Any D3 users out there willing to help a newbie?
WingsOfLovePhoto
Registered Users Posts: 797 Major grins
Hey all I just went out and bought a D3 as a Merry Christmas to me! present. I made this decision kind of hastily as I was frustrated with my D300 so I really don't know ....other than it is top of the line... why I made the choice. Now I find that I have only one lens (the 70-200) that works full frame on it. And just about 6 weeks ago I purchased a 17-55 which I was using for most of my indoor portraiture, and now I find myself not understanding the concept of a dx lens on a FF sensor. Can anyone explain?
I see that there is a crop box in the viewfinder. Does that mean that I should just shoot for that area and plan on post cropping to it?
Why does the zoom feel so far away? I can't seem to guage that so now when I crop in tight in PS there seems to be some pixellation.
Do I now have to go out and drop another 1500.00 for a 24-70 lens?
All of this started because I was taking shots at my son's wedding that were sub par with the d300. There seemed to be noise at 200iso and people were not as crystal clear as I am used to. This had happened only once before and I have no idea why. Otherwise my portraits are beautifully clear. I was shooting outside on like 3.5/125 on a cloudy day though there was some backlighting and was using a Gary Fong diffuser as I was the first time. But then it continued indoors.
So now the D3 and still the same problem. still having percieved noise on some pictures. I just can't figure it out and can't afford to keep spending all this money when I get frustrated. I have no local photogs I would be comfortable calling for help. Any suggestions here?
I looked through nikonians but coudn't find d3 custom settings spreadsheet like they had for the D300. HELPPPP:help
I see that there is a crop box in the viewfinder. Does that mean that I should just shoot for that area and plan on post cropping to it?
Why does the zoom feel so far away? I can't seem to guage that so now when I crop in tight in PS there seems to be some pixellation.
Do I now have to go out and drop another 1500.00 for a 24-70 lens?
All of this started because I was taking shots at my son's wedding that were sub par with the d300. There seemed to be noise at 200iso and people were not as crystal clear as I am used to. This had happened only once before and I have no idea why. Otherwise my portraits are beautifully clear. I was shooting outside on like 3.5/125 on a cloudy day though there was some backlighting and was using a Gary Fong diffuser as I was the first time. But then it continued indoors.
So now the D3 and still the same problem. still having percieved noise on some pictures. I just can't figure it out and can't afford to keep spending all this money when I get frustrated. I have no local photogs I would be comfortable calling for help. Any suggestions here?
I looked through nikonians but coudn't find d3 custom settings spreadsheet like they had for the D300. HELPPPP:help
Snady :thumb
my money well spent 
Nikon D4, D3s, D3, D700, Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 2.8 vrII, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 105mm macro, sigma fisheye, SB 800's and lots of other goodies!0
Comments
First of all, don't trust your monitor to determine random noise. I don't exactly understand why, but a lot of people seem to see random noise on the monitor, especially if it's an LCD monitor. Some software seems to compound the problem.
Do sample prints to determine the effects of noise. You can crop out a section at 100% and print that crop to see if there is true noise or not. If it doesn't show in the print then it is not a true problem, just a "perceived" problem.
I have a hard time believing that either the D300 or the D3 is that noisy at ISO 200, unless you are terribly underexposed and having to push the exposure in software.
For lenses, yes, you would do nicely to purchase a Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G AF-S ED as a standard zoom for the D3. That is the additional cost of having 2 different format cameras.
BTW, your 50mm, f1.8 will also work fine on the D3.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
DX and FX (aka: FF or full frame) sensors differ in size. if you can visualize looking through your eyepiece and seeing that greyed out section when you attach your 17-55mm lens? basically that area is the area in which your sensor is useless. putting on DX lens on an FX body is like throwing resolution out the window. how much?
