Nikon D3 digital SLR review by What Digital camera: Part 2
Nikon D3 digital SLR camera review by What Digital Camera magazine: Part 2. Part one: uk.youtube.com More camera reviews: www.whatdigitalcamera.com … nikon d3 review whatdigitalcamera what digital camera magazine
Tags: Nikon, digital slr camera review, digital camera magazine, Digital, Part, Review
Related posts:
wow it puts my cannon 400d to shame.
you can tell is the 14-24mm because of the hood and the front element
“use a film higher than 800 iso will give you a super grainy shots thats not acceptable for most newspapers”
I lol’d. ISO 100 and 800 practically look the same on newspaper printed smaller than 8×10. (it’s kinda impossible to get a non-grainy image in a newspaper)
it is maybe 14-24mm f/2.8:)
what is that lens attached to the camera?
rene as i said every shooting situation is different so what i have experience is very different on what you have experience coz sun don’t shine brightly the same all over the world, *Shrug*.
Rusty, I only said ” you did not know what you are talking about” because you said “in film days no one shoots more than 800 ISO.” and that is not true. And trust me, after shooting for newspapers for 12 years, I have just about shot in any situation you can think of.
Recently i shoot a fashion week at 200 iso use a tripod set my lens at f3.2 and the lighting are dimmer than the gym that i shoot and the shots went well. So its very rare that i shoot 800 iso. Does this sounds like i know what im talking about reneh.
Well it depends how lit the gym is, yes i have tried to shoot at 800 iso, use a film higher than 800 iso will give you a super grainy shots thats not acceptable for most newspapers, at the gyms that i shoot is well lit and 800 iso is more than enough in film days. Does this sounds like i know what im talking about to you now. Every shooting situation is different so you cannot tell till you have experienced it.
Put it this way, a photog shooting for another paper was using the D3 at 6400 ISO with no flash and I was shooting with a D2 at 1600 ISO with a flash. He had less noise at 6400 than i did at 1600.
Sounds like you don’t know what your talking about rusty. Back in the film days we use to push our 800 to 1600 or 3200. Have you ever tried to shoot sports in a high school gym at 800?
I think that for a lot of people, high ISO is important to take quick pictures, and with the busy life of people, it makes it more convenient. However a busy person wouldn’t have a camera like this.. lol
In film days no one shoots more than 800 ISO and i think this high ISO wars are just BS who’s gonna shoot higher than 800 ISO? Shooting high ISO in the dark lets say at night is useless if you don’t use a tripod.
The sensor in DSLR keep getting upgraded, and EOS 1Ds Mk 3 is quite old compared to D3. So I doubt you’ll get the same result. However the EOS 5D Mk II seems to have caught up quite well, it’s comparable to D700 in function, and price: $2500 USD with rebate & discounts.
so if a canon 1ds mk3 is tuned down to about 12 mp like the d3, does that mean that the pixles will become larger and gather more light just like the d3?
the differences are in the noise level too. the d2x and d2xs not only have noisy images at high iso settings, but have a short range of selectable iso settings.
d3 delivers huge performance.
the only nitpick i could notice is that the multicam 3500 regroup all 51 focus point just about in the center of the frame, leaving corners uncovered. that’s a module that fits well inside the d300 viewfinder wich is a dx format, but i think that’s a bit small for fx cameras.
The D3 is a quantum leap in picture quality over the D2X. Completely different sensor, and full frame.
It would be great. The picture quality from those big pixels will reveal a real depth and subtlety of tone, and excellent shadow detail.
On the other hand the D3 is a heavy beast. Why not get much the same image quality in a smaller camera by getting the new D700? (And for about 1/3rd less money too). Its a beauty — our video review of it will be up here any day now.
im going travelling for a while and would be interested on your opinions on taking a d3 with me? seems more of a sport photographers thing. how would you rate it for landscapes etc??
hi D3 or D2xs whats different about picture quality ??? thanks
nice review.
I’d guess the 5D MkII (or 6D?) would be about the same price, but I’ll be staggered if they don’t announce it at Photokina in mid-september, so we don’t have long to wait.
You’re probably correct about that.
I’m curious how much Canon is going to sell their “5D Mk II” for… I just made up that name, but they’ve gotta release a 5D successor some day. What do you think? More expensive than the Nikon D700?
But I’d put money on being able to buy a full-frame Nikon DSLR for $1000 within 5 years, if not sooner.
wouldn’t that be GREAT! Unfortunately it’ll never happen. At least, not for about 20 years. The Nikon D2Xs, which was released a little over 2 years ago originally cost as much as the D3 costs now. The D2Xs is still being sold for a hefty $4200-4300. Obviously you were kidding about $500, but I guess I just felt like stomping on your parade :P