you only need to look at some of the shots reproduced in the magazines to see poor focus point selection and lack of DOF and other basic mistakes.



I've noticed a drop in quality in a number of magazines recently. I've got some photos that I think are quite good but whenever I think of submitting them for publication I scrutinise them carefully and realise they aren't quite 'up to the mark' so I don't send them in. It's very galling then to see shots published that are decidedly below average.

I've been a regular reader of 'Amateur Photographer' over the years and I reckon that they've printed some pretty poor shots (including wildlife photos) recently - the fact that they only 'pay' for many of them with a mug, now, instead of cash probably sums it up!

Back to the subject ;) in the aforementioned 'AP' test of the D3 they actually rated it one point below the Canon 5D in the all-important 'Image Quality' section (though not at higher ISO settings). Mention was also made of moire pattern effects in some situations, which could be an occasional problem for a professional camera.

[a.dancy]

There are many well respected organisations and photographers that say the Nikon D300 and D3 have not only caught up but surpassed Canon.


That may or may not be true. Perhaps I should have emphasised the 'I couldn't be bothered' bit the rest was just a joke. I really can't be bothered. Life is too short to stuff mushrooms. Both Canon and Nikon gear can do the job and I imagine most top end bird photographers will still use the same ISOs not wishing to photograph in crap light. I am happy that Nikon users will now be able to take cracking shots of nightjars...and bloody good luck to them I say...I really mean that. I just wish I had a nightjar to take a picture of!:-C

[a.dancy]

[QUOTE=Adey Baker;1077106]I've been a regular reader of 'Amateur Photographer' over the years and I reckon that they've printed some pretty poor shots (including wildlife photos) recently - the fact that they only 'pay' for many of them with a mug, now, instead of cash probably sums it up!


Adey, I get AP too. I think the reviewers are a bit pro Nikon but I do not hold that against them. I think if you send a picure in to a magazine then you should get payment. You are a mug if you accept anything less, so I suppose a mug is apt reward for the mugs who send their pictures in. 3:-) I dare say this is an office joke at AP magazine.3:-)3:-)

[Adey Baker]

I dare say this is an office joke at AP magazine.3:-)3:-)

Yeah, I reckon they've probably got a wry sense of homour (they keep sneaking shots of Buachaille Etive Mor in despite promising not to when the new editor took over!)

[Doug Greenberg]

One issue here is whether the gold standard for digital photography in the future will be full frame 35mm. or DX. For bird photography, I don't see any big advantage to returning to 35mm. All of my telephoto lenses will just (seem to) magnify all the less than they do with DX. I also have a fair amount of money invested in DX-only lenses now; I'd hate to see them become obsolete. With that in mind, I think the D300 seems to be an amazing model in its own right. Of course, Canon will answer back, as it always does.

Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with the tenor of the thread, i.e., that the particular camera and certainly the particular brand one uses is not the determinant of the quality of one's photos. That Nikon and Canon each produces fabulous gear is a wonderful thing.

Let me add that I think it's terrific that obtaining decent (not necessarily great) bird photos has become soooooo much easier in the last half-dozen or so years. Yes, people who are tyros will struggle with issues of composition, background, bokeh, and balance, and they will continue to place far too much faith in bells and whistles, at the expense of mastering the basics of the craft. The truly expert photographers will, as always, stand apart from the pack.

But now it's far more possible than it was a decade ago for the average person with minimal experience to get some bird photos that he or she can be proud of. That's a great thing! I confess that I have taken more good (I won't say great) bird photos in the past two or three years than I took in the previous twenty years shooting full frame using film. I don't think I'm alone in this.

[a.dancy]

Quite well said Doug.

I think that things such as improving field craft and knowing when not to shoot can add so much more than getting hung up on gear. I am not going to change my gear until it is fully beaten into the ground and the red light dies like Arnie's red eye in Terminator (bloody good film I thought but not as good as Blade Runner). Most of us are just enthusiastic amateurs and should not let that fact disappear from our aspiring imaginations at the expense of hard earned cash.

However the subject (canon v Nikon) is good for friendly banter. Note I put Canon first as Nikon is usually on the defencive or is it defensive?3:-)

[a.dancy]

Yeah, I reckon they've probably got a wry sense of homour (they keep sneaking shots of Buachaille Etive Mor in despite promising not to when the new editor took over!)


Yeah ...I'll send a picture in of Buachaille Etive Mor when I need a mug....but I want payment for advertising!
3:-)

[ccsial]

But now it's far more possible than it was a decade ago for the average person with minimal experience to get some bird photos that he or she can be proud of. That's a great thing! I confess that I have taken more good (I won't say great) bird photos in the past two or three years than I took in the previous twenty years shooting full frame using film. I don't think I'm alone in this.

I would agree with that.

[Andy Rouse]

I have been testing the D3 all week and in my opinion it is far better than any of the Canons, and this is from a dedicated Canon pro. The high ISO performance is better IMHO than the 1D MK3, so is the autofocus. The images also have a much better dynamic range, one look at the histograms compared to the 1DS MK3 show that. I have been shooting both cameras alongside each other and I have given up the MK3 as it is too slow to do much. If you want to follow my shooting tests then check out the First Looks on the main Warehouse Express site, sorry but am not allowed to post them here.

I am actually happy that Nikon have done this and really got it right with both the D3 and the D300 as it will hopefully give Canon a kick. It doesn't really matter to me whether people shoot Canon or Nikon as a good photographers can shoot with anything but I am really glad to see that the D3 is now at least on a par with the best Canon has to offer. And Nikon has the 200-400 which is damn attractive for the kind of photography I do. Anyway just wanted to add my 2 1/2 p worth!

[nigelblake]

I am actually happy that Nikon have done this and really got it right with both the D3 and the D300 as it will hopefully give Canon a kick. It doesn't really matter to me whether people shoot Canon or Nikon as a good photographers can shoot with anything

Agree wholeheartedly on this point, the closer the competition the better it is for all of us (irrespective of our loyalties); especially if Canon are pushed into bringing the prices of their high end bodies down to something more in line with the Nikon prices!


I would not want to argue the point with Nigel regarding DOF if I am understanding the point that Nigel is making save that I do actually like (some) pictures with a very shallow DOF. The circumstances are limited where it is appropriate (in my view) but I feel that seeing less detail can sometimes give you more.

AD

I like shallow DOF images too Adrian, but the area of shallow DOF has to contain the point of interest in the image for it to work.
Also I don't have any problem with competition from others (pro or amateur) Its good, it pushes us on to keep trying something newer and different, thats got to be good for wildlife photography in general (the old 'what punk did for rock music' analogy).
My only concerns are over some of the problems that might come about as a result of increased pressure on some species by those who have more concerns about getting the shot than they do for the subjects welfare, the problems with groups of several photographers sitting within feet of a Dipper nest in Derbyshire, (no hide, and a stressed out bird desperate to feed young) this year being an example............ but all this is straying off topic.

[Andy Rouse]

Straying off topic maybe Nigel but making a valid point and well made. As you know Nigel shallow DOF pictures are one of my trademarks, I feel that where appropriate they highlight the beauty of a subject within the habitat and make the most of light when it is not at its best. IMHO I should add.

[Outboard]

Thank you Andy for this well informed opinion. :t:




You dont happen to know David Blunkett do you? 8-P