The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon D3 - Initial Impressions

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
(...) how to set up the Fn button + scroll wheel to choose lens. I am curious what other solution you found? (...)

I have just chosen to keep the FUNC. button + Dials assigned to Exposure Bracketing, simply because in that way I'm able to remember where to find the bracketing :rolleyes:
In that way I don't need to search. I even don't need to think (which is the best part of it and maybe the real cause why I love to photograph in the first place :D).
I stop thinking and enter the see mode.

So I keep the Non-CPU lens selection as a menu choice and then just put it on the top of MY MENU where I add my chosen menu items in order to find them in a hurry (or find them at all).

The high end dSLRs have become such advanced machines with countless features, so the trick is to get to know where everything is.
And, to remember to reset it when you have adjusted something :rolleyes:

I still remember when I was trying to shoot Guy leaving the bank wearing some funny presidential mask.
10 seconds later the shutter fired according to the Selftimer Release Mode setting. But never mind, they didn't need any picture.
"Guy has left the building." the policeman calmly reported.
"Again ?" his superior asked rhetorically.

Now I have made it a habit checking the following buttons and settings whenever I grab the camera, in order to check where I left the settings the last time I used it.
So next time I'll be prepared. Maybe I'll become famous, just like the man who shot Liberty Valance :cool:

I'm moving from the top left of the camera to the top right and then down to the right on the back, finally ending up in MY MENU checking those settings (especially Non-CPU lens and a9 Exposure delay mode). Same route everytime.
It has become a firm procedure, and it only takes 5 seconds to press the buttons and check the informations in the Control Panel - and another 5 seconds if something needs to be adjusted.


NB: From Nikon D300 !



Top Left: 3 things • • • White Balance + ISO + Release Mode


Top Right: 2 things • • Exposure Mode + Exposure Compensation




.
.


On the back: 3 things • • • Metering mode + Focus mode + MY MENU

.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
For the time being I have these menu items in MY MENU, but now and then I adjust the selection.



.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
The button layout on my D300 looks like this.
I'm aware that the layout on the D3 is somewhat different, but you get the idea with the control strategy.





.
 

carstenw

Active member
Interesting! Yes, the D3 is a bit different. The Bracketing has its own button where your QUAL button is, so I don't need to put that in a menu. I used the Fn button for lenses, and that works well on this camera.

I did two 360 panos, with 9-shot bracketing, and neither works :( The one was a nightshot at Potsdamer Platz, and I was so immersed in the shooting that I didn't notice that the colour of the lighting changed every few seconds, *cough*.

The second one was at work, and the ceiling is featureless white, and the floor nearly featureless grey, so I can't get the control points I need.

I have been shooting in portrait mode, 6 times around and 3 rows, with an extra shot for zenith and nadir, but that is probably only enough when there is a lot of unique detail in each shot. I will reshoot them, probably either 8 shots, 4 rows, or in portrait mode, in which case I have to figure out the counts there. Probably 8-10 shots around and 2-3 rows.

The damn thing is that 9-shot bracketing and all those shots is 180 shots a pop. That 300000 shot shutter is going to come in handy...
 

charlesphoto

New member
Hi Carsten,

Congrats! I got a D3 soon after they came out and it's been a fantastic machine. I still use my Leicas (spoiled by the M9) more but for pro jobs the Nikon always saves the day. Check out the UNICEF in the DR pics on my website. All with the D3, though I'd only had the thing for a week before I took them!

The 14-24 is amazing but a serious beast. The ZF 35 f/2 is fantastic as is the ZF 50 1.4 though if I had to do it over again I might have gone for the 50 Makro (I have the Nikon 55 2.8 manual focus and it does a fine job). The Nikon 85 1.8 AFD is a great lens and less than half the price of its bigger brother. I also have the ZF 28 f/2 but I use the 35 more. May sell off a few lenses soon and pick up the 24 1.4, probably one of my fave focal lengths.

All in all I kind of wished I had a D700 sometimes because the D3 is massive, But then I pick up a D700 and it does feel less complete. I know I will take a big hit selling it so just going to wait and see what Nikon comes out with next and then decide. Have fun and don't be afraid to shoot 1600 and 3200!
 

carstenw

Active member
Hey Charles, and thanks! Yes, it is really fantastic, but also daunting. A few minutes ago I was showing some photos I took on it to my girlfriend, and mistakenly pressed some button while in review mode, and suddenly review mode cancelled itself repeatedly after 1 second or so. I had no idea what I had done. I shot it off and left it for a few minutes, and now it is normal again.