FX resolution: 4,256 x 2,832
DX resolution: 2,784 x 1,848
there's no real reason to shoot DX lenses on an FX body; unless you're a newspaper shooter and you need the speed. you're getting that "zoom" perception because DX has a crop factor of 1.5. that equates to your perceived focal length changing by that aspect. so in this case, your 17mm lens shoots like a 25mm lens. this also happened on your D300 but since it has a DX sensor, you probably got acustomed to it right out of the box. you're thinking the images are getting pixelated because you're trying to zoom into an image that lacks the resolution you're looking for.
and why on earth were you shooting f/3.5 @ 1/125 outdoors on a sunny day and with a fong diffuser? either the day wasn't very sunny, you're shooting a macro shot in a shaded area, or you don't know what you're doing.
the D3 is an awesome camera; i have two of them. i've also shot over 40 weddings with one of them this year and know how it performs fairly well. there should be hardly any noise @ ISO200. now there are a couple of exceptions to this, however in normal usage, well lit images at ISO200 should be really clean. if you're consistently shooting at f/3.5 however, this would explain why your images appear to be out of focus or rather, not as sharp.
here are my suggestions:
shoot with only FF lenses such as the 70-200mm and 50mm that you have on the D3. take a class or seminar that would help you to better grasp the some more advanced concepts in photography and/or nikon equipment. i know one of the former nikon workshop instructors and they're really well suited for this. read the manual for the D3 from cover to cover and lookup all of the nomenclature that you don't know the definition of. play with the D3 at each step of the way so that you can see what does what. once you're done, do it again.
if you need to shoot at a low ISO for less noisy images at all times, plan on using DX lenses on the D3, or don't plan on getting further formalized instruction in photography, then return the D3. in all honesty, it's probably not the camera that best suits you. it's a feature-laden camera but so is your D300; however i don't think that you'll benefit from the differences. full frame vs. cropped for one and the D3 shines at higher ISO you know what you're looking at. i'm not trying to be mean, but it's like getting an exotic sports car and not knowing how to drive stick. you got it because you could, now you have to learn to use it.
- my photography: www.dangin.com
- my blog: www.dangin.com/blog
- follow me on twitter: @danginphoto
I wish you had posted some of those photos for us to look at so we could try to make some sense of what the problem was. You have a collection of DX glass which will not be very well suited to your new FX sensor. Your D300 is a great camera, and if used properly, should produce excellent photos with your present glass.
I can understand the allure of an FX camera. It just seems that you are making the jump without a good reason. Why the D3 over the D700? Just because it is the "best"?
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I didn't intially know about the dx glass. I will continue to use that as backup on my D300 which I will be keeping for times I want more lightweight and for my "helper" at weddings. I will use the D3 for everyday studio use.
I really just want to learn. I take some excellent pictures, my clients are happy, but I am not. I know I need to improve in many areas but I don't have many resources where I am though yesterday I did contact another photog for advice of where to learn. I have been to and will go to more seminars but for now I thought I could find some help here from all of you.
Dangin.....as far as the 3.5/125 outside it was a cloudy day out by the water. I didn't have time to meter as I was the mother of the groom and not the paid photog. The histogram was showing what I liked and the pictures were pretty well exposed but just having some grainyness to them which I hate. If you want to see some of them after pp they are on my site... www.wingsoflovephoto.com gallery is David&Jessica and the password is gia.
Thanks ziggy for your support. I really just need some direction of how to use what I have. Though I will be getting some non dx glass and just wondered which direction to take.
I'd really like to view those photos and take a look at what you are seeing as an issue with noise.
Unfortunately, your gallery is password protected and the hint "doggy" doesn't really help me gain access.
Nice work in the rest of your site. You've taken some great portraits.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Sandy,
Just to clarify things. The D700 is also a FX (full frame camera). It has the same sensor and focus scheme as the D3. The D700 is professional equipment. The only difference is the fps speed with the D3 having an edge. This would be an issue for sports, but you might prefer the extra reach of your D300 (DX sensor) for sports.
