D3 owners thread.

Exif data is intact, Guy.

Exif data
Camera Nikon D3
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture f/1.8
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 4000
Exposure Bias +1/3 EV

Stopped down this lens is sharp at f/1.8 no problem.
 
I'm sure I read somewhere about similar mis-focusing issues on a D3, in that it wasn't obviously ****ed but was definitely not up to par. Also from the depths of my memory it was serviced and sorted. Did you buy from a dealer?
 
No, bought used. I may well just pass it back though.
 
For ISO4000 and that 50mm wide open, at 100% that looks fairly normal to me.

Further questions - raw or jpg? NR applied and when?





(I'd stop looking at high ISO shots taken with a wide-open lens at 100% though).
 
Radiohead said:
For ISO4000 and that 50mm wide open, at 100% that looks fairly normal to me.

Further questions - raw or jpg? NR applied and when?





(I'd stop looking at high ISO shots taken with a wide-open lens at 100% though).
Click to expand...

It's not wide open. It's a 50mm f/1.4 G. ;)

Nothing done to this except WB adjustments. Hardly fair to show an edit.
 
So it's high iso, unsharpened and at 100%?

Looks normal to me then. Post it up showing the whole image with your usual sharpening applied.
 
Guy, it has standard LR3 sharpening, not zero sharpening. Honestly if this is really the best the camera can do I might as well give up photography now because it's not good enough for me.
 
It'd be easy to eliminate the narrow DoF as the issue by stopping down, then try other lenses to eliminate that as a cause. In the test shot, was your son still?
 
What portion of the photo is that part?

It's almost impossible to base what the camera can do on a 100% crop taken at high ISO with a fast lens at that sort of aperture - unless you plan on printing everything at max size and viewing that close. I've used the D3 since the month it came out and I've masses of high ISO shots taken at 6400 and over, with fast lenses close to or wide open, and they look no better than that (and often worse).

Yet I couldn't care less, because printed, at normal sizes, and viewed at normal viewing distances, they look great (be that on prints, in a Queensberry, or whatever).

Seriously Dean, viewing images in a way that you never will in the real-world is the stuff of DP Review, and that way lies madness.

Look at these ceremony images - http://www.guycollierphotography.com/?p=5832

They're with a 50G, at f1.6, and ISO6400 and really poor light. You really don't want to look at them at 100% going by what you've said. But they're all in an album that looks fantastic printed. Beyond that, I don't know what to say. Those images I linked too have just today booked me a December wedding from a bride who wants exactly that for her candlelit day.
 
Point taken, Guy. I guess I just expected more tis all. I agree at print size it matters not a jot generally. My issue is really getting the most out of the eyes because unlike your excellent wedding album most of my baby shots are up close and personal where detail is more important.

I'll work more and see what the limit is for good detail and past that I'll use OCF.

Thanks for your help.
 
I was being dramatic due to man-flu lurgy yukkiness. :D
 
The23rdman said:
Okay, I've beeen playing around with this thing for a couple of weeks now. I took a load of test shots of my little boy, Noah, at between 1600 and 6400 ISO. My reason for buying this was the ability to up the ISO and have many more keepers in low light due to higher shutter speeds. This hasn't proven to be the case though and I'm not sure I'm expecting too much, but I would think I'd could expect better than this 100% crop shows. Is this user error? Any settings I'm missing?

Test shot
Click to expand...

That shot looks perfectly sharp to me for an image viewed at 100%. At this level of viewing the visible noise is impacting the image , but look at the level of detail still visible in the patterns in the pupil. The eyelashes too are sharp - it's just the noise breaking up the image at that level of viewing. Bear in mind you're looking at a huge image the size of a table top. Reducing this image by 50% would still produce a huge image for print, with the noise and apparant lack of sharpeness becoming none issues.

It isn't taken in the best light either by the look of it so I don't think you're seeing the best noise performnce possible, but I'd be more than happy with that quality of image viewed at 1:1.
 
Thanks, CT, I appreciate that. I guess I'd just come to expect stella performance despite the noise.
 
