Topic: Nikon D3 - Official image samples online (Read 16787 times)

NikosR · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2007, 11:39:40 pm »

Quote

I just did some tests, using the lighting in my room, with a high ISO setting and aperture priority mode, and varying the aperture from f/2 to f/32, shooting 9 frames at 1-stop intervals. The results weren't quite what I expected. My 1Ds does have somewhat higher noise at longer shutter speeds (range tested was 1/2 to 1/400), but the 1D-II actually goes the opposite way, with slightly lower noise at longer shutter speeds. I would imagine that it is possible there are other cameras that split the difference and stay about the same.

But in both cases, small exposure errors were much more significant in their effect on noise than the actual shutter speed. Proper exposure (exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing important highlights) is the most effective way to minimize noise at high ISO. Shutter speed (all else being equal) has a small effect on noise levels, but it is pretty insignificant with the cameras I've tested so far in the 1/2 - 1/400 range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This has been my experience also.

NikosR · « **Reply #21 on:** September 13, 2007, 11:57:37 pm »

Quote

1. To Jonathan and Morgan:

I indirectly addressed this issue in my first response.

Yes, "noise reciprocity" fails at sufficiently long exposures, like 1/2 second, because then dark current noise can increase to significant levels. But as far as I know, this is irrelevant at hand-holdable shutter speeds, say 1/30s and faster.

Jonathan, what did your tests show at 1/30s and faster?
2. To Morgan: you seem to be saying that the main use for very high exposure index (IE, or 'ISO') is with long exposure times, and thus in what is over all extremely low light. I doubt it. High EI seems to be most often used to get moderate to fast shutter speeds for action photography, and I would think that most times where a long exposure like 1/2s is needed, one is dealing with a tripod and stationary subject matter, and so might as well go to an even longer exposure time and use base ISO speed.

3. To Bernard: you have a good point, which is that the harshest test of high EI settings is scenes of high subject brightness range, like ones with deep shadows, particularly if there is something to attract the viewer's curiosity in those shadows. Nikon's 6400 example seems to fit that bill.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I absolutely agree on all these points.

Additionaly I should stress the difference blue defficient lighting conditions have in accentuating the noise when a substantial white balance correction has been applied.

This is why I think the Nikon 6400 sample seems to me to be very interesting. Not only was it shot at 6400 and contains large shadow portions, it was also shot with 3750K white balance correction and the main subject is obviously lit with yellowish colored gel lights. Compare the skin color to the whitish (I supose halogen) light source visible in the upper right corner of the picture.

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #22 on:** September 14, 2007, 01:21:52 am »

Quote

2. To Morgan: you seem to be saying that the main use for very high exposure index (IE, or 'ISO') is with long exposure times, and thus in what is over all extremely low light. I doubt it. High EI seems to be most often used to get moderate to fast shutter speeds for action photography, and I would think that most times where a long exposure like 1/2s is needed, one is dealing with a tripod and stationary subject matter, and so might as well go to an even longer exposure time and use base ISO speed.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I dont think I said that.

Intially I was questioning the fact that the test shot had no reason to use 6400 at 160 5.6

I then quaestioned whether there would be more noise say in a situation that forced you to use 60th at 2 with 6400

I still think there might be - being superstitiious - no technical argument

However in the nikon I will be looking for handholdability and performances in shutter speeds no lower than 15th

I dont get high ISOs and tripods used in conjunction either

S

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #23 on:** September 14, 2007, 11:00:59 am »

Quote

Yes, "noise reciprocity" fails at sufficiently long exposures, like 1/2 second, because then dark current noise can increase to significant levels. But as far as I know, this is irrelevant at hand-holdable shutter speeds, say 1/30s and faster.

Jonathan, what did your tests show at 1/30s and faster?

