Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"  (Read 88131 times)
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #220 on: January 29, 2009, 12:07:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
I read once where Joe McNally was in a pissing contest with the art director of a shoot where he was the photographer, and he kept saying he wanted to do the shoot with one light and she was saying that just wasn't possible with one light and that they needed a minimum of four lights and that was that. So he set up the lights, turn all of them off but one, shot the test shots, and she said, "See, it looks great." He never told her the truth.
big deal.
we all do that, even without having the AD complaining.

just to make a client comfortable that is spending few hundred grands on agency, model and photographer fees on a beauty campaign shoot, but you just need one strobe and an umbrella only. that is what makes the light you need. OK plus a reflector.
You order few cases of lights and ask the assistants to put everything on the stands and make them look like they are being used, except that they are never going to be turned on.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 12:12:49 AM by ziocan » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #221 on: January 29, 2009, 12:10:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Anderson
Clearly Nikon don't have long term Canon users in mind when they design these things !!  

Of course! And I'm aware of this factor   . But sometimes I wonder why Nikon have not, for example, used the centre button in the multi-selector dial as an "OK" button. They have a separate "OK" button on the bottom left corner of the back. The fact that this confused me at first is of no consequence. I just think, the fewer buttons the better.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #222 on: January 29, 2009, 12:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Of course! And I'm aware of this factor   . But sometimes I wonder why Nikon have not, for example, used the centre button in the multi-selector dial as an "OK" button. They have a separate "OK" button on the bottom left corner of the back. The fact that this confused me at first is of no consequence. I just think, the fewer buttons the better.

You can use the centre button in place of the OK button in many cases where it is modaly possible to do that (i.e. center button cannot perform any other function, like zoom in, in that mode. e.g. when looking at the info screen you can select the current highlighted item by either OK or center button). You can also program the center button to perform other than the default functions by using function F2. (But to know this you have to read the 443 page manual which might be too much for you).

Oh God! I did it again!
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 12:24:25 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #223 on: January 29, 2009, 12:42:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Oh God! I did it again!

No need to be sarcastic!    I appreciate your feed-back, but it seems I'm into a new era of complexity here. I'm working my way through the manual, but I fear by the time I've sorted everything, things will change again with a new model.

Seriously, there's really no problem. Just teething issues. I can work it out. The D700 is a fine camera, I'm just disappointed there are no other Nikkor lenses on a par with the 14-24/2.8
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #224 on: January 29, 2009, 12:45:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I'm just disappointed there are no other Nikkor lenses on a par with the 14-24/2.8

Episode n+1...
Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #225 on: January 29, 2009, 12:50:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Episode n+1...

And a serious episode indeed.
Logged
Leping
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



WWW
« Reply #226 on: January 29, 2009, 12:55:21 AM »
ReplyReply

The best thing with a Nikon: the ability to program the center button in the multi-selector dial for one-push 100% (or 200% if you do not mind a little mosiacing) view AT the selected focusing point any time.

With the Canons it is multiple pushing of three bottoms and dials (depending on how far you are from the focusing point) and no way around.  Dancing through the routine hundreds of times in a productive day made my figners cramped.

The 5DII's Live View and LCD are better though, just to be fair.

Quote from: Ray
Of course! And I'm aware of this factor   . But sometimes I wonder why Nikon have not, for example, used the centre button in the multi-selector dial as an "OK" button. They have a separate "OK" button on the bottom left corner of the back. The fact that this confused me at first is of no consequence. I just think, the fewer buttons the better.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #227 on: January 29, 2009, 01:08:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LEPING
The best thing with a Nikon: the ability to program the center button in the multi-selector dial for one-push 100% (or 200% if you do not mind a little mosiacing) view AT the selected focusing point any time.

With the Canons it is multiple pushing of three bottoms and dials (depending on how far you are from the focusing point) and no way around.  Dancing through the routine hundreds of times in a productive day made my figners cramped.

The 5DII's Live View and LCD are better though, just to be fair.

Well, I don't think we'll get very far by comparing Nikon's implementation of button-pushing with Canon's. I accept you have to study the manual and work it out. I was responding to Bernard's claim that Nikon was easier in general.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #228 on: January 29, 2009, 01:19:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Well, I don't think we'll get very far by comparing Nikon's implementation of button-pushing with Canon's. I accept you have to study the manual and work it out. I was responding to Bernard's claim that Nikon was easier in general.

I must be really unclear.

What I am trying to say is that Nikon is trying to deliver DSLR that can product usable images as easily as film cameras were able to.

I am not talking about the physical user interface (both Canon and Nikon have plus and minus), but about the amount of images manipulations that are required to create a usable file. I am not saying that they are 100% successful in this, but that is what they have been targetting.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #229 on: January 29, 2009, 01:30:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I must be really unclear.

What I am trying to say is that Nikon is trying to deliver DSLR that can product usable images as easily as film cameras were able to.


Bernard,
I was never under the impression that film cameras were able to easily produce usable images. Where are you coming from? Film is a bygone era of inefficiency and great difficulty. Why hark back to it? The whole process was cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive. We're far beyond that, surely.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #230 on: January 29, 2009, 02:41:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Bernard,
I was never under the impression that film cameras were able to easily produce usable images. Where are you coming from? Film is a bygone era of inefficiency and great difficulty. Why hark back to it? The whole process was cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive. We're far beyond that, surely.

Ray,

The process was super easy on the contrary and there were very few choices to make:

- Select a film (mostly always the same kind)
- Get the film out of the camera,
- Send it to develop and print
- Receive prints back

No need to worry and make conscious choices about:

- histogram
- white balance
- moire
- color space
- choice of raw converter
- ...

There were a lot fewer choices to make with film.

Again, I am not speaking about the quality of the results that can be obtained, but about the ease/complexity of handling the process and about the perception of opportunity cost for those who don't want to dive into the intricacies of the digital world. You know that these options are available, and you suspect that they are important and you feel guilty not having looked at them well enough.

This speech on Ted might help you better understand what I am talking about, especially the jeans part.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_s..._of_choice.html

What I am saying is that Nikon's philosophy has been to help photographers not having to care too much about these things, which is what I mean by reproducing a film shooting experience in the digital world.

cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #231 on: January 29, 2009, 03:21:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lovell
Yea, yea Ray.  Good point.  Those nikon-only features are surely worth the extra $4,500+ over the stupid crappy junk Canon 5D Mark II.    

If a Nikon D3X shooter uses that feature more then a few times a year, I would be surprised, to be sure.


He would use it all the time if he were shooting sports. And if he were shooting for Sports Illustrated, he'd probably already have one. Nikon got it together on this camera for sure. It's just that 8K for a camera any longer is a hard sell--lol. (Especially when you can get the DSIII for less than 6500 now.)
Logged

David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 502



WWW
« Reply #232 on: January 29, 2009, 03:35:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
- Select a film (mostly always the same kind)
- Get the film out of the camera,
- Send it to develop and print
- Receive prints back


Good point except you forgot - Go to a cafe and sip coffee while waiting for slides.

I sure do miss film some days...  

Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #233 on: January 29, 2009, 03:48:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
He would use it all the time if he were shooting sports. And if he were shooting for Sports Illustrated, he'd probably already have one. Nikon got it together on this camera for sure. It's just that 8K for a camera any longer is a hard sell--lol. (Especially when you can get the DSIII for less than 6500 now.)
This argument keeps cropping up. The world is not the USA, and USA is not the world.

Where I live, the two cameras are priced almost exactly the same in the market. I could, theoretically, save the equivalent of USD 40-50 by choosing the Canon.

YMMV.

And even in the USA, moving to the 1Ds MkIII costs more than the 6500 if you're already a Nikon user. If that's your choice, then it's probably not a hard sell at all.
Logged

Jan
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #234 on: January 29, 2009, 04:06:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Anderson
Good point except you forgot - Go to a cafe and sip coffee while waiting for slides.

I sure do miss film some days...

Probably because I am a tea drinker.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Slough
Guest
« Reply #235 on: January 29, 2009, 05:05:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Bernard,
I was never under the impression that film cameras were able to easily produce usable images. Where are you coming from? Film is a bygone era of inefficiency and great difficulty. Why hark back to it? The whole process was cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive. We're far beyond that, surely.

I am not surprised that the simple tasks associated with using a film camera are beyond your ability.  
Logged
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #236 on: January 29, 2009, 07:13:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Bernard,
I was never under the impression that film cameras were able to easily produce usable images. Where are you coming from? Film is a bygone era of inefficiency and great difficulty. Why hark back to it? The whole process was cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive. We're far beyond that, surely.



To generalize that film is cumbersome and time consuming, is not accurate for all photographic disciplines, or all parts of the photographic process.

I went fully digital almost a decade ago. Processing RAW images from sports events, where a few hundred images can amass (4 day event) is no fun, even with in-depth knowledge of the workflow. Digital image quality is fantastic but I preferred handing film over the counter to a pro lab as it was 'Photoshopped' by the film manufacturer and chemicals - in my case Fuji Velvia rated at 40 ISO was my choice of film. I also knew with experience how the final image looked with Velvia, rich and full of beautiful deep shadows - we can obviously replicate this look digitally.

The downside from running a library is scanning, the dust and scratch removal is a painstakingly laborious task. Bear in mind that commission shoots didn't require any scanning, or pre-press skills, as the film was handed over to the client for reproduction; in the case of editorial submissions duplicate slides were forwarded that were fast to copy and submit - approximately 30 minutes to copy the slides and once again the lab did the processing - allowing me to be getting on with other chores, or relaxing.

