Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?  (Read 5176 times)

kluki

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« on: March 04, 2014, 01:11:25 PM »

I was wondering what you guys thought? I am seriously considering the nikon d3 at the moment. It seems to be the best camera for the best price. I was reading a review and I came across this. "The D3 is a professional newsman's tool, not a camera for casual shooters or professional landscape or portrait shooters." What exactly is a newsmans tool? And why is it not good for landscapes and portraits? And thank you everyone for letting me on the site, I hope to learn a lot here  ;)
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11088
    • Echophoto
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2014, 01:22:48 PM »

Hi,

Nikon D3:

- Low resolution
- High frame rate
- Good at high ISO
- Extremely robust

Nikon D800:

- Excellent DR
- High resolution
- Lower frame rate
- Still good at high ISO

Nikon D4:

- Low resolution
- High framerate
- ISO king
- Extremely robust

Best regards
Erik



I was wondering what you guys thought? I am seriously considering the nikon d3 at the moment. It seems to be the best camera for the best price. I was reading a review and I came across this. "The D3 is a professional newsman's tool, not a camera for casual shooters or professional landscape or portrait shooters." What exactly is a newsmans tool? And why is it not good for landscapes and portraits? And thank you everyone for letting me on the site, I hope to learn a lot here  ;)
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2958
    • flickr page
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2014, 03:01:24 PM »

I have a D700, which uses the same sensor as the D3. I use it for landscapes & portraits.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19029
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2014, 03:32:41 PM »

I have a D700, which uses the same sensor as the D3. I use it for landscapes & portraits.


So do I have one, works well with all my old glass; wonderful thing if you dig digital. I can't see the need for anything else for what I do these days, though the little Oly seems to tick a lot of boxes...

However, I do have to admit to a sneaky change of personal perspective: I used to think the Leica Mono was a bit of a nutter's camera; you know, trading away the colour option, but the more I think about it, the more attractive it becomes, except for the price barrier.

Oh well, just academic dreamin'.

Rob C

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11384
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2014, 04:36:31 PM »

I used a D3 to stitch landscape for a few years with great results. Robustness and battery life were also amazing.

All these Nepal images were captured with a D3:

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157604790836498/

Cheers,
Bernard

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 710
    • H.Bowman
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2014, 04:47:06 PM »

D3/D700 work great. I use D700 as my primary camera either in landscape or portraiture / pro work. DR on D700 is very good when you expose good. Every camera is good when you expose good. For the rest, MF film still da king.

Some examples :










Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2014, 10:50:27 PM »

I was wondering what you guys thought? I am seriously considering the nikon d3 at the moment. It seems to be the best camera for the best price. I was reading a review and I came across this. "The D3 is a professional newsman's tool, not a camera for casual shooters or professional landscape or portrait shooters." What exactly is a newsmans tool? And why is it not good for landscapes and portraits? And thank you everyone for letting me on the site, I hope to learn a lot here  ;)

It depends upon the price.  The D3 has a great body, and a great finder.  It's heavy.  In today's terms, it has less dynamic range than any full-frame camera made.  It's very good up to ISO 3200, and ok-for-pj at ISO6400.  Above that, the serious issues with pattern noise with blooming become apparent.

It's a perfectly good camera for portraits.  I think the D3x was a much better camera for studio portraits, with its near-perfect skin tones.

If you were getting a creampuff D3 for $1500, I'd say maybe.  Better a D3s.  But I'd be trying like mad to pull together enough money for a Df or D610, both of which have much better imaging. 

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 903
    • Celebrating Rural America, the Balkans and beyond
Re: Nikon D3 - why is it not good for landscapes and portraits?
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2014, 07:24:35 AM »

With good craft, the D700/D3/D3s are fine for both and for battery life in the field, the 3-series can't be beat.

Before that, the D2x made me a nice living off 30x20 landscape photos and both weddings and portraits.

Today, it's my D3s for portraits and social events and the D800 for field landscape and anything that's got to go super large, 50x30.

It's seldom the camera in the overall sceme that limits one, but the craft he creates from it.
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, ACT, and many more!  
Pages: [1]   Go Up