In a nutshell, that at handholdable shutter speeds, even down to 1/4, that given a constant exposure level (exposing so that the lighest patch on a Color Checker ends up ~249) the effect of shutter speed on noise level is not very significant, and varies by camera model. Over- or under-exposure has a far greater effect, so much so that shutter speed per se is really not worth worrying about as long as dark current doesn't come into play. By far, the most significant way to reduce noise to the lowest level possible is to get as much exposure as possible without clipping the highlights unacceptably. A 2/3-stop underexposure will have maybe 10x the effect on noise that going from 1/10 to 1/100 will. I hesitate to try to quantify the difference, but overall exposure level is far more significant a factor than shutter speed alone.

djgarcia · « **Reply #24 on:** September 14, 2007, 04:31:16 pm »

On occasion, if you're shooting at f/16-22 and a .5-1 sec exposure @ ISO 100, a higher ISO and faster shutter speed with little degradation could get the slightly moving leaves & branches to freeze ...

BJL · « **Reply #25 on:** September 14, 2007, 09:32:50 pm »

Quote

On occasion, if you're shooting at f/16-22 and a .5-1 sec exposure @ ISO 100, a higher ISO and faster shutter speed with little degradation could get the slightly moving leaves & branches to freeze ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

maybe, but then ISO 400 gets you to 1/4 or faster and then, according the post immediately above yours, dark current noise is probably not a factor. And ISO 6400 would get you to 1/30s of faster, definitely out of dark current noise territory.

The bottom line remains that ISO 6400 will almost always be used at shutter speeds faster enough (1/30s seems easily fat enough) that the noise level is determined by the amount of light received by the sensor (the exposure index?), and is not significantly effected by aperture ratio or shutter speed. So the 3200 and 6400 examples do their job, unless one suspects substantial NR of a type that reduces sharpness or resolution. (Some have suggested that the shadows in these images lack color saturation, hinting at chroma noise reduction processing.)

friml · « **Reply #26 on:** September 19, 2007, 12:53:39 pm »

people can whinge and moan as much as they want about noise in predominantly dark conditions, and colour charts ... but in the REAL world the D3 looks to be a phenominal step up from any of the Nikon Digis to date.

These images look better at 3200 than my [loved] D2H at 400. Even better than the D2 @ base ISO in 'dark tone' conditions ill say flippantly...

I feel that Nikon users should be very pleased. I bloody am

Ray · « **Reply #27 on:** September 21, 2007, 04:34:12 am »

The basic issue here I think is, to what extent is resolution compromised at high ISO? For example, although the Canon 5D has exlempary noise characteristrics at ISO 3200, there is a slight blurring of resolution, at ISO 1600 too.

I recall the 1Ds2 did not suffer as much from such smearing, but as a consequence appeared slightly noisier than the 5D at maximum ISO.

The D2X of course lost a lot of resolution at high ISO with noise reduction on whereas the new Canon 40D appears to have a noise reduction feature which does not degrade resolution at all, compared with noise reduction off.

Those fortunate enough to own a copy of CS3E will be aware that stacked multiple images can be auto-aligned so well that it's possible to reduce noise significantly, by 2 stops or so, from a hand-held burst of 5 or more shots. Not much good if the subject is moving of course, but for still life in low light it seems to work.

The 5D has a relatively slow continuous frame rate, yet I've been able to take a burst of 5 shots at 1/13th sec at ISO 3200 (using IS) and auto-align and stack them so well that the result looks sharper than any single shot from the series; sharper no doubt only as a result of lower noise, equal to that from an ISO 800 setting, but probably not as sharp as stacking 5 images of the same scene shot at ISO 800.

Sfleming · « **Reply #28 on:** September 21, 2007, 11:32:58 pm »

I wish Michael had something to offer re the D3.

zaharia · « **Reply #29 on:** September 28, 2007, 05:14:31 pm »

Quote

I wish Michael had something to offer re the D3.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

More D3 Nikon official samples mirrored here:
[a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8743-9108]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8743-9108[/url]

Nikon has them as well, of course but VERY SLOW:
http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/09/nikon_d3_sample_images.php

They look fantastical!! )

roskav · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2007, 12:30:27 pm »

Just at a Nikon day here in Dublin .. I have some files from the D3 ... but I'm frustrated by Nikon's website and how to download the view software for the raw files. Does anyone have a handy URL for the download area? .. Might be my browser (Safari).. will check in Firefox also. (They look fab on the new camera screen BTW)

Ta!

