Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Down

Author Topic: "The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"  (Read 99714 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380

Quote from: Slough
Not necessarily. At one time people simply kept a room full of slides, and sent out originals to photo editors.

Having previously paid someone to develop whole batches of film (individual rolls) in accordance with a set standard that would not necessarily be ideal for each individual exposure or even any single exposure on the roll. But too bad; once it's developed it's developed...... as opposed to having a disc full of slides (RAW files) which can be developed and redeveloped as may times and in as many different ways as one likes.

There's no comparison. Only the sentimental would want to go back to the days of film.
Logged

N Walker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
    • www.sportpicturelibrary.com

once it's developed it's developed...... as opposed to having a disc full of slides (RAW files) which can be developed and redeveloped as may times and in as many different ways as one likes.

There's no comparison. Only the sentimental would want to go back to the days of film.
[/quote]


Fuji Velvia was exposed and lit correctly at the time, there was no requirement to reprocess it - why would I want to alter a look that I, and many other photographers liked, including clients.

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805

Quote from: Slough
The advantages of digital for me come down to the ability to achieve accurate colours (white balance) without using colour correction filters on the lens and flash.
I think a digital 101 course would change your view.
Logged
Gabor

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380

Quote from: Nick Walker
.... why would I want to alter a look that I, and many other photographers liked, including clients.

To see if you can come up with something that you and your clients like even more   .
Logged

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 700
    • http://www.twigwater.com

Post process for me in the film days was simply a matter of having a quick look at the lab (after coffee), addressing the envelope to the client and ringing them to pick-up.




Logged
www.twigwater.com My fly fishing blog.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380

Quote from: David Anderson
Post process for me in the film days was simply a matter of having a quick look at the lab (after coffee), addressing the envelope to the client and ringing them to pick-up.

And no doubt storing film in the fridge, keeping a track of the 'use-by' date and stuffing around changing film or camera back when you needed a different ISO.

Is there any good reason why you can't electronically send your clients a copy of the jpegs (after shooting in 'RAW+Jpeg' mode) whilst actually drinking your coffee?

You could also include with your electronic transmission a few samples of various 'looks'; Velvia, Kodachrome, Ektachrome, whatever. Give your client a few choices   .
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 08:27:56 PM by Ray »
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547

Bernard, we must be cut from the same cloth, as I'm a tea drinker, and I reference that TED jeans video all of the time to family and friends. Granted, I am a lowly A900 shooter, rather than that sweet D3x
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380

To get back to the real and sensible reasons for choosing a camera; the quality and range of available lenses.

I'd like to expand upon an earlier comment I made a few pages back, namely:
Quote
The 24-120 F3.5/5.6 VR seems a bit below par. The 80-400 VR is no better than the Canon 100-400 IS; maybe not as good. The AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR is a fine lens; at least the equal of the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS, but it's way too heavy for me. The Canon 70-200/F4 IS appears to be a slightly sharper lens (than both the Nikkor and Canon 70-200/2.8) and is both cheaper and lighter. If I were to buy a new lens at this stage, that's the lens I would buy.

The new Nikkor 70-300 VR seems useful and the right weight, but alas! it's really only a good quality 70-200. Performance at 300mm seems well below par.

It occurred to me that maybe the Nikkor 70-300 VR might be useful as a 70-200 lens. Perhaps I could simply ignore the extra reach to 300mm and pretend it didn't exist. So I compared the Canon 70-200/f4 at 200mm with the Nikkor 70-300 at 200mm and F5.3, at Photozone. I added just 5% to the Canon LP/PH figures to compensate for the additional pixels of the D200 test camera used for the Nikkor lens (as opposed to the Canon 350D for the Canon lens). That's a very conservative figure.

Alas! The Nikkor still doesn't make the grade at 200mm, compared with the Canon at 200mm. However, the Nikkor is good at 70mm. I don't want to give the impression that I am in any way biased towards Canon you understand, so I'm always willing to give credit where credit is due.

Now, I can sense some of you getting a bit hot and bothered under the collar. You're probably thinking, the Nikkor 70-300/F3.5-5.6 VR is a budget lens. It's cheaper than the Canon 70-200/F4 IS. What do you expect?

And you are right. It is cheaper. But what's the alternative? A very heavy and more expensive Nikkor 70-200/2.8 which is actually not quite as sharp as the cheaper and lighter Canon 70-200/F4 IS?

Do I buy a D3X on the basis that I can save money by buying cheap Nikkor lenses which might well be good value but are optically mediocre? I think not.

