Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    DP Review's recent D3 review includes an interesting comparion with the D300.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/

    Interestingly, at ISO800 and below the D300 is as good (perhaps better) than the D3. There is little difference in resolution and the D300 has slightly higher DR.

    It seems that if high ISO is not a priority the D300 is a sensational buy when you factor in dust removal & the rather compact dimensions relative to the D3.

    Lambert

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by lambert View Post
    DP Review's recent D3 review includes an interesting comparion with the D300.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/

    Interestingly, at ISO800 and below the D300 is as good (perhaps better) than the D3. There is little difference in resolution and the D300 has slightly higher DR.

    It seems that if high ISO is not a priority the D300 is a sensational buy when you factor in dust removal & the rather compact dimensions relative to the D3.

    Lambert
    HI There
    I quite agree, but I think there are two killer punches with the D3:

    1. the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8 AFS lenses (not so interesting focal lengths on the D300).
    2. the amount of Post Processing you can do with the D3 files.
    Last edited by jonoslack; 19th April 2008 at 16:27. Reason: because I'm a fool

    Just this guy you know

  3. #3
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    I just read that review and have to disagree with the D300 having more DR or being better below ISO 800.

    To me it is not. The D3 files manipulate better in post and do have more DR.

    Don't get me wrong, I do like the D300 but it is not in the same league as the D3 even at the lower ISO range.

    Having said that, the D300 does provide some advantage to telephoto shooters when shooting under ISO 800. I also like the size better.

    I would also have to say that the testing they did was somewhat flawed as they used different lenses on both the D300 & D3.

    From having had both, the files are much more pleasing to me from the D3.

    Best,

    Ray

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI There
    1. the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8 AFS lenses (not so interesting focal lengths on the D300).
    I actually don't think so. 21mm is plenty wide for me, I guess I'm just not a wide boy. I think 14mm cropped with all that depth of field would be pretty good. In fact in my agency days I don't think I ever submitted hardly anything wider than 24mm. I had the canon 24 f1.4mm, which I liked, but only ever used it with film. Mind you, as I was mainly shooting endangered species for agencies 300mm was standard 70- 200 was my wide zoom and the 100mm macro was the super wide. So I guess 24 equated to a full frame fisheye from my perspective.
    I used to have a Canon 24-70 f2.8 on a 1D and the 1.3 crop made it a great studio lens. Maybe it was a little short for portraits. I had a 135 f2 for those. I guess it's down to style. So maybe I just don't have style
    I've currently only got your cast offs and a 16-85 for a do it all lens. Just got a new one today as last one was faulty. Soft area at around 50mm, top left just about at the rule of thirds intersection, As you said on an earlier thread "Go figure". I wouldn't have noticed it but I was shooting a swimmer with some kids and his face was out on several shots.
    I'm not sure where I need to go lens wise. The 17-55 does my artist reference studio work, but I wish it was a bit longer. The 70-200 portraits and "Venture" type shoots. and both or maybe just the 16-85 cover my press type work. The good thing about the 16-85 is I could get by with it if I had breakdowns.
    If I had a lot of studio work I'd get the 24-70, but again I'd like it a bit longer, see it's that old wildlife background. I tried out my D300 on a new model and shot a portrait, it's around the forum somewhere. I had it at 200, 300mm in real money so back to what was my standard lens.
    Probably no hope for me, Is there?
    David.

  5. #5
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    A point that interests me is Thom Hogan's statement in a couple of his articles that the greater pixel density of the D300 makes it more useful than the D3 for telephoto and for cropping, at least up to ISO 800. And, as I've posted elsewhere, I find that I'm often cropping from the 3:2 to the 4:3 aspect ratio with the D300.

    On the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses being not such interesting focal lengths on the D300, this is the reason that I bought the 17-35mm lens, which gives me a better range for street photography, with an EFOV of 25.5-52.5mm and allows me to shoot with one lens, although from time to time I would like to be able to shoot at 21mm EFOV, but I can do that with my GRD2.

    —Mitch/Paris
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    I think the 12-24 f4 lens (DX) is supposed to be a pretty good performer and is MUCH smalller than the new 14-24.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    A point that interests me is Thom Hogan's statement in a couple of his articles that the greater pixel density of the D300 makes it more useful than the D3 for telephoto and for cropping, at least up to ISO 800. And, as I've posted elsewhere, I find that I'm often cropping from the 3:2 to the 4:3 aspect ratio with the D300.