Ros

roskav · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2007, 06:28:55 am »

Hmm think this might be it .. I'll try this tomorrow in the office..

http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...li=&p_topview=1

(View NX)

Ros

roskav · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2007, 05:47:41 am »

Managed to convert some of the raw files ... lovely files at high iso .. thinking of returning to nikon after a brief sojurn with the 1dmkIII .. one thing however: The canon is fab at resolving changes in light at edges ... the d2x not as good ... (I know the lens has a lot to do with this) But after having horrible experiences with the Kodak SLR/n I'm wondering how much of this magenta/ green fringing is due to the chip? ... Image taken at iso 200 at f 1.4 on 85mm on a D3. Three 100% crops together:

Ros

(edited for spelling and lens type APOLOGIES)

roskav · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2007, 07:45:34 am »

Hmm seems I'm talking to myself .. any comments?

Ros

PS Just to re-iterate .. these are 100% crops from the new Nikon D3 and 85mm 1.4 lens... I can post raw files if anybody wants them....

Ros

(edited for lens type APOLOGIES)

heinrichvoelkel · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2007, 09:18:09 am »

Quote

Hmm seems I'm talking to myself .. any comments?

Ros

PS Just to re-iterate .. these are 100% crops from the new Nikon D3 and 24-70 2.8 lens... I can post raw files if anybody wants them....

Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The fringing doesn't look good at all. Did you have a lokk a other sample pics on the web to see this kind of behaviour there as well?!

Regards
Heinrich

roskav · « **Reply #35 on:** October 16, 2007, 01:28:08 pm »

Hi there .. had a look a the files again and realised that I had posted the one taken with an 85mm 1.4 ... APOLOGIES!... the fringing was really bad but I looked at the ones taken with the 24-70 and there is no fringing on those... I have also checked some other photographers D3 shots taken with an 85mm lens and there is no fringing on those either... So it looks like mine is acting up .... why!?

So .. to say again .. there is no problem with the 24-70 .. it was my 85mm that was giving problems.

Apologies again!..

Here is a different shot with the 85mm

Ros

mtomalty · « **Reply #36 on:** October 16, 2007, 03:08:48 pm »

Ros

I don't think you're doing Nikon any favors by posting samples using that 85mm

Mark

Sfleming · « **Reply #37 on:** October 17, 2007, 02:15:48 pm »

Quote

I wish Michael had something to offer re the D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well at least MR got someone to pitch hit. Thank you Mr. Russel. Nice article.

NikosR · « **Reply #38 on:** October 18, 2007, 01:26:55 am »

Quote

Hi there .. had a look a the files again and realised that I had posted the one taken with an 85mm 1.4 ... APOLOGIES!... the fringing was really bad but I looked at the ones taken with the 24-70 and there is no fringing on those... I have also checked some other photographers D3 shots taken with an 85mm lens and there is no fringing on those either... So it looks like mine is acting up .... why!?

So .. to say again .. there is no problem with the 24-70 .. it was my 85mm that was giving problems.

Apologies again!..

Here is a different shot with the 85mm
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you're talking about lateral colour aberrations, the 85 1.4, with all that's good about it, has a reputation for producing these under some high contrast circumstances in some apertures. My sample certainly does that. It's certainly not a perfect lens, but very good at what it was designed to do i.e. portraits.

roskav · « **Reply #39 on:** October 18, 2007, 04:25:10 am »

Have to agree re portraits and 85 mm .. I got it for stage work so this creates some trouble with highlights... the worst is the 50mm 1.4 just cant get a decent image at wide aperture on stage... have tried the zeiss 50mm .. this is miles better... I was used to using the 85mm on the d2x so hadn't seen it at its extremeties until I put it on the D3.

Ros

Author Topic: Nikon D3 - Official image samples online (Read 16787 times)