Even with my girlfriend's 18-55VR zoom, the thing is a machine when it comes to continuous shooting. My girlfriend had just asked what the camera could do which hers couldn't (D3000), and then she left the room, and I snapped the whole thing at 9 fps. That is always good for a raised eyebrow :)

The AF is so good it is simply amazing. My 5D couldn't have touched this, the D3 just nails it every time. I really need to save up for the 24-70mm.

I love manual focus lenses. The ZF50/2 sounds like something special and I would love to get one, but I can't keep piling on the non-AF lenses :) The 24-70 is next I think.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Carsten,

I shoot with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VR II as my go anywhere outfit with either my D3s or D3x. The 24-70 is an excellent lens that I've personally had zero complaints with at all. It's sharp. It's versatile. If there's a downside then it's with the bulk but that seems unavoidable.

With my landscape outfit with my D3x I established an outfit of the Zeiss 21/35/50/100 ZF lenses and then transitioned to just the Nikon 24/45/85 PC-E lenses. I've rationalized all that back to the zooms because they are just that good!
 

carstenw

Active member
Yes, they sound very good. I would love each of those three zooms for different reasons: the 14-24 for less shots when doing panoramas, the 24-70 for AF speed for my daughter, and the 70-200VRII as general tele-zoom for many situations. I might have to sell the ZF21 after all, since I have no money coming for a few months, unless I can sell some older unused equipment.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
While I really like the 14-24 and 24-70 (and have used the 24-70 a lot so far) both are really bulky.
Carsten, before you jump on them I would first see in which range you need a zoom and for what purpose a fast prime might do the job.
The 14-24 is one of my least used lenses-just not so many times I feel I need wider the 24 and for the few 24mm shots I iften dont want to carry an additional lens and just take the 24-70 (even though I know the 14-24 is better at 24mm).
 

carstenw

Active member
For what I intend to use the lenses for, there is a good chance that I would nearly always be carrying just two of them. I would not travel with such a heavy (and flashy) kit, for example, and I would not need ultra-wide and long tele at the same time either.

The 24-70 is a must, for what I want it for. No prime could replace it. The 14-24 I could replace with a prime, possibly, but I find the wide end very interesting, and there is no equally good prime for much less in that range. I could consider the 16-35VR instead, but apparently the 14-24 is that much better, so...

The 70-200VRII I will wait with a bit. Apparently the 70-300VR is quite decent, especially for the price, and I could pass it to my girlfriend later on, so I will probably start there. Again, I could get a 200/2.8 or 180/2.8, but the zoom gives a lot of flexibility, and 200 is quite long for general use. I am also considering a 300/4 as a zoo lens, and for limited other uses, so the three-zoom kit plus the 300 seems like a nice setup (or I could get the 1.4x TCII, which apparently works very well with the 70-200VRII).

I am not intending the D3 for daily use, just for very specific things that my other cameras don't do well. I thought for a long time about the A900, the M9 and so on, and in the end, knowing that I will one day get the M9 (or M10), the D3 makes more sense (ISO, speed, bracketing, etc.). If I were concerned with weight and size for these uses, I would have bought the D700 instead, but the D3 is actually better for some of the things I want to do, like the HDR panoramas, and action.

I always found it difficult to put together DSLR kits :) I think of the DSLR as a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, and it isn't really in my nature to go that route. Buying the D3 was from me an explicit admission that owning a DSLR can round out an otherwise somewhat impractical camera collection, such as my eclectic combination of Leica M8, Contax 645/Hasselblad 2000FC/M and 4x5 Linhof Master Technica. I love all those cameras, but there is lots I can't do with them. The D3 wraps up all the loose ends for me, and let's me live happily with my crazy cameras :)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I understand Carsten, abd as I said before the 24-70 is indeed a very usefull range.
By the way I recently think to have found a solution for my "problem" that I wasnt 100% happy how the Nikon files render skin. (yellowish and I missed some microcontrast and tonality)
I now feel that C1 and choosing a little colder WB works quite well for me for the D700 files.
I would be interested what other think about C1 for Nikon. (I have tried CS4, LR, Nikon Capture2).
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
@Carsten

Why do you conclude that the 14-24 is so much better in IQ than the 16-35?

I rather doubt that! And if the 2mm in focal length at the wide end are not needed, then the 16-35 is the cheaper, lighter and more flexible solution.
 

woodyspedden

New member
I know the 14-24 is an exceptional lens, but it is big!

So I am actually looking for the 16-35, which is much smaller and almost same wide angle as 14.

But I second the thought about moving out with just 2 lenses, either the 16-35 and the 70-200 or the 24 instead of the 16-35. Makes one more think about how to take a picture.
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
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
I understand Carsten, abd as I said before the 24-70 is indeed a very usefull range.
By the way I recently think to have found a solution for my "problem" that I wasnt 100% happy how the Nikon files render skin. (yellowish and I missed some microcontrast and tonality)
I now feel that C1 and choosing a little colder WB works quite well for me for the D700 files.
I would be interested what other think about C1 for Nikon. (I have tried CS4, LR, Nikon Capture2).
From my experience it depends more on the actual camera than just "Nikon".

IMHO, C1 excels for D700/D3 files, but they did not get the profile (as) right for the D3X.

The difference is noticeable, and quite possibly they did not take into account the D3X in-camera base processing differences. A simple test seems to support this theory: D700/D3 files looks pretty good when opting for the D3X profile, with little difference.

With the latter camera, C1 produces mixed results depending on the type of shot. As mentionned before, looks like NX2 really shines there IQ wise, thanks to the embedded original profiles. Too bad the larger files makes it even clumsier in terms of computing performance, requiring a careful workflow.

Still have to check LR beta2 out, as per Lloyd's recommandations. The match with the D3 looks pretty good. Hopefully it'll prove to perform as well as NX2 with the D3X, adding along some useful extras such as browsing, cataloging, and of course probably faster. Time will tell...



edit: i agree on your take re C1 WB settings for the D700 with the lastest FW. In-camera WB is so much improved that it's more a matter of taste, i.e. sticking to the standard rendering (more low/artificial light dependant, as fim does btw) or choosing to go for a neutral result by compensating with a cooler temp. Using a grey card also brings much better results than it used to( with the former FW).
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
Why do you conclude that the 14-24 is so much better in IQ than the 16-35?
I don't conclude that, but I have read a few places that the 16-35VR is quite good, but that the 14-24 is fantastic, possibly the best wide angle zoom ever made. Since I am intending to use it quite a lot at the widest setting, this could make a big difference to me.

If I were travelling with my D3, the 16-35VR would make a lot more sense, both with the smaller size and weight, and also with the VR, but I will be travelling with my Leica M8, and later, M9/M10.
 

carstenw

Active member
IMHO, C1 excels for D700/D3 files, but they did not get the profile (as) right for the D3X.
I am more the conspiracy-theory type, and I think that it is quite unlikely that Phase One could not get the D3x profile right, and much more likely that it is simply not in their best interest to do so. The D3x is nibbling at the bottom end of the MFDB market...

Still have to check LR beta2 out, as per Lloyd's recommandations.
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.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
@Carsten

Why do you conclude that the 14-24 is so much better in IQ than the 16-35?

I rather doubt that! And if the 2mm in focal length at the wide end are not needed, then the 16-35 is the cheaper, lighter and more flexible solution.
A quick search of the current trusted user reviews out there of the 16-35 vs 14-24 will confirm the consensus that the 14-24 remains arguably the best super wide zoom bar none. Even Canon folks covet and convert this lens.

IMHO, C1 excels for D700/D3 files, but they did not get the profile (as) right for the D3X.

The difference is noticeable, and quite possibly they did not take into account the D3X in-camera base processing differences. A simple test seems to support this theory: D700/D3 files looks pretty good when opting for the D3X profile, with little difference.

With the latter camera, C1 produces mixed results depending on the type of shot. As mentionned before, looks like NX2 really shines there IQ wise, thanks to the embedded original profiles. Too bad the larger files makes it even clumsier in terms of computing performance, requiring a careful workflow.
With Nikon D3 & D3x files I find that C1 v5 does a very decent job in rendering files but I still find myself using Nikon Capture NX2 for my keeper master files, despite the slower user experience. Put simply, the default rendering I get from NX2 appears to pull more out from my NEF files and I seem to get better headroom out of Nikon files in terms of highlights than C1 manages for me. I literally only have to perform minor adjustment of the file compared to C1 to produce an accurate master file that in many cases can produce a final image without any further PS work.

In the case of D3x files, the colour and DR I get from NX2 is significantly better than C1 Pro, especially when the built in lens CA/vignette corrections are enabled. C1 has a tendency to indicate blown highlights in D3x files that NX2 can render smoothly with minimal highlight adjustment.

Don't get me wrong though, C1 is my preferred raw converter as it handles my Leica files so well and for 95% of Nikon files is similarly excellent. However, if I want the very best results from a NEF file I will always end up running it through NX2 (which I admit is slower and a somewhat clunkier workflow and UI experience). I still can't use ACR comfortably with Nikon files - it's not that it's bad but it just doesn't render tones with the same subtlety when I use it as either C1 or NX2. I personally find that I have to work the files harder to achieve the same results - that may just be me, but that's what I find.
 
Last edited:

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
A quick search of the current trusted user reviews out there of the 16-35 vs 14-24 will confirm the consensus that the 14-24 remains arguably the best super wide zoom bar none. Even Canon folks covet and convert this lens.



With Nikon D3 & D3x files I find that C1 v5 does a very decent job in rendering files but I still find myself using Nikon Capture NX2 for my keeper master files, despite the slower user experience. Put simply, the default rendering I get from NX2 appears to pull more out from my NEF files and I seem to get better headroom out of Nikon files in terms of highlights than C1 manages for me. I literally only have to perform minor adjustment of the file compared to C1 to produce an accurate master file that in many cases can produce a final image without any further PS work.

In the case of D3x files, the colour and DR I get from NX2 is significantly better than C1 Pro, especially when the built in lens CA/vignette corrections are enabled. C1 has a tendency to indicate blown highlights in D3x files that NX2 can render smoothly with minimal highlight adjustment.

Don't get me wrong though, C1 is my preferred raw converter as it handles my Leica files so well and for 95% of Nikon files is similarly excellent. However, if I want the very best results from a NEF file I will always end up running it through NX2 (which I admit is slower and a somewhat clunkier workflow and UI experience). I still can't use ACR comfortably with Nikon files - it's not that it's bad but it just doesn't render tones with the same subtlety when I use it as either C1 or NX2. I personally find that I have to work the files harder to achieve the same results - that may just be me, but that's what I find.
Ditto.

:)
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
I am more the conspiracy-theory type, and I think that it is quite unlikely that Phase One could not get the D3x profile right, and much more likely that it is simply not in their best interest to do so. The D3x is nibbling at the bottom end of the MFDB market...
Not always "the bottom".





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.
You should be happy then with LR3. :thumbup:

Just to make things clear, i have to point out that with ~12Mb D700/D3 files, one can also achieve a terrific job with NX2 for relatively little money, provided that you own a reasonnably powerful computer.
 

carstenw

Active member
Not always "the bottom".
Well, the definition of "the bottom" is changing rapidly, and no surprise there. The 22MP backs still have the advantage in IQ, but the difference is not so huge that one could not live with the D3x. The 30+ MP backs are noticeably better.

It is not surprising to see how fast the MFDB market moved to larger "smallest" backs when the D3x came out. Somehow the reaction to the 1Ds3 doesn't seem to have been as strong, but maybe I am just imagining that.

You should be happy then with LR3. :thumbup:

Just to make things clear, i have to point out that with ~12Mb D700/D3 files, one can also achieve a terrific job with NX2 for relatively little money, provided that you own a reasonnably powerful computer.
:) Once I start printing more and more regularly, I will re-evaluate, but LR is getting very good. I don't own a reasonably fast computer, doing almost everything on my 15" MBP, and having only a dual 2.5GHz PowerMac as alternative. This is partly on purpose. I don't find that my photography has gotten better with more megapixels, so I am deliberately lagging a little behind, saving a load of money in the process.
 
Top