The23rdman said:
Thanks, CT, I appreciate that. I guess I'd just come to expect stella performance despite the noise.
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of crap talked about noise Dean tbh, and at the sizes most of us are likely to print, viewing images at 1:1 doesn't give a true picture at all. Are you working in Adobe RGB btw - there's a huge difference in colour between the Flickr image and an image copied into my sRGB editor?
 
I'm not bothered by noise as much as loss of detail.

edit: Thanks for the heads up. My body may still be set to adobe, but I work in prophoto in CS5.
 
I'm joining the Nikon fold, having my 1DII replaced by my insurance and taking the bold step to Nikon.

My 5DII has been sold, 24-70, flashes, TC etc and my D3 should be here on Wednesday. I've got a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRII and 1.4x TC lined up along with a brace of SB900s.

Let's see what this baby can do - first event is the British Rally Championship opener, the Sunseeker Rally.

Any tips, hints, settings, tools etc especially for motorsport?


DB
 
Impspeed said:
I'm joining the Nikon fold, having my 1DII replaced by my insurance and taking the bold step to Nikon.

My 5DII has been sold, 24-70, flashes, TC etc and my D3 should be here on Wednesday. I've got a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRII and 1.4x TC lined up along with a brace of SB900s.

Let's see what this baby can do - first event is the British Rally Championship opener, the Sunseeker Rally.

Any tips, hints, settings, tools etc especially for motorsport?

DB
Click to expand...

Saw your thread in the canon section and your items were selling like hot cakes! I sold my 5d2 and went with the d700 for some obvious reasons. I'm happy with NIKON now :D enjoy your new toy!
 
Think I'm going to have to put mine in for a service. At a shoot today and getting intermitent black frames and then the autofocus seemed to hang up. Lens is fine on another body and my 24-70 wouldn't work on this one to start with. Seems to be working again now though but very wierd :thinking:
 
The23rdman said:
Guy, it has standard LR3 sharpening, not zero sharpening. Honestly if this is really the best the camera can do I might as well give up photography now because it's not good enough for me.
Click to expand...



Babies and children are notoriously difficult at the best of times. If you want to shoot above f2 you have to expect a lot less keepers with any subject that can move, and kids move a lot. Looks like your focused on the left eye but hard to tell without seeing the whole image, and that part is acceptably Sharp. If I want an image cleaner than that I don't go over ISO 800, but seriously it would be fine for a low light shot, viewing at 100% it looks fine, surely you will be happy with a print or sized for web.
 
I've had a D3 since the day they came out. In fact I had mine BEFORE they were launched (at Focus) I had mine the previous Wednesday! The results I have had in the intervening 3 (or is it 4?) years have been fabulous. So much so I can't see the need for any more - what will a biggger file give me at a maximum usage (realistically) of A2? It'll just fill up my computer faster!

I AM interested in th efact that people use such high ISO though. I don't think I have ever gone over 800, and to go over 400 is a very rare occurance. I use 200 all the time and make life difficult formyself - but I am used to having shot all my life on either 25, 50 or 100 and if it was nasty pushing 1 stop to 200. The number of rolls of 400 I shot in my career you could hold in your hands. So for me high quality is the key - and speed of use. The D3 is just so fast to use and adjust on the fly. It means you can adjust to the changing situation - I don't rely on auto ISO EVER - in fact I had forgotten it had it and I have never used it. I use A most of th etime, dialling in -ve Exp Comp mostly to adjust my exposure, rather than using M. By shooting to keep control of my depth of field with A and using -ve, or sometimes +ve, Exp Comp I am in reality shooting Manual, but with the camera's brain keeping pace with the changing light.

If I need a particular shutter speed (normally a slow one) then I will switch to S to maintain that slow shutter speed - panning shots for example where you deliberately want to go slow. I did some powerboats the other day with the 300 f2.8 and shot at 1/80th (no, I don't have the VR version!) and the background went a lovely silky smooth texture to emphasise th speed. there was a lot of wastage at that extreme, of course, but I only needed ONE!