You may want to consider returning your D3 for a D700 and buying a Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8 lens with the difference. I love that lens!! It would be great for your type of portraiture.
Just something to consider.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
It really sounds more like a lens issue vs camera issue. I shoot at ISO 6400 quite a bit with the D3 and there is very little noise.
There are multiple things that change with using DX glass on a FF camera. First you are limiting your sensor that you paid so much for. You are also losing loads of megapixels.
As Ziggy stated, you should try printing and see if the issue is really on the camera or if it is on the screen.
Before giving up on the D3, try renting some good glass.
Website
A few more things to consider. If you decide on going the FX route, you may want to consider the AF-D 35-70 2.8 or the AF-S 28-70 2.8 lenses instead of the AF-S 24-70 2.8. Both are older lens. If you can get a decent clean copy used you can save some $$$.
The bad thing about the AF-D 35-70 2.8 is that it does not have the silent wave motor and it is the old push-pull design. That could be a turn off. The good thing it is fast glass and it comes relatively cheap.
The AF-S 28-70 2.8 has the silent wave motor and is heavy. A good used clean copy of this lens will be cheaper than a new AF-S 24-70 2.8.
Good luck.
The "originals" in your SmugMug gallery clearly aren't the original size for a D3 file. You appear to have post-processed them (Photoshop? Please let us know) and saved them as small files. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't upload the full-res JPEGs to SmugMug.
There is some pretty serious sharpening being done to these photos without it looking like you've acheived perfect focus in some cases. The thing is, you may have good focus, but the resolution change makes it hard to determine that for the viewer.
I'm not seeing "grain" or "noise" for the most part, but you're not providing the full-size files for inspection. Also, for this gallery, I would turn on "Camera Info" so we can see the EXIF.
Photo #77 (the interior with the guy holding up a flash it looks like) is noisy compared to the others, but in real terms, it shouldn't amount to anything in the prints. Again, if we could only see the EXIF...
A lot of your flash shots have the subject overexposed, but you could probably solve most of it in RAW processing.
#80 (Bald man and woman wearing eye shadow) is probably the most serious example of damage due to post-processing. It looks like it's been de-noised, removing all texture, then sharpened, both with an iron fist.
My feeling is you have decent "negatives" that need to be re-evaluated in your pp'ing. You need to let us know if you shot JPEG (and what size) or RAW. If I could download and evaluate a few of the files that came out of the camera, it would help immensely. Shooting RAW in this case could save a lot of what I'm seeing.
The pictures in that gallery where shot in jpeg for the outside shots. I never shoot this way but somebody had been playing with my settings. Not sure who or where.....and I didn't notice it until I had done alot of shots. If you had been at this wedding you would understand...anything that could go wrong did, so I was quite preoccupied. These were taken with my D300 and not a D3. Some were in Raw and I will change to allow camera data. All are pp'd due to my frustration and were cropped down to 10x14 or 5x7 but the originals are the same. unclear and pixellated. I will try to upload a few of the actual originals. I appreciate you all taking the time to look. It is too late to go back now and I am really sad that they aren't perfect as I would like them to be but I did blow one up to 11x14 and print at home on my wide format printer and it wasn't too bad. There was another photographer there...one they paid big money for so I was just taking shots for myself. She wasn't shooting with flash most of the time outside and the guy holding the light was her assistant. I really was just trying to stay out of the way. I will be redoing the pp on many. I was in a hurry for them to get up for review but would never print one like the overprocessed one you mentioned. It was all in haste.....I have to take the time to look clearly. Thanks again......
I was using the D300 for these pictures. I tend to light brighter pictures for some reason and almost always expose to the right but usually not to the point of clipping. I don't think other people's flash were causing issues. It truly is my own fault. I wasn't paying attention to detail enough as I had other duties....I had to be the mom, not the photog
Oh ok. Well in that case, I think you did good considering all the rest that was going on. It may have been hectic, but it sure looked like a fun event. Yeah I know...fun for those that only had to worry about sitting quietly for awhile then eating, drinking, dancing, etc.
I spent some time viewing the section you linked with others, and it really appears to be more of a photoshop problem than with the equipment. You have great DOF, and vivid colors. There is some oversharpening and some highlights blown, but these don't appear to be camera issues.
You have other galleries that are spot on.
Website
Having to just be the mother is enough—don't be too hard on yourself! Your children galleries, of course, are all sharp images with good lighting so I can understand your frustration. If you get a moment, upload the originals for a few of your least (and most) favourites and we can have a go.
Nikon 35mm f/2.0 D-AF LENS - NI352DAF on Nikon D3
HTH!
here is an original was shot in raw and just converted to jpeg for uploading. nothing done to it. and yes i know, the composition sucks but it is the best one to show what i am seeing as noise. especially noticeable in the mother of the brides eyes. Let me know what you think please
www.tednghiem.com
This is a 100% crop from what you posted. It's the same size as the original:
Anybody have any ideas? I have an iDisk you could drop the RAW inside. A JPEG conversion isn't as useful if you're trying to sort this problem because it adds a layer of doubt.
At first, I thought the softness was the effect of the ambient exposure meeting the flash exposure, and the blur that can sometime result, but I see it was 1/250s so that's not likely. I'm going with "the 17-55 is a little soft wide open" with the proviso that I will revise my opinion easily, cowtowing to experience or another 17-55 nikkor owner disproving my statement about f/2.8. I did a minor lightroom adjustment (to the JPEG mind you) just for kicks—I'm meddlesome by nature.
Original Size HERE
Temp +5
Exposure +0.29
Recovery 8
Brightness -5
Clarity -4
Vibrance +6
In the Tone Curve: Linear, Lights +4, Darks -11
Sharpening Amount 20, Masking 79
A wee bit of post-crop vignetting to bring them out from the BG.
When you crop do you first downsize the dpi in photoshop (or what ever processor you use)??
The way I was taught to do it:
Get all processing out of the way....then open the image tab.....clik image size....making usre that the only box ticked is constrain proportion......change the dpi tp approx 300 for 8x10 resolution.........a lot of times taht will show how near 8x10 quality your original actuall is.....my 6mp KM 7D is a little less than 300dpi to get as near an 8x10 as I can get......my KM A2 (8mp) is almost dead on at 300dpi for 8x10 quality.....
once I get the dpi changes from camera 72 to a working 300 dpi or so...then I crop...but always at least at 300dpi.....that way if for some reason I am not going to use my uprezing software (GF5) I will know how large I should be able to go..........
If you crop on the native 72dpi you are cropping on a 40-60+ inch wide photo...crop to an 8x10 and you've got a great deal of noise and no noise reduction software will fix it properly.......
Art, I agree with your method of maintaining print resolution but if you crop any 72dpi image you intend to print to 8x10 inches, you're not seeing noise, you're seeing a lack of resolution for printing, but adequate for the screen with proper sharpening. Since we found the original size of the image, I don't think Sandy has a resolution issue anymore. Do you see any noise in the full-res pic? I have to say I don't.
Furthermore, I don't think it matters when you crop, so long as you end up with enough resolution for printing, if that's your goal. If you crop a 72dpi image to your liking, it simply becomes a smaller, albeit still huge, image (40-in x 60-in becomes, say, 32-in x 21.333-in). I'm not sure how that makes it noisier.
As far as my cropping methods.... I do minor adjustments in CS3 raw, then I do the rest in CS3 then I crop using the crop tool at 10x14 and 300dpi. Many of my customers order only as large as 5x7, this way when I import them into Roes for printing at WHCC the crop is the same and the resolution should remain high. I have never had a problem with print quailty doing it this way. Of course if I am planning on printing 4x6's at home I just crop that way. I always save the edited version in jpeg and keep the raw intact as it came out of the camera. Does this make any sense?