DSLRUsers.com

Okay now these aren't "official launch pics" per se... they're from cameras I used out there at their set up. I'm sure I could've stayed around and gotten better images, but the event took so long that I really had to be getting back to the office (as we're currently working on TV and I need to get stuff done for more than that) so I just had to use their setup the way it was.

So let me just say it: their setup sucked.

Whoever thought it would be a good idea to use red lighting in a studio setup probably didn't know all that much about photography or digital camera sensors in general. Let's just say the images are flooded with an irritating red glow because while they did have a flash setup there, you had to grab one of the flash heads to trigger it if you were using the D3... which was something I didn't really care about.

Seriously, they should've just run regular non-coloured, non-gel lights. It would have been so much easier, better looking, and would've felt more professional.

That said, impressive cameras. To be honest, the D300 feels soft. I know I've heard that you gain a few stops from it over the D200, but it just feels soft to me. Soft in the way that the Canon's do. Most of us know that one of the ways that Canon pull decent noise at high ISO is from softening of the image and it makes me wonder if Nikon have done that with the D300. These are bad examples in that regard as most of them aren't fast enough or have a high enough aperture to show a degree of sharpness and clarity (let alone the irritating red glow) but I can't help but feel that they seem a tad soft.

On the plus side, the noise definitely has a grain feel to it.

Onto the D3: I love it. Really love it. It's a great piece of kit. Just really shines.

And based on the press conference I attended afterward... good luck getting on that first shipment list. Like seriously, good luck. Based on the number Australia will likely be getting in... you've probably got piss all chance.

Not even we members of the press have a lot of luck.

I'll explain in more detail if need be.

Now, I'm providing JPG's, NEF's and TIF's (oh my!) so that should whet your appetite for noise proofing. With the NEF's, you'll either need to use ViewNX or the recent Adobe Camera RAW updates to get them to work. I tried the Phase One C1 Pro 4 Beta and while it's a lot better than C1 Pro 3 (on the PC), I couldn't get it reading the NEF's.

Still. Go nuts. (And remember that while I expect my server / account to be hit pretty hard, if it starts to get to the point where I can't access my blog, I'll pull the product.leighlo page down for a few hours... so yeah... don't stick my page into a blender so much... download the images you want... if people want to mirror them, we can put links up)

D3 1600
D3_DSC8076.NEF is ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/15, 14-24@14mm
D3_DSC8079.NEF is ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/60, 14-24@24mm
D3_DSC8079.JPG is ISO 1600, f2.8, 1/60, 14-24@24mm (Corrected from NEF)

D3 3200
D3_DSC8067.JPG is ISO 3200, f2.8, 14-24@24mm
D3_DSC8068.NEF is ISO 3200, f2.8, 1/40, 14-24@24mm
D3_DSC8068.JPG is ISO 3200, f2.8, 1/40, 14-24@24mm (Corrected from NEF)
D3_DSC8069.TIF is ISO 3200, f2.8, 14-24@24mm (TIF from the camera)
D3_DSC8070.JPG is ISO 3200, f2.8, 14-24@24mm
D3_DSC8071.JPG is ISO 3200, f2.8, 14-24@24mm

D3 6400
D3_DSC8065.JPG is ISO 6400, f3.2, 14-24@24mm
D3_DSC8072.JPG is ISO 6400, f2.8, 14-24@24mm

D3 12800
D3_DSC8063.JPG is ISO 12800, f3.2, 14-24@24mm

D3 25600
D3_DSC8061.JPG is ISO 25600, f3.2, 14-24@24mm

D300 800
D300_DSC_0100.JPG is ISO 800, f2.8, 14-24@17mm (Flash)
D300_DSC_0103.NEF is ISO 800, f2.8, 1/60, 14-24@18mm

D300 1600
D300_DSC_0098.JPG is ISO 1600, f2.8, 14-24@16mm
D300_DSC_0099.JPG is ISO 1600, f2.8, 14-24@18mm (Flash)

D300 3200
D300_DSC_0096.JPG is ISO 3200, f2.8, 14-24@21mm

D300 6400
D300_DSC_0094.JPG is ISO 6400, f2.8, 14-24@22mm

And I swear if any Canon fanboys start mouthing off at me for saying that Canon images are soft and that's one reason for how their technology works, I will delete your post. I've seen it in the low-end, mid-range, and high-end Canon bodies... and seeing as that's pretty much their product range, it's reason enough for me.