When shooting film, we (snappers), would get back to our hotel after a long day on the golf course, meeting up for a meal, and a drink, having walked, on average, 8 miles (At the 2000 Open Championship, at St Andrews, my pedometer recorded 11.4 miles), lugging  a 600 F/4 (6.5 kilos in those days), sometime plus a 300 F/2.8; 70-200, and 17-35 lens, as you can imagine the restaurant meal was needed, a well deserved break, and relaxing time. Nowadays most of the photographers are still sat in the media tent meticulously captioning images, to specific standards for their employers, and transferring data, etc, until they get fed up and leave (often tidying-up and finishing tasks the next day). Those rare photographers still shooting film have polished off their main course by the time photographer's, who shoot digitally, leave the press centre, often not having completed all of their laptop chores.

Being sat a computer for several hours, even if taking breaks, is not my idea of fun for the routine tasks that it demands - not all tasks can be automated. Over the years metadata (IPTC and then XMP) have caused many problems between software vendors, and operating systems, causing keyword and captioning errors; I must have had to tidy-up the metadata on at least three occasions, on thousands of images, the time involved, regardless of saved templates and key-wording expertise, has on occasions driven me, almost, to despair.  The benefit of image metadata captioning chores are the sales potential.

If someone developed an 400 ISO, 35mm film, with the much finer grain, and resolution, than Fuji Velvia 50 ISO, I might be just be tempted to buy some second hand F5's before E6 chemicals run dry - there again pigs might fly.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 08:25:27 AM by Nick Walker » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #237 on: January 29, 2009, 07:41:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nick Walker
To generalize that film is cumbersome and time consuming, is not accurate for all photographic disciplines, or all parts of the photographic process.

That was my experience. Loading the film in the camera, pointing the camera in the right direction and pressing the shutter button was pretty straight forward. But getting the finished result, print or slide, was so complicated, time-consuming and cumbersome, I actually had to pay someone to do it for me.

Logged
lovell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #238 on: January 29, 2009, 11:07:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
He would use it all the time if he were shooting sports. And if he were shooting for Sports Illustrated, he'd probably already have one. Nikon got it together on this camera for sure. It's just that 8K for a camera any longer is a hard sell--lol. (Especially when you can get the DSIII for less than 6500 now.)

Speaking of the Canon 1DS Mark III, I don't think evan that camera is worth $6,500, or $4,500 for that matter.  Judging by IQ alone, the 5D Mark II provides better image qualities, and because IQ is the prime directive, my money would be on two 5D Mark II's over one 1DS Mark III.
Logged

After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #239 on: January 29, 2009, 11:46:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You still need to scan film, add metadata, edit in Photoshop...

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Nick Walker
To generalize that film is cumbersome and time consuming, is not accurate for all photographic disciplines, or all parts of the photographic process.

I went fully digital almost a decade ago. Processing RAW images from sports events, where a few hundred images can amass (4 day event) is no fun, even with in-depth knowledge of the workflow. Digital image quality is fantastic but I preferred handing film over the counter to a pro lab as it was 'Photoshopped' by the film manufacturer and chemicals - in my case Fuji Velvia rated at 40 ISO was my choice of film. I also knew with experience how the final image looked with Velvia, rich and full of beautiful deep shadows - we can obviously replicate this look digitally.

The downside from running a library is scanning, the dust and scratch removal is a painstakingly laborious task. Bear in mind that commission shoots didn't require any scanning, or pre-press skills, as the film was handed over to the client for reproduction; in the case of editorial submissions duplicate slides were forwarded that were fast to copy and submit - approximately 30 minutes to copy the slides and once again the lab did the processing - allowing me to be getting on with other chores, or relaxing.

When shooting film, we (snappers), would get back to our hotel after a long day on the golf course, meeting up for a meal, and a drink, having walked, on average, 8 miles (At the 2000 Open Championship, at St Andrews, my pedometer recorded 11.4 miles), lugging  a 600 F/4 (6.5 kilos in those days), sometime plus a 300 F/2.8; 70-200, and 17-35 lens, as you can imagine the restaurant meal was needed, a well deserved break, and relaxing time. Nowadays most of the photographers are still sat in the media tent meticulously captioning images, to specific standards for their employers, and transferring data, etc, until they get fed up and leave (often tidying-up and finishing tasks the next day). Those rare photographers still shooting film have polished off their main course by the time photographer's, who shoot digitally, leave the press centre, often not having completed all of their laptop chores.

Being sat a computer for several hours, even if taking breaks, is not my idea of fun for the routine tasks that it demands - not all tasks can be automated. Over the years metadata (IPTC and then XMP) have caused many problems between software vendors, and operating systems, causing keyword and captioning errors; I must have had to tidy-up the metadata on at least three occasions, on thousands of images, the time involved, regardless of saved templates and key-wording expertise, has on occasions driven me, almost, to despair.  The benefit of image metadata captioning chores are the sales potential.

If someone developed an 400 ISO, 35mm film, with the much finer grain, and resolution, than Fuji Velvia 50 ISO, I might be just be tempted to buy some second hand F5's before E6 chemicals run dry - there again pigs might fly.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad