Nikon D3 sample images

[windhorse]

Just had a go with the Nikon D3. Had just a couple of minutes with it but the High ISO settings produce amazing images. Saw some prints at A3 straight from camera jpeg's to printer at ISO6400 and was Knocked out at the quality.

Posted some sample shots for you to look at.
http://www.pbase.com/windhorse/nikon_d3


What do you think of the high ISO image quality? [url][/url]

[ewhalen]

My 5D can do the same thing with such small output sizes....perhaps some 100% crops would help us see.

[mikelong]

What do you think of the high ISO image quality?

Remarkable quality. Puts the D200 at ISO 1600 to shame.

[windhorse]

My 5D can do the same thing with such small output sizes....perhaps some 100% crops would help us see.

If you had opened all the images then you would have seen the full size images posted. Never mind try again.

[ewhalen]

My 5D can do the same thing with such small output sizes....perhaps some 100% crops would help us see.

If you had opened all the images then you would have seen the full size images posted. Never mind try again.

I saw one of a man, and it looked bad.

The noise is just as blotchy as my 5D.

[marxz]

My 5D can do the same thing with such small output sizes....perhaps some 100% crops would help us see.

If you had opened all the images then you would have seen the full size images posted. Never mind try again.

I saw one of a man, and it looked bad.

The noise is just as blotchy as my 5D.

which would have to shot be at half the ISO? (given the full rez shot "of the guy" is shot at 6400)

Considering it's a dark subject (the camera (or specifically the lens going by focus) rather than the guy) against a light background this is pretty much worst case scenario for noise.... only fill flash could have saved it. Anyway I've seen and certainly shot my self far far noiser images at lower ISO's.

the other 64,000 ISO shot (contortionist) comes up better, still soft but impressive for the ISO.

Very little chromatic noise noticable, mostly luminosity noise which should help for an acceptable NR software clean up
I noise ninja'ed it... comes up sorta, kinda OK, wouldn't put in in a glossy but it could be a newsprint shot no problem.
Still, I'd like to see raw shots from the camera (and no stunning results wouldn't make me go out and buy one, far far to poor and too much invested in Canon gear anyway).

[lord_of_the_badgers]

My 5D can do the same thing with such small output sizes....perhaps some 100% crops would help us see.

If you had opened all the images then you would have seen the full size images posted. Never mind try again.

I saw one of a man, and it looked bad.

The noise is just as blotchy as my 5D.

Well, my 5d has only ISO3200. Did you check what ISO ratings he was using? (yes, i have all d200 shots on my galleries)

the shot of the man is underexposed, unlike the bendy lady shots. Underexposure always makes noise. Yet, despite that, it still has plenty of contrast.


Two different beasts mate, the d3 is intended for journalism, the 5d isn't. But if you think the 5d is better, then I think you're just being a tad insecure, the 5d isn't better, the d3 is.

[ewhalen]

My 5D can do the same thing with such small output sizes....perhaps some 100% crops would help us see.

If you had opened all the images then you would have seen the full size images posted. Never mind try again.

I saw one of a man, and it looked bad.

The noise is just as blotchy as my 5D.

Well, my 5d has only ISO3200. Did you check what ISO ratings he was using? (yes, i have all d200 shots on my galleries)

the shot of the man is underexposed, unlike the bendy lady shots. Underexposure always makes noise. Yet, despite that, it still has plenty of contrast.


Two different beasts mate, the d3 is intended for journalism, the 5d isn't. But if you think the 5d is better, then I think you're just being a tad insecure, the 5d isn't better, the d3 is.

You can achieve 6400 on most any dslr camera. Just because it isn't listed, doesn't mean you can't do it.

And I'm not saying the D3 isn't better....hey...the 5D is nearly 2 years old.
My 5D is going to be moving to backup status rather soon though. Time to make room for a camera with an AF system similar to what I was use to with my EOS 3.

6400 on a 5D


6400 on a 400D


Not so hot, but usable for web use or even some smaller print sizes.

[marxz]

You can achieve 6400 on most any dslr camera. Just because it isn't listed, doesn't mean you can't do it.

And I'm not saying the D3 isn't better....hey...the 5D is nearly 2 years old.
My 5D is going to be moving to backup status rather soon though. Time to make room for a camera with an AF system similar to what I was use to with my EOS 3.

6400 on a 5D


6400 on a 400D


Not so hot, but usable for web use or even some smaller print sizes.

ummm ....the exif data on both those shots are showing at 1600 ISO... not accusing, just sayin'...

[ewhalen]

You can achieve 6400 on most any dslr camera. Just because it isn't listed, doesn't mean you can't do it.

And I'm not saying the D3 isn't better....hey...the 5D is nearly 2 years old.
My 5D is going to be moving to backup status rather soon though. Time to make room for a camera with an AF system similar to what I was use to with my EOS 3.

6400 on a 5D


6400 on a 400D


Not so hot, but usable for web use or even some smaller print sizes.

ummm ....the exif data on both those shots are showing at 1600 ISO... not accusing, just sayin'...

Shot at 1600, two stops under exposed, and pushed two stops in the RAW conversion.

[mikelong]

That's probably the best Pepsi bottle/telephone shot ever! Voted!!

[marxz]

ummm ....the exif data on both those shots are showing at 1600 ISO... not accusing, just sayin'...

Shot at 1600, two stops under exposed, and pushed two stops in the RAW conversion.

<cough> I'd hassard a strong wager that's not quite the same.... the effect on noise would be quite different though they would both lower the dynamic range significantly (though iso boost would slightly less)

doing it post pro is just stretching the signal across a wider dynamic range and if you pull the shadows up you simply increase the noise ratio.

increasing sensitivity (ISO), I'm guessing, is like up an amplifier (particularly as it is pre digital process) though you boost volume you also increase the base noise that an amplifier gets any signal below noise level would be more static than signal but you could still discern some signal. I'm guessing if any noise reduction is done on the analogue side of things it would be the equivalent of a noise gate where any signal + plus its noise component below a certain level would simply not be passed through to the signal amplifier (registers as black). I'm also guessing that they use something like a bucket brigade circuit which would account for the low ISO process that Kodak had on their SLR's (were a iso below the sensors native lowest sensitivity is actually made up of a series of images taken at the base sensitivity and then combined - Canon seam to do this too, to me it looks like the native base sensitivity of the 20D is 200ISO or possibly even 400ISO). Unlike audio it looks like if you increase the threshold on the bucket brigade circuit you can also lower noise, but at the cost of dynamic range and also long exposure will not smoothly blur discrete objects (say moving cars or people as opposed to water)

[url]http://www.pbase.com/marxz/image/75770157/medium.jpg
[/url]
note the fast moving person (among others) to the left renders as a blur but over the length of the exposure is captured several times in semi static (though this could be because they were walking erratically but in a 6 second exposure, not likely) sugesting a bucket brigade type analogue circuit pre ADC