The build quality of the D3 is very robust too. Mine have been through some tough times.Bounced around in race boats, knocked by trucks and vibrated for hours in the tin box on my bike on long journeys (motor bike). They have never missed a beat. One of my fisheye lenses rattled apart though and the front element was complletely off when I got to the other end.:thinking: It screwed back together easily and worked happily.
 
Lensflare said:
I've had a D3 since the day they came out. In fact I had mine BEFORE they were launched (at Focus) I had mine the previous Wednesday! The results I have had in the intervening 3 (or is it 4?) years have been fabulous. So much so I can't see the need for any more - what will a biggger file give me at a maximum usage (realistically) of A2? It'll just fill up my computer faster!

I AM interested in th efact that people use such high ISO though. I don't think I have ever gone over 800, and to go over 400 is a very rare occurance. I use 200 all the time and make life difficult formyself - but I am used to having shot all my life on either 25, 50 or 100 and if it was nasty pushing 1 stop to 200. The number of rolls of 400 I shot in my career you could hold in your hands. So for me high quality is the key - and speed of use. The D3 is just so fast to use and adjust on the fly. It means you can adjust to the changing situation - I don't rely on auto ISO EVER - in fact I had forgotten it had it and I have never used it. I use A most of th etime, dialling in -ve Exp Comp mostly to adjust my exposure, rather than using M. By shooting to keep control of my depth of field with A and using -ve, or sometimes +ve, Exp Comp I am in reality shooting Manual, but with the camera's brain keeping pace with the changing light.

If I need a particular shutter speed (normally a slow one) then I will switch to S to maintain that slow shutter speed - panning shots for example where you deliberately want to go slow. I did some powerboats the other day with the 300 f2.8 and shot at 1/80th (no, I don't have the VR version!) and the background went a lovely silky smooth texture to emphasise th speed. there was a lot of wastage at that extreme, of course, but I only needed ONE!

The build quality of the D3 is very robust too. Mine have been through some tough times.Bounced around in race boats, knocked by trucks and vibrated for hours in the tin box on my bike on long journeys (motor bike). They have never missed a beat. One of my fisheye lenses rattled apart though and the front element was complletely off when I got to the other end.:thinking: It screwed back together easily and worked happily.
Click to expand...



I never use auto ISO either, I can see where it could come in handy in some available light situations, maybe I should look into that a little more.

As for the higher ISOs I do find the D3 usable up to 6400, but I I tend to max out at 1600 and try to avoid going over 800 whenever practical. I shoot fast glass but do weddings and the higher ISO let's me shoot in a dark church without flash during the ceremony, so the higher ISOs do save day at times. I routinely use ISO 800-1600 when using flash, it gives me faster recycle times because I need less flash, plus I can bounce on camera flash a long way. Batteries last longer and the flash is less annoying to other people at lower power.

As soon as I go outside I am at ISO 200-400 most of the time. Studio work I just stick to ISO 200.


I would like HD video capability and I'm waiting for nikon to bring out the D800 or D4 hoping they will have what I'm after. I'm looking at the D7000 for video in the meantime as I think the events in Japan might delay things. Anyone here using the D7000 for video? I only want it for short snippets that I can use for fusion slideshows with stills.

I have even considered a Canon with an f4 zoom just for video, but of course I have all the nikon glass that I could be using.
 
Last edited:
lensflair said:
I never use auto ISO either, I can see where it could come in handy in some available light situations, maybe I should look into that a little more.
Click to expand...

As a person who previously never used auto ISO, most of the time I now shoot without flash and auto ISO is on. I've never trusted a camera more to get it right on just about 99.9% of the time than the D3s. It has transformed the way I shoot under changing circumstances. It allows you to control shutter speed and DOF on a constant level across extreme changes in lighting. For live music shoots it's a must.

You can even hand the camera over and tell someone else to take a shot and they will think they are Bill Bailey! (y)
 
rizla01 said:
HERE is a pic of the D3 that I would like.

Beats all of yours.

Interestingly or co-incidentally , it's an Alpina?

Am I missing summat?
Click to expand...

I beg to differ! I bet my D3s can get to 60, quicker than that piece of c**p can get to 60. I reckon 60 Frames in about 5 seconds on crop mode, or jpeg? :LOL:
 
Lensflare said:
I AM interested in th efact that people use such high ISO though. I don't think I have ever gone over 800
Click to expand...

It depends what you shoot I suppose - the D3 changed the way I work forever. In dim light it is just magic - making possible pictures you simply couldn't get before it arrived. Even with flash - high ISO can be good - it means much faster recycling times - and if the guy next to you is shooting at 200 ISO I can get 10 shots in while his flash is still thinking about it. It means you can use bounce flash is places you couldn't before too. I could go on and on. If you want low ISO/ultra high quality then the D3X may be a better choice.

Lensflare said:
I don't rely on auto ISO EVER
Click to expand...

Again it depends what you shoot but it is one of the most fantastic features on the camera. You can set the shutter speed and aperture that you need - and let the camera adjust ISO to suit - but within paramenters that you set. Great for sport or other high speed action in varying light.
 
awp said:
It depends what you shoot I suppose - the D3 changed the way I work forever. In dim light it is just magic - making possible pictures you simply couldn't get before it arrived. Even with flash - high ISO can be good - it means much faster recycling times - and if the guy next to you is shooting at 200 ISO I can get 10 shots in while his flash is still thinking about it. It means you can use bounce flash is places you couldn't before too. I could go on and on. If you want low ISO/ultra high quality then the D3X may be a better choice...
Click to expand...

D3x is great but very limited, I find - I've now relegated mine to portraits and studio work only, with the D3 bodies being used for everything else.

The higher-iso capability is the most useful aspect, I think - in the past, we generally stuck to under 400 for general-purpose, with only sports and news phots going higher. Now good, useable images can be attained at over 5000 iso and above, it's opened up a lot more opportunities.
 
Just thought I'd revive this thread by saying that today I joined the D3 club:love:

Got a used one (85k clicks) from Gray's of Westminster - very pleased with their service - which included an 18 month guarantee and an option to take it back within 14 days if I don't like it (fat chance):LOL:

Not tried to set it up yet........just staring lovingly at it at the moment. Will start playing with it after work tomorrow.

Any tips/hints gratefully received.
 
crusher said:
... Any tips/hints gratefully received.
Click to expand...

Assuming you haven't already I'd switch focussing to the AF-ON buttons (instead of the shutter release) - it's works particularly well with the pro bodies and their built-in grips.
 
Ozei said:
Assuming you haven't already I'd switch focussing to the AF-ON buttons (instead of the shutter release) - it's works particularly well with the pro bodies and their built-in grips.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the trouble..........I use that already on my D300, so will also use it on the D3. It took a while to get used to it, but I don't think I'll go back:)
 
rampanthamster said:
keith - how are you finding it going to FF?
Click to expand...

No idea yet I'm afraid - only travelled up to London and back to collect the camera yesterday and didn't get back until late. Will be at work today and rest of week, so I won't get much of a chance to play with it properly until next Monday as I won't get home from work until 7:30pm each day:shake:

I'll use the time to read the manual etc and sort out a basic "start up" setup and go from there.

I'm sure someone else on here will be able to answer your question though:)
 
I want to get a spare battery for my D3. Do you guys always use genuine Nikon ones or do any of you use third party ones? If so are they any good and any recommendations.

Thanks:)
 
Got one spare from eBay sometime ago and frankly I can't see any difference to the 'genuine' apart from the cheaper price - I wouldn't hesitate to get another.
 
Radiohead said:
Always genuine. Always.
Click to expand...

gramps said:
Got one spare from eBay sometime ago and frankly I can't see any difference to the 'genuine' apart from the cheaper price - I wouldn't hesitate to get another.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your replies chaps. Part of me thinks that I should just get a third party battery as an emergency spare, but then I think that as I've spent so much on the camera it would be silly to skimp on a battery:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top