    On the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses being not such interesting focal lengths on the D300, this is the reason that I bought the 17-35mm lens, which gives me a better range for street photography, with an EFOV of 25.5-52.5mm and allows me to shoot with one lens, although from time to time I would like to be able to shoot at 21mm EFOV, but I can do that with my GRD2.

    —Mitch/Paris
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    I think the 12-24 f4 lens (DX) is supposed to be a pretty good performer and is MUCH smalller than the new 14-24.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    A point that interests me is Thom Hogan's statement in a couple of his articles that the greater pixel density of the D300 makes it more useful than the D3 for telephoto and for cropping, at least up to ISO 800. And, as I've posted elsewhere, I find that I'm often cropping from the 3:2 to the 4:3 aspect ratio with the D300.

    On the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses being not such interesting focal lengths on the D300, this is the reason that I bought the 17-35mm lens, which gives me a better range for street photography, with an EFOV of 25.5-52.5mm and allows me to shoot with one lens, although from time to time I would like to be able to shoot at 21mm EFOV, but I can do that with my GRD2.

    —Mitch/Paris
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    A point that interests me is Thom Hogan's statement in a couple of his articles that the greater pixel density of the D300 makes it more useful than the D3 for telephoto and for cropping, at least up to ISO 800. And, as I've posted elsewhere, I find that I'm often cropping from the 3:2 to the 4:3 aspect ratio with the D300.

    On the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses being not such interesting focal lengths on the D300, this is the reason that I bought the 17-35mm lens, which gives me a better range for street photography, with an EFOV of 25.5-52.5mm and allows me to shoot with one lens, although from time to time I would like to be able to shoot at 21mm EFOV, but I can do that with my GRD2.

    —Mitch/Paris
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Mitch,
    The more I read your postings, the more I'm convinced that you should try an Olympus. With the 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5, you get the 4:3 aspect ratio and 22-44mm EFOV. They are not as good at high ISO as the D300, but on the other hand, you would get in-body IS, not to mention the articulated LCD on the E-3 (although the live view implementation as such is not as good as on the D300). The 11-22 is a very sharp lens from corner to corner, even wide open.

  9. #9
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Sounds interesting, Jorgen, but I didn't really buy the D300 for street photography but for the 70-200mm lens and was dazzled by the camera's responsiveness and the quality of the autofocus.

    —Mitch/Paris
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidL View Post
    I actually don't think so. 21mm is plenty wide for me, I guess I'm just not a wide boy. I think 14mm cropped with all that depth of field would be pretty good. In fact in my agency days I don't think I ever submitted hardly anything wider than 24mm. I had the canon 24 f1.4mm, which I liked, but only ever used it with film. Mind you, as I was mainly shooting endangered species for agencies 300mm was standard 70- 200 was my wide zoom and the 100mm macro was the super wide. So I guess 24 equated to a full frame fisheye from my perspective.
    I used to have a Canon 24-70 f2.8 on a 1D and the 1.3 crop made it a great studio lens. Maybe it was a little short for portraits. I had a 135 f2 for those. I guess it's down to style. So maybe I just don't have style
    I've currently only got your cast offs and a 16-85 for a do it all lens. Just got a new one today as last one was faulty. Soft area at around 50mm, top left just about at the rule of thirds intersection, As you said on an earlier thread "Go figure". I wouldn't have noticed it but I was shooting a swimmer with some kids and his face was out on several shots.
    I'm not sure where I need to go lens wise. The 17-55 does my artist reference studio work, but I wish it was a bit longer. The 70-200 portraits and "Venture" type shoots. and both or maybe just the 16-85 cover my press type work. The good thing about the 16-85 is I could get by with it if I had breakdowns.
    If I had a lot of studio work I'd get the 24-70, but again I'd like it a bit longer, see it's that old wildlife background. I tried out my D300 on a new model and shot a portrait, it's around the forum somewhere. I had it at 200, 300mm in real money so back to what was my standard lens.
    Probably no hope for me, Is there?
    David.
    Hi David
    I can see that 21-36 is a useful focal length range (but it's a huge lens to do it, why not settle for the 12-24). On the other hand, a useful and excellent 24-70 becomes a pretty useless 36-105 (I can't ever get to grips with lenses that start at 36).