Leigh, thank you very much for this, most appreciated

ERrr yeah good going to the wizard who came up with that setup. Mind you, convering those ISO 12k and 21k pics to black and white would be ace!

Thanks for posting Leigh.
Appreciate your work input

Thanks for all your hard work setting this up, Leigh. Certainly weird lighting. The D3 looks very impressive, even under these conditions. It should be a great tool.

Bob

Nnnnsic wrote:
And based on the press conference I attended afterward... good luck getting on that first shipment list. Like seriously, good luck. Based on the number Australia will likely be getting in... you've probably got piss all chance.

Not even we members of the press have a lot of luck.

That's what I hear too. In USA, Canada, UK, Austria, that I know of, Nikon is giving priority to NPS members, ie Pros. They get first pick. As to how that actually translate in real life is a different kettle of fish but that is Nikon's initial intention.

thanks Leigh for going to the trouble of posting all these, well done,

cheers,

André

Nice to see they are putting some silver halide in the sensors.

Seriously, good work Leigh.

Thanks for these leigh..

MATT

thanks for the pics

The D300 images look awful - massive NR, all smudged and plastic looking.

The D3 images are no better noise or detail wise than the 2+ year old Canon 5D

Just my 2c

Canon pulls impressive noise by making images soft? I'd like to know who thinks this and why? IMO the D3 images aren't anything to write home about for a 'NEW' camera

The first D3 image @ ISO 1600 I think is shocking...(the JPG). The 5D's ISO 1600 is far superior to the D3 based on your sample photos IMO

A 14-24 @ 24mm with 1/60 shutter is PLENTY fast enough for a sharp shot at F2.8.

Kris,

Kris wrote:Canon pulls impressive noise by making images soft? I'd like to know who thinks this and why?

Please pay attention:

Nnnnsic wrote:And I swear if any Canon fanboys start mouthing off at me for saying that Canon images are soft and that's one reason for how their technology works, I will delete your post. I've seen it in the low-end, mid-range, and high-end Canon bodies... and seeing as that's pretty much their product range, it's reason enough for me.

The full images have been posted for you to form your own impressions.

FWIW, we have yet to perform - or see, from any source - side by side comparisons of same scene/same shot comparisons,

If you're wanting to try to compare a 5D with a D3, forget it. They're two entirely different cameras, targeted at two entirely different markets, with a whole gamut if different design parameters.

But - as you know - we are not going to permit flaming of one brand vs the other.

So, look at the images. Pixel peep if you wish, no matter how irrellevant pixel peeping actually is in the real world.

But please, do not get defensive, and do not get angry. It's just a camera.

Gary, I'm not angry! Gosh *laugh* why would I be angry? What I am, is disappointed. And disappointed in Nikon for releasing a full pro body that doesn't look much better than the predecessor. That's my opinion.

I feel the 5D and D3 are different cameras, yet the purpose is the same. They are pro bodies, aimed at the studio/wedding/landscape styles markets.

I'm not flaming, just observing. I think pixel peeping is pretty important for a camera of the $7000 figure, I for one would be pixel peeping and making sure that noise, Nikon's biggest criticism would be sorted but from these shots is appears not so.

I think nnnnsic's generalisation about Canon bodies is complete rubbish to be honest. I know of NO such user that thinks what he thinks, and having owned both marquees and used many cameras in both lines I feel the comment is unjust.

Let's hope that these samples are a bad indication of the quality the D3 is capable of producing and that we can see better images in the near future. Never the less, I do appreciate Nnnnsic posting the images!!! so thank you!

Hope that clarifies things

The truth will come out in two weeks

Kris wrote:Gary, I'm not angry!

Your response was very defensive. Look at how you reacted to Leigh's statement.

I feel the 5D and D3 are different cameras, yet the purpose is the same. They are pro bodies, aimed at the studio/wedding/landscape styles markets.

No. Calling the 5D a pro body is laughable. Where is the weatherproofing? Where is the HD construction?

That a lot of pros use them is beside the point: The 5D is a good body, with a good sensor, targeted primarily at the high end amateur market. The same market as the 30D, 40D, and the D200 and D300.

But it has one major advantage over its competition: it's the only full frame camera in that market segment. And it's because it's the only FF camera in that segment that it's being used as it is.

Again: please note Leigh's words. Please now keep this thread on topic.

Leigh, are the D300 jpgs out of camera or as processed from the NEF? What PP was used, either in camera settings or in RAW conversion? The sharpness of these seems crap to be honest but that's not in line with what I've seen from other D300 pics on the web, particularly for night sports. Maybe the 14-24 sucks wide open? Noise looks roughly on par with others on the web. Thanks for posting!

Kris wrote:I think nnnnsic's generalisation about Canon bodies is complete rubbish to be honest. I know of NO such user that thinks what he thinks, and having owned both marquees and used many cameras in both lines I feel the comment is unjust.

It wasn't a generalisation. Did you not see the part where I wrote "one of the ways that Canon pull decent noise at high ISO is from softening of the image"?

Specifically the bit that says "one of the ways". I'm not suggesting by any means that softening the image is the only way that Canon's deal with noise. I am aware of the level of technology they're using but I'm still convinced that the image is still being softened to deal with noise.

Ever heard that phrase that Canon users like to mutter when chimping: "it'll be sharper when I put it through PP"? From my tests on a 1DS Mk2 vs a D2x and a 30D vs a D200, that was the result I saw.

Let's hope that these samples are a bad indication of the quality the D3 is capable of producing and that we can see better images in the near future.

I don't doubt that they're crap samples. The lighting conditions sucked so the exposures are way off and I didn't have a lot of time thanks to a presentation & press conference that probably went just that bit too long.

Does that clarify enough for you?

Trent, the D300's jpegs are straight out of the camera. In-camera settings... whatever Nikon Australia set them up with.

And personally, I think the 14-24 sucks in general. Initial impressions though, as I need a good sit down with it.

I might have said it when I first had the play with the D3 and the D300 months ago, but I also played with both the 14-24 and 24-70 there. I didn't like either at the time. They felt cheaper, to be honest.

Again though, initial impressions. I'd like a review unit of each but... only time will tell when I get one.

I'd welcome proof of your softening images claim Nnnnsic,

in the mean time, here is one for you

ISO 1600, RAW to JPG, no PP, F2.8 @ 1/25sec (not ideal shutter, 35mm lens)

Check out the guys eyes

http://members.iinet.net.au/~teamkk/5D/_MG_3022.jpg

The OoF areas on the left girls face is simply the limits of the DoF at that aperture (quite close)

Nnnnsic wrote:Trent, the D300's jpegs are straight out of the camera. In-camera settings... whatever Nikon Australia set them up with.

And personally, I think the 14-24 sucks in general. Initial impressions though, as I need a good sit down with it.

I might have said it when I first had the play with the D3 and the D300 months ago, but I also played with both the 14-24 and 24-70 there. I didn't like either at the time. They felt cheaper, to be honest.

Again though, initial impressions. I'd like a review unit of each but... only time will tell when I get one.

That is a shame, I was hoping this would be a great little lens, the focal range is good for a DX body and great for a FX body.

I'd be keen to hear more thoughts on this if you get your hands on one Leigh, also on the D70 and D200 as well.

Thanks for posting your comments!

Brett

I thought this was a discussion about the D3 and D300?

