Nikon D3 - Initial Impressions

[Paratom]

I quite like Lightroom 2, and LR3 is meant to be significantly better, so I think the likelihood that I stay with it is quite high. LR2 already gives really good results with the D3.

I am not looking for the absolute highest per-pixel and so on quality, just something very good. I am unwilling to spend lots of money and effort getting the last pixel a little sharper, or to improve the colour a little bit (and I have never seen a comparison which was night and day), and thus I never made the step to Capture One, like so many have. I just plod along with my great cameras and decent software, and focus on the images.

I also like LR2, convenient workflow and so on. IMO it is ok for D3 files but I think not really great.
C1 light (or however its called ) one got even for free when buying a sundisk card. Its not so mucj money involved.
Not only for Nikon files but also for M8/M9 files it delievers more detail IMO.

 

[Corlan F.]

I also like LR2, convenient workflow and so on. IMO it is ok for D3 files but I think not really great.
C1 light (or however its called ) one got even for free when buying a sundisk card. Its not so mucj money involved.
Not only for Nikon files but also for M8/M9 files it delievers more detail IMO.

Detail is definitely C1's strongpoint with Nikon files in general.
(though not a lot you can't eventually achieve with other RAW converters + CS4, but one stop)

 

[charlesphoto]

New LR profiles. Haven't tried them yet.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/03/new_nikon_d3_and_d700_camera_v.html

 

[carstenw]

I should add that I agree that the results look better in C1, at least with the Leica M8. However, I have time and again decided that I am perfectly able to get great results with LR, in spite of its shortcomings, and I find that my time spent in pursuit of better photographic results is much better spent going out with my camera rather than adding yet another program to master, with its attendant workflow complications. It just doesn't fit that well in my current way of doing things.

 

[ptomsu]

I should add that I agree that the results look better in C1, at least with the Leica M8. However, I have time and again decided that I am perfectly able to get great results with LR, in spite of its shortcomings, and I find that my time spent in pursuit of better photographic results is much better spent going out with my camera rather than adding yet another program to master, with its attendant workflow complications. It just doesn't fit that well in my current way of doing things.

C1 Pro is just so much better overall WRT camera profiles than LR and Aperture. Plus I do NOT like the library concept of LR and Aperture. Printing is something missing in C1 Pro, but for reasonable printing nothing tops PS CS4 for me, maybe also some RIP SW, which I so far could not justify for what I am printing.

But C1 Pro stays the best processing tool overall.

WRT D3 and profiles, not sure if there will be so much more improvements as this camera is no longer part of the current Nikon lineup, since the D3S is available. Same should happen for the D700 once the successor becomes available.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter

You may want to read Lloyd Chambers article on Nikon wide angles. He thinks the 14-24 is Nikon's best lens and he is extremely disappointed with the 16-35. Just his opinions of course and YMMV

Woody

Thanks Woody!

Yes indeed the 14-24 seems to be better than the latest 16-35. This also reflects what I remember from the 14-24 while I owned it.

My concern is that it is bulky and thus I did not like to use it as often. But obviously there is no other way around - at least for the moment. So I will buy one again - hopefully I can get hold of a used one as some folks are selling this to step to the 16-35 because of size and built in VR.

 

[carstenw]

C1 Pro is just so much better overall WRT camera profiles than LR and Aperture. Plus I do NOT like the library concept of LR and Aperture. Printing is something missing in C1 Pro, but for reasonable printing nothing tops PS CS4 for me, maybe also some RIP SW, which I so far could not justify for what I am printing.

But C1 Pro stays the best processing tool overall.

If you do not use LR at all, then there is nothing to stop you from using whatever tool you prefer, of course. Personally, I find that most of the differences between LR and C1 are seen at the 100% zoom level, and much less so at 50%, but perhaps we are not seeing the same thing.

WRT D3 and profiles, not sure if there will be so much more improvements as this camera is no longer part of the current Nikon lineup, since the D3S is available. Same should happen for the D700 once the successor becomes available.

The new camera profiles posted a few posts up are apparently a real improvement, so development does seem to continue.

 

[ptomsu]

The new camera profiles posted a few posts up are apparently a real improvement, so development does seem to continue.

Hm... I hope you are right.

I was a heavy LR user when it first came out years ago, then moved to Aperture. I had C1 Pro since 6 years or so but its original interface was so disturbing for me I moved on to LR and Aperture. Since the last 2 main versions of C1 Pro their interface improved so much and their RAW converters were always stellar for me, so I started using mainly C1 Pro again.

I am not saying that LR has bad RAW conversion and also what we are discussing here are differences often in the top 5% - if so.

I am meanwhile sure that I will never find my "final" post processing tool, as they all improve and all have advantages in certain areas. Even worse, since I shoot Hasselblad I added also Phocus, which turned out to be a real killer processing SW for 3F files. So currently I am running C1 Pro, Aperture 3, Phocus, Bridge and PS CS4 - I am kind of hesitating to also add LR3, which I tested in Beta and could so far not find it worth to really switch.

But I understand it is all about personal preferences and being used to some package, although the second part becomes less important for me

 

[charlesphoto]

Tried C1 pro, really really wanted to like it, and for the life of me could not wrap my head around importing files and what is where and importing, etc etc. And it seemed to crash more often than not, something that has NEVER happened to me with LR. So $300 down the drain. LR just works, and Beta 3 that much more.

So I'm envious of those that can make C1 work for them because I do think the files are just that much better with the Leica (though LR beta 3 really closes the gap). But my brain just isn't made for it.

 

[Paratom]

I use LR for importing the files and then convert them with c1.

 

[fultonpics]

Congrats on a Great camera. I have two and use them all the time. Not nearly as sophisticated as other users here. I only use auto focus and the rest all manual setting. Good luck with yours. They are real tough and can take a beating.