Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

D3 is it the best D-SLR to date

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 13th December 2007, 23:01   #1
Duke Leto
Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that simple.
 
Duke Leto's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 8,728
D3 is it the best D-SLR to date

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?
__________________
have a break have a look at my website http://www.ukwildlife.me.uk
Steve
Duke Leto is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 13th December 2007, 23:15   #2
ccsial
Registered User
 
ccsial's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shirland, IL
Posts: 96
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.

Last edited by ccsial : Thursday 13th December 2007 at 23:20.
ccsial is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th December 2007, 23:17   #3
postcardcv
Super Moderator
 
postcardcv's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17,103
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.
postcardcv is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 13th December 2007, 23:37   #4
IanC_UK
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: England
Posts: 259
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.
IanC_UK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 06:01   #5
nigelblake
don't re member
 
nigelblake's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 4,049
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!
nigelblake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 07:29   #6
gasjkh2
Registered User
 
gasjkh2's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: england
Posts: 84
Nikon really appear to be getting there act together, with the D300 & D3.
gasjkh2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 10:02   #7
pe'rigin
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,072
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.

Last edited by pe'rigin : Friday 14th December 2007 at 10:21.
pe'rigin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 11:11   #8
nigelblake
don't re member
 
nigelblake's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by pe'rigin View Post
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.
nigelblake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 13:04   #9
stevo
Registered User
 
stevo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hogwarts.
Posts: 2,928
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.
stevo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 14:36   #10
Outboard
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 394
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/es...mparison.shtml

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

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pr...w.html?garpg=2

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.c...roduction.html
Outboard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 19:31   #11
a.dancy
Registered User
 
a.dancy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salford England
Posts: 41,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelblake View Post
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 say )

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 competition

Cheers

AD
a.dancy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 20:41   #12
Outboard
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by a.dancy View Post
Perhaps when Nikon catches up we will all benefit by a drop in price when we have real competition
There are many well respected organisations and photographers that say the Nikon D300 and D3 have not only caught up but surpassed Canon.
Outboard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th December 2007, 21:09   #13
Adey Baker
Member
 
Adey Baker's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hinckley, Leics
Posts: 4,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelblake View Post
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.
Adey Baker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 21:28   #14
a.dancy
Registered User
 
a.dancy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salford England
Posts: 41,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outboard View Post
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!
a.dancy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 21:50   #15
a.dancy
Registered User
 
a.dancy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salford England
Posts: 41,346
[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. I dare say this is an office joke at AP magazine.
a.dancy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 22:12   #16
Adey Baker
Member
 
Adey Baker's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hinckley, Leics
Posts: 4,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by a.dancy View Post
I dare say this is an office joke at AP magazine.
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!)
Adey Baker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 22:13   #17
Doug Greenberg
Registered User
 
Doug Greenberg's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,411
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.
Doug Greenberg is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 22:34   #18
a.dancy
Registered User
 
a.dancy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salford England
Posts: 41,346
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?
a.dancy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 22:45   #19
a.dancy
Registered User
 
a.dancy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Salford England
Posts: 41,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adey Baker View Post
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!
a.dancy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th December 2007, 23:58   #20
ccsial
Registered User
 
ccsial's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shirland, IL
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Greenberg View Post
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.
ccsial is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th December 2007, 10:58   #21
Andy Rouse
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: cardiff
Posts: 30
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!
Andy Rouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th December 2007, 11:33   #22
nigelblake
don't re member
 
nigelblake's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Rouse View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by a.dancy View Post
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.

Last edited by nigelblake : Saturday 15th December 2007 at 11:35.
nigelblake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th December 2007, 13:08   #23
Andy Rouse
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: cardiff
Posts: 30
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.
Andy Rouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th December 2007, 13:58   #24
Outboard
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 394
Thank you Andy for this well informed opinion.




You dont happen to know David Blunkett do you?
Outboard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Todays date??? Ruth Daniel Birds & Birding 8 Wednesday 19th September 2007 23:11
Little up date stanton21 Hummingbirds 0 Tuesday 12th June 2007 07:46
Up To Date dryslwyn Carmarthenshire 0 Friday 16th February 2007 15:40
Best photos to date.... buzzard12 Photo Critique 1 Friday 1st September 2006 11:52
A garden up-date. Ruth Daniel Birds & Birding 13 Thursday 30th March 2006 07:42

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26495004 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32.