The d300 shots do seem quite soft, but I have a feeling that isn't so much the camera as the focus and perhaps the lens. Only time will tell. Like Thom says (http://www.bythom.com/index.htm) 'it was the best of pixels, it was the worst of pixels'.

No offense Kris, but this isn't to be a pissing contest between Nikon & Canon. I don't doubt that you can get good noise out of your 5D but sticking up a shot from your 5D when you haven't shot the same shot on a D3 makes it a completely pointless comparison.

Let's keep this thread what it's supposed to be. Don't make me get mean. You don't want me mean. I'm at work. And I'm a cynical reviewer. You don't want to make me mean. Grr. Grr.

Nnnnsic wrote:No offense Kris, but this isn't to be a pissing contest between Nikon & Canon. I don't doubt that you can get good noise out of your 5D but sticking up a shot from your 5D when you haven't shot the same shot on a D3 makes it a completely pointless comparison.

Let's keep this thread what it's supposed to be. Don't make me get mean. You don't want me mean. I'm at work. And I'm a cynical reviewer. You don't want to make me mean. Grr. Grr.

Nnnnsic wrote:You don't want to make me mean. Grr. Grr.

Is it wrong that made me think of Austin Powers doing a photo shoot... "You're a tiger baby"...

Sorry, back to the Nikon discussion, nothing to see here...

If I had the $$$, I'd switch back to Nikon right here and now and give up the 5D. There's a lot of things which I love about Nikon but sadly not enough for me to lose the $$ again :S

Given that the D3 has been targeted more towards press type of work, I'd love to be in the Nikon HQ seeing what they have lined up for the future.

For the price, pro build and ergonomics which Nikon tends to excel in I can't see them going wrong with the D3 - unless the latest trends prevails and they end up with BGLOD and banding issues...but so far so good in terms of banding

Would it make you feel any happier to know that according to the press conference, they're seriously looking into an amateur-prosumer body with the FX sensor?

You all knew this already... and hell, they probably already have a prototype, but I've got the above in audio.

Leigh, thank you for the hosted images and your comments - I had no idea they were allowing people to pull data off their own CF cards from these new cams yet! Also, you're beginning to be more like your father - the grumpiness.

Not to piss in an ocean of urine, I do agree with you re: Canon vs Nikon, but I'd substitute 'soft' with 'smeared'. I think it's a result of CMOS vs CCD differences myself, as I had the same opinion initially playing with the D2X upon launch. On a per pixel basis, it just didn't seem to resolve as much as that sharp D70 sensor.

Sadly I do think Nikon is following in Canon's footsteps. In marketing and manufacturing. eg. ever shortening product life cycles (6 mths from D40 to D40x), the rubber eye cups which used to be full wrap around has become the three quarter surround design ala Canons, even the prism shape and external curves of the D80 more closely resembles the Canon competitors than it does the rest of the Nikon DSLR family at launch... and every new model released since has more Canon like in appearance and peformance (I guess because the market demands it).

all i'm saying about this whole canon vs nikon algorithm into lower noise is anti aliasing

And funnily enough, the thought of I can sharpen it further in PP does cross my mind

Onyx wrote:Leigh, thank you for the hosted images and your comments - I had no idea they were allowing people to pull data off their own CF cards from these new cams yet!

They actually gave us each a Lexar 2GB 80x.

Also, you're beginning to be more like your father - the grumpiness.

I'm also beginning to adopt his quoting style... NOOO!!!! It's beginning!!!

Just need to get Gary a Snr. Freak t-shirt and you're all set

PiroStitch wrote:And funnily enough, the thought of I can sharpen it further in PP does cross my mind

And that, I believe, is the point.

Out of the camera, Canon images are softer. That's true of images that I've seen from various Canon models that we've played with, including my own 30D, including where I've done side-by-sides with my D200.

Sure, they sharpen up nicely in PP.

That's not where my image space is. I use good glass; I expect to get sharp images directly from the camera. It's that simple.