Do I sacrifice this wonderful technology of IS or VR so I can use a sharper lens at a less sharp shutter speed? I think not.
Logged

NikosR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
    • http://

Episode n+2
Logged
Nikos

Slough

  • Guest

Quote from: Ray
Having previously paid someone to develop whole batches of film (individual rolls) in accordance with a set standard that would not necessarily be ideal for each individual exposure or even any single exposure on the roll. But too bad; once it's developed it's developed...... as opposed to having a disc full of slides (RAW files) which can be developed and redeveloped as may times and in as many different ways as one likes.

There's no comparison. Only the sentimental would want to go back to the days of film.

I don't reply to arseholes like you. (I am replying in the language that you understand since the moderators consider verbal abuse acceptable, as your earlier abuse of me is still online.)
Logged

Slough

  • Guest

Quote from: Panopeeper
I think a digital 101 course would change your view.

How do you mean? Actually after years of using slide film, and finding a low keeper rate due to 1) narrow dynamic range 2) high grain 3) difficulties with colour casts and 4) colour shifts due to different riciprocity failure in each layer, I would not touch film with a barge pole. For me - someone who uses a PC on a daily basis - digital is far better. But not everyone thinks that way.
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet

Quote from: Slough
How do you mean?
Accurate colours aren't quite as easy as it appears that you claimed in your previous post.
Logged
Jan

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet

Quote from: Nick Walker
Narrow dynamic range, for me, is a positive, not a negative. My favourite paintings (including old masters), and photographs, are of narrow dynamic range subjects.
You can always go from a wide dynamic range to a narrow dynamic range, so I don't quite see how it's a positive.

But the wideness of the dynamic range may be something that has no significance to you, something you simply don't care about.
Logged
Jan

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805

Quote from: Slough
How do you mean? Actually after years of using slide film, and finding a low keeper rate due to 1) narrow dynamic range 2) high grain 3) difficulties with colour casts and 4) colour shifts due to different riciprocity failure in each layer, I would not touch film with a barge pole. For me - someone who uses a PC on a daily basis - digital is far better.

You had written before

The advantages of digital for me come down to the ability to achieve accurate colours (white balance) without using colour correction filters on the lens and flash

I meant that if this is all the advantage you find in digital vs film, then you have not discovered many of the possibilities the digital way is offering, particularly with raw data. However, now I see that that post had not expressed exactly what you had been thinking of.
Logged
Gabor

Slough

  • Guest

Quote from: Panopeeper
You had written before

The advantages of digital for me come down to the ability to achieve accurate colours (white balance) without using colour correction filters on the lens and flash

I meant that if this is all the advantage you find in digital vs film, then you have not discovered many of the possibilities the digital way is offering, particularly with raw data. However, now I see that that post had not expressed exactly what you had been thinking of.

Ah, okay, that's fair enough. Yes, I think digital is amazing! Not that I don't admire the results that skilled MF film users can get.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest

Quote from: jani
Accurate colours aren't quite as easy as it appears that you claimed in your previous post.

Would you care to enlarge on that?
Logged

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426

Quote from: Ray
Do I buy a D3X on the basis that I can save money by buying cheap Nikkor lenses which might well be good value but are optically mediocre? I think not.
I think this is one of the few lines that make sense, on this two millions nonsense thread.

Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1620
    • yet

Quote from: Slough
Would you care to enlarge on that?
Accurate (correct) colour isn't necessarily pleasing colour or natural looking, and correct colour isn't necessarily just a matter of setting the white balance.

In addition, different software deals differently with white balance, so the procedures and results may differ.
Logged
Jan

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10036
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Color is perception, not reality. Illumination is continous spectrum (natural or incdescent light). Colors reflected are non continous.Fluorescent illumination is spiky, has large spikes in the spectrum. The eye gets three stimuli dependent on the spectral characteristics of light and object. Brain combines tristimulus signals and interpretes as color.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Slough
Would you care to enlarge on that?

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9380

Quote from Ray:

Quote
Do I buy a D3X on the basis that I can save money by buying cheap Nikkor lenses which might well be good value but are optically mediocre? I think not.


Quote from: ziocan
I think this is one of the few lines that make sense, on this two millions nonsense thread.

Ziocan,
Thanks for your support, but I fear that some folks might misinterpret such selective quoting and draw the conclusion that I'm saying that all Nikkor lenses are mediocre. This is clearly not the case.

We all have different interests, shooting styles and lens requirements. Buying a new camera without consideration of your lens requirements is a bit shortsighted, in my view. I'm disappointed that Nikon does not have the equivalent of the Canon 24-105/F4 IS or the 70-200/F4 IS. On the other hand, I shall at least save some money as a consequence.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Up