Used Lightroom 2s new brushes ... specifically the custom grad filter that you can place exactly where you want it, and apply it as much as you want, as many times as you want. Just that one new LR-2 feature has cut hours off of my processing times for weddings ... plus I used a few tricks in PS.
I find the D3X 14 bit files to be amazingly workable.
I see, LR 2 is more flexible and time saver now. I should check LR 2 out.
So, you see big a difference in 14 bit files(D3X) in comparison to 12 bit(A900) ones. That extra bits are there for a reason!
If you mean what was achieved with the wedding pic I posted ... well, printed at 17" X 22" it looks even better than here. Little to no noise @ ISO 500, nice color right out of the camera, very detailed at the plane of focus, and as a number of photographers that have seen the actual print said, it exhibits a strong sense of depth. Doesn't really matter how it got there, or what gear was used ... it works as a pictorial display wedding print ... which is what I make a living from. These are the kinds of images that sell multiple copies to everyone involved and their Grandmother.
My favorite quip about it was when Irakly saw it ... "That's a $5,000. shot!" he didn't ask what camera was used, or what I did to the image afterwards, he just reacted to the picture ... like he always does ... good or bad.
I only mention the gear used because that's how this forum is set up. I make no competitive claims against other cameras ... just that for me and what I do, this one works ... and is better and easier to achieve results from than one would be led to believe from internet chatter.
This was my first use of the D3X on the job. It performed flawlessly and delivered what I needed from a high meg 35mm DSLR. It's a nice compliment to the D3. A dynamic duo for my wedding photography needs, so to speak.
Or, maybe that ISN"T what you meant?
What I meant is that on the web it is hard to see the differences one camera to another that is possible when viewing large tiffs or better still large prints.
I have heard much dissing of the D3X (using the A900) as the comparison. But I have now been using mine for about two months, including large file and large print landscapes. I think it is an amazing machine and it can certainly handle the rigors of field work. Built like a tank.
I don't have an A900 so I can't compare. I have seen many files that I like and a fair number which I think have too much shadow noise. But as I say, i don't have one, have taken no images with one, so can't really render an opinion.
You have both so how do you choose which one to work with. Seems to me you would not need both 35mm DSLR systems.
Just trying to learn here...........no other agenda
My take on it:
I like the Sony a lot ... but it is a fair weather friend much like the DMR/9 I had (which I sold to fund the Sony and the AF Zeiss lenses). Unfortunately, I have to shoot in less than ideal conditions frequently. There is no D3/D700 equivalent for high ISO work. The Sony doesn't shoot to two CF cards like both the Nikons do ... something I desire for security when shooting a one time, non-repeatable event. And the Nikon flash system is easier to work with IMHO.
Yes, there is noise in the A900 shadow areas ... sometimes even at lower ISOs ... not to hard to deal with ... unless you are dealing with 1,000 images a weekend. Then it's a PITA. This is not an issue with the D3X that I can tell so far. In my limited experience with the D3X so far, ISO 500/640 is excellent even enlarged a lot ... I cannot say the same for the A900. But, when the A900 is on the money, with some of the lenses, it's really can sing ... just like the DMR did.
As usual, YMMV ... but for me it's working out just fine so far.
Whoa, that's a tough act to follow Marc. Beautifully done.
Something a bit more pedestrian... this from today while waiting for the parade to start. Happy 4th of July!
And one more.
Sorry for all these, it's been raining for a month and I think I'm getting bored.
Red Plumeria on a rainy day. Leica R 50mm Summicron with Leitax mount + Nikon TC-16A + Nikon D2H. Aperture @ f2.8. Thanks for looking. Leica 77
Red Plumeria on a rainy day. Leica M (Not R) 90mm Summicron (Canada) with mount adapter + Nikon TC-16A + Nikon D2H. Aperture @ f5.6. Thanks for looking. Leica 77
Orchid after the rain. Leica R 50mm Summicron with Leitax mount + Nikon TC-16A + Nikon D2H. Aperture @ f2.8. Thanks for looking. Leica 77
Looking at your plumeria, we should hope for more rain. Beautiful
Fun Picture with Nikon D300 + AF Nikkor 18-200mm VR Lens. Street Scape in Asia. Thanks for looking. Leica 77
[email protected] for a while now!!
Met my old friend in a neighborhood (well, not really old ).
D3x, DC 135/2:
Many thanks for your kind feedback. Among all the digital SLRs I have used, the D2H is certainly one of the finest cameras I own. It is responsive, fast, and solid. Though I also like the newer digital SLRs for their innovative capabilities, I have taken my D2H to remote travel destinations. Best regards, Leica 77
Many thanks for your kind feedback. I agree with you that the great value of the D2H is much under-appreciated. Though the pixel size is not huge compared to the newer digital SLRs, it nonetheless produces pretty sharp images with excellent color tonality. If one wishes to make large enlargements, then the D2X(s), D3(x), D300, D700, etc. would be more preferrable. Best regards, Leica 77
But just for the record I have been reading about all sorts of bad Nikon color for years on the internet (including these forums) clear back to the classic Nikon D1, some people just don't like Nikon color, what ever that is including flesh tones. While its true that many photographers also complain about foliage having a yellowish tone with vegetation (including spring greens... hmm) there are also no shortage of complaints floating around about poor flesh tones even with the newer Nikon cameras.
With the exception of the D1 which truly did have some issues with color at times, I have not for the most part experienced these problems with the my Nikons including the D1, D1x, D2x and now the D3. However a cohort several years ago brought his D1x over to my studio to compare with my D1x since he was having some color issues. We set both cameras up absolutely identical, gray balance, same lens, the works and sure enough his images returned a noticeably more yellow image. Go figure. That experiment might indicate a level of inconsistency in manufacturing with some cameras.
A couple of images from last week: an abandoned one room school house at Cow Face Hill, Montana.
D3 images converted in LR, lens 24 TS-E
Thanks for looking.
Last edited by routlaw; 7th February 2010 at 12:09.
Wonderful sense of light in both. Very nice!
at the Disco.
At the disco??? Shouldn't you be at church????
D3, 135/2 DC at f/2.5
If you don't pray at the church, the volcano erupts...
Hello Stuart and routlaw,
Great images! Wonderful to see nice architecture and nature. All the best, Leica 77
le bee on rose. I guess everyone has to do it at least once.