    The 16-85 seems an obvious lens to use on the D300 - I've still got my old 24-120, which seems to work better on full frame than a cropped sensor. (again, it's certainly a more exciting range).

    I saw the model shot - what a pretty girl, and a lovely shot too.

    As for your friend the cat:



    and here's one of her daughter, taken virtually in the dark at 6500 ISO: with no noise reduction



    I hope all's well with you? You sound busy.

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    A point that interests me is Thom Hogan's statement in a couple of his articles that the greater pixel density of the D300 makes it more useful than the D3 for telephoto and for cropping, at least up to ISO 800. And, as I've posted elsewhere, I find that I'm often cropping from the 3:2 to the 4:3 aspect ratio with the D300.

    On the 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses being not such interesting focal lengths on the D300, this is the reason that I bought the 17-35mm lens, which gives me a better range for street photography, with an EFOV of 25.5-52.5mm and allows me to shoot with one lens, although from time to time I would like to be able to shoot at 21mm EFOV, but I can do that with my GRD2.

    —Mitch/Paris
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Hi Mitch
    As far as Thom Hogan and the cropping - AFAIK he was simply talking about the fact of being able to get 'closer' from a particular point of view with a particular lens - which would have helped you on your Namibia trip.

    With your street work, you don't have the problem of 'getting close enough', and your cropping is going to be on aesthetic grounds and you'd crop as much on the D300 as on the D3, in which case the smaller sensor holds no advantages.

    Reviews seem to suggest that, good as the 17-35 undoubtedly is, it isn't as good as the two new lenses, and my experience certainly bears that out. In fact, I'd say that the 24-70 is much sharper at the corners on full frame than my 17-35 was on a cropped sensor.

    Just this guy you know

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    I think the 12-24 f4 lens (DX) is supposed to be a pretty good performer and is MUCH smalller than the new 14-24.
    Hi Terry
    ever get that 'deja vu' feeling!
    It IS a fine lens, but IMHO it's not in the same league as the 12-24, mind you, why should it be, it's half the size and half the price AND it's a 4 year old design.

    I can't comment on the difference between image quality of the D300 and the D3, but I'm inclined to take Ray's word for it (he does, after all, have both). Certainly the D3 files have a certain something about them that I've not seen from a digital camera before, and the amount of shadow and highlight detail that's lurking is amazing.

    Just this guy you know

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi David
    The 16-85 seems an obvious lens to use on the D300 - I've still got my old 24-120, which seems to work better on full frame than a cropped sensor. (again, it's certainly a more exciting range).

    Jono,

    I tried two samples of the 16-85 and both were very ordinary performers. The far less expensive 18-70 seemed quite a bit better within the same zoom range.

    It would be great if Nikon could produce a high grade 24-120 like the Zuiko 12-60 for the E3.

    Lambert

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by lambert View Post
    Jono,

    I tried two samples of the 16-85 and both were very ordinary performers. The far less expensive 18-70 seemed quite a bit better within the same zoom range.

    It would be great if Nikon could produce a high grade 24-120 like the Zuiko 12-60 for the E3.

    Lambert
    Oh wouldn't it:
    24-120 f4 AFS VR, and while they're about it they could do a
    70-200 f4 AFS VR, as well
    with the build quality of the f2.8 lenses but a bit smaller.

    I guess it must be on their list to do with the advent of the D3

    That Zuiko 12-60 is such a great lens.

    Just this guy you know

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP Review - D3 (inc comparison with D300)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi David
    I can see that 21-36 is a useful focal length range (but it's a huge lens to do it, why not settle for the 12-24). On the other hand, a useful and excellent 24-70 becomes a pretty useless 36-105 (I can't ever get to grips with lenses that start at 36).
    Great in a studio situation. Here's the versatility albeit on a 1.3crop (1D). These were artists reference done in a freezing cold antique warehouse. Canon 24-70 but were talking focal lengths here not brands. Sorry in adobe colour space

    I understand your need for wides. I traded my 10-20 because I just didn't use it. I seem to have lost my industrial construction interior client, I could borrow a 12-24 if it came back.

    as I said above the 16-85 is a good backup and even main use for not too critical work. Second one seems OK but it's too horrible here to go out and test.

    Good to see the cat again.

    I'm not busy until June, July so waiting for weather to improve and then I'm off visiting friends.

    Best wishes to your lot.
    Dave
    Last edited by DavidL; 1st July 2011 at 13:05.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •