Is a D3 better than a D90?

K

Kev

Messages
301
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
Stupid question I know, but it's serious to me. The question for me to answer is would a D3 be so much better than my D90 to justify the 2nd hand price hike? Any input to help me decide will be greatly appreciated.

The following photograph illustrates the problem I'm coming across. When I photograph in good light and good conditions, the photo's I get are excellent. When I push the boundaries I'm rarely satisfied with the results.
The photo here was taken today in light rain and poor light.


DSC_8637 by kevin.tams, on Flickr

iso200, 1/125 at f6.3. The photo has been PP'd quite a bit and it still doesn't pop. Am I expecting too much with these conditions, or would a D3 help me to grab an acceptable picture?
The lens is a Tamron 50th anniversary edition 24-135mm and is very close to a Nikon 17-55mm that I had.

cheers
Kev

ps
mods Not sure if this is in the right place, if not then I apologise.
 
Hand held? 1/125th may be too slow...don't know how fast the train was going.

Possibly one of them occasions when a photograph shouldn't have been taken :thinking:

Cheers.
 
Did you pan that shot or is the bokeh just fuzzy? In my experience, to get good pop you need lenses with high micro-contrast. Particularly when conditions are grizzly like that! Try a nice Zeiss prime to see what I mean ;) The other thing to do is shoot at a wider aperture to isolate the subject more.
 
Will a D3 be better than a D90? - Yes!
Will a D3 give you better pictures? Not without good glass and good use.
 
Hand held should have been OK, the lens was at 135mm. I was panning hence the background is a touch blurred. I was expecting more of a blue as the loco should have been doing 75mph at that point.

I think I know what you mean by micro-contrast, but if that helps then the question will be what lens to get. Nikon 85mm prime?

It could be that it was one of those days to enjoy the sight and forget the camera.

cheers
Kev
 
Hi Gramps, are you saying that my technique was faulty, if so what do you suggest?

Kev
 
Kev I don't know if your technique was faulty, all I am saying is that getting a better camera isn't necessarily going to give you remarkably better results if your lenses aren't good quality and your technique needs working on.
A D90 with good glass and good technique will give good results.
 
gramps said:
Kev I don't know if your technique was faulty, all I am saying is that getting a better camera isn't necessarily going to give you remarkably better results if your lenses aren't good quality and your technique needs working on.
A D90 with good glass and good technique will give good results.
Click to expand...

OK; so this then leads to getting better glass than the Tamron.
Buying better glass is a non-issue for me, I already have a big investment in my other 2 lenses, both Nikon, a 300 F2.8 VR and a 70-200 F2.8; so funding a better lens is possible, but as I said in my first post the Tamron is very very good in good conditions.
I used to own a 17-55mm F2.8 but was always wanting a bit longer reach hence the Tamron. Any advice is welcome.

Kev
 
300 and 70-200 are great lenses, I don't know the Tamron.
As others have said, it looks like you were panning, train sharp compared with background but the background seems almost like camera shake rather than panning blur.
 
gramps said:
300 and 70-200 are great lenses, I don't know the Tamron.
As others have said, it looks like you were panning, train sharp compared with background but the background seems almost like camera shake rather than panning blur.
Click to expand...
Im no expert but 1/125 sounds too fast for a decent pan, would expect more like 1/30 -1/50 ish. Also the grey day won't have helped the pop, the flat light really kills the natural contrast. A D3 wouldn't fix either of these issues, but don't let that stop you :lol:
 
D3 and D90 are both only 12MP, you should get at least 20+ :lol:

On a more serious note, I can't see how D3 would have improved this particular photo. Light can make or brake photo and sadly it was the latter. It is a bit unfortunate a grey (blown out) sky was included in the shot, effectively ruining the contrast of the image. The blacks aren't black enough, but that can and should be sorted in post. Foreground and the fence don't do much for me either. In fact I would rather see the train more from the front... So in this case it is 'reshoot' from a better angle and better light. Sorry.
 
It's always easier to critic than produce. So with that I'll give my thoughts. The train only takes up a small part of the image and could have been more prominent. The sky is blown and merges with the smoke which is a distraction. The train would have been much more interesting had it been coming toward you. All meaningful contrast has been lost due to the rain and poor light. There's not enough blur to enhance the trains sharpness in the image. Sometimes we just have to accept that our skills didn't match up to the challenge of difficult conditions. Would a D3 have helped? I doubt it. Good excuse to go back and try again. That's what I'd do, and more often than I'd like, have to. Told you it was easier to critic.:)
 
Kev said:
iso200, 1/125 at f6.3
Click to expand...

Kev said:
Hand held should have been OK, the lens was at 135mm
Click to expand...

Being a 1.5 crop I'd say at 135mm you'd need a shutter speed more in the region of 1/250s. According to DXO Mark the D90 actually has a wider dynamic range than the D3 (link) but the pixel pitch of the D3 is much higher so you probably will get a better result as mentioned.

I'm wondering if you could export three jpegs from the raw at various exposures and try a blend, HDR type thing?
 
Hope you don't mind but I had a quick play. The sky is horrific but it was just a hash attempt and to me it didn't take much to bring a little extra out of the image - you should be able to get loads more out of the RAW file :)

7119169199_2a05a4d2e3_b.jpg
 
To me with my limited knowledge the "play" by gman has done wonders for the shot.
 
A new camera would disappoint you - because you would end up spending a lot of money and see virtually no difference in the results

In fairness, I don't think a new lens would really help with this shot either. The problem you have is flat light coupled with (imo) poor exposure. It looks to me light the highlights in the smoke are blown, which in turn means you have lost some of the all important detail. Dropping the exposure back would give a darket (moody) sky and the detail in the smoke would become more prominent.
Also I think the loco travelling away from you doesn't help the composition.
 
Have I missed somthing :D,if your shooting in poor light,and it's raining,the light going to be a bit muted,that's just the nature of light.
:)
 

DSC_8627 by kevin.tams, on Flickr

NO PP at all, just a jpg conversion.
This shot is indicative of the conditions, heavy flat grey sky and light rain. I'm not expecting a great shot in these conditions, but I'd rather have a shot than non at all. Exposure was matrix metering -0.3EV to get some steam detail. I accept that I could have gone down to probably1/80th or maybe 1/50th to get more background blur
My question boils down to; all things being equal would a D3 have produced a better shot?
I guess from the responses so far that probably not and that Simonblue has hit it on the head..

gman I think your PPing has potential, perhaps I should have anoither go.:D

thanks for the responses
Kev (now leaning towards waiting for a D400:bonk:)
 
Kev wrote: "My question boils down to; all things being equal would a D3 have produced a better shot?"

Nope! Simonblue has nailed it - if the light is crap the shot will be (all other things being unequal ;o) ) and it won't pop as you were hoping. No camera can do any better than another on that issue.

One small point - if you are panning you really should be at right angles to the target for the best effect. Panning at such a sharp angle isn't going to give you proper blur lines just fuzziness...

Another thing -any accessories from your D90 (remote particularly) probably won't fit or work with the D3 so you'd have to shell out for them as well :o(

And finally - if you suffer from a bad back then think twice about a D3... it's extra weightiness is a lot to lug about all day.
 
It may be worth taking into consideration Autofocus abilities, metering systems etc. Although this particular photograph may not have been any better with the D3, I'm guessing there could be many other circumstances where the D3 would allow you to nail the shot because of the features mentioned above? I don't know what the D90 spec is though to be honest lol
 
To my eyes, that last shot, aside from being underexposed, is as flat as a fart in terms of contrast due to the poor light. It's not a good shot to judge a camera on IMO....
 
As others have said, no camera will take better pictures, it's all about the user, the d3 is a better camera, but the quality of the photograph comes down to the photographer and there ability
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top