But again, this is not a Canon vs Nikon thread, and I have already asked - twice - that people keep that in mind. I will not say that for a third time.

PiroStitch wrote:Just need to get Gary a Snr. Freak t-shirt and you're all set

Watch it, Wayne.

gstark wrote:I use good glass

Go Sigma, rah, rah, rah

He didn't say he uses it ALL the time

firstly, thanks very much for taking the time to upload images for us.
secondly, the IQ of them sucks. i was expecting far better things from the d300. hopefully, (and judging from other sample images i think we can safely say this,) this is a result of the poor site setup as you eluded to in your first post as opposed to their actual performance.

is anyone going to the ECS demo days ? i reckon they may have a far better test setup.

Rooz wrote:is anyone going to the ECS demo days ? i reckon they may have a far better test setup.

That wouldn't be hard. Seriously, who goes "Well... we're launching a new camera... I want red lights in our makeshift studio... yeah, that'll make the images so brilliant!" while mumbling "I hope these cameras don't have issues with red..."

Hahah Leigh - can you imagine if they had the same setup for the D70 launch?

I am going at 10am to the ECS preview

Gary,

gstark wrote:That's not where my image space is. I use good glass; I expect to get sharp images directly from the camera. It's that simple.

What settings do you have in picture controls on the camera for sharpening?

It is my understanding that the anti-aliasing filter will cause some degree of lack of sharpness. The amount of anti-aliasing may vary from model to model but will always be there to some degree and it will always be necessary to apply some sharpening to the finished image.

A RAW image "straight from the camera" will not be very sharp, however, the RAW processor will apply the level of sharpening set in the camera's picture controls. For example, on the D70 the default sharpening is "Auto" . For the D200 the default is "Normal" and I can't tell from the manual what is the default for the D300. This means that if the setting is not changed, your image "straight out of the camera" will actually already be sharpened by the time you look at it in the RAW processor. Of course, while processing the image you have the option to change the degree of sharpening.

Variation between cameras of the sharpness of images "straight from the camera" will be caused by a combination of the AA filter and any sharpening controls.

On my D70 I have turned sharpening off as I want to be able to control exactly how much sharpening I apply depending on the image. I could have left it on knowing that I can turn it off again during raw processing, but that is an extra step that I don't want.

It is possible that the D300 that Leigh had was set on 0 for sharpening and so nothing was done to counteract the effects from the AA filter.

ATJ wrote:Gary,

gstark wrote:That's not where my image space is. I use good glass; I expect to get sharp images directly from the camera. It's that simple.

What settings do you have in picture controls on the camera for sharpening?

I generally have this set to medium

It's set to 2 on both the D200 and the 30D. I may bump it on the Canon to 4.

A RAW image "straight from the camera" will not be very sharp, however, the RAW processor will apply the level of sharpening set in the camera's picture controls.

Yep. I'm aware of this. I shoot in raw+jpg, and the Canon jpgs look soft. The Nikon jpgs are sharp.

The EXIF for the D300 images that Leigh shot tells us that the sharpening was set to 3.

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:Gary,

gstark wrote:That's not where my image space is. I use good glass; I expect to get sharp images directly from the camera. It's that simple.

What settings do you have in picture controls on the camera for sharpening?

I generally have this set to medium

It's set to 2 on both the D200 and the 30D. I may bump it on the Canon to 4.

A RAW image "straight from the camera" will not be very sharp, however, the RAW processor will apply the level of sharpening set in the camera's picture controls.

Yep. I'm aware of this. I shoot in raw+jpg, and the Canon jpgs look soft. The Nikon jpgs are sharp.

The EXIF for the D300 images that Leigh shot tells us that the sharpening was set to 3.

Gary, you must be seriously doing something wrong with your Canon camera. If you're stating you use good glass with your cameras, why are you using a 17-85 on the 30D yet using a 85 1.4 on the Nikon, compare apples with apples.

Can we remove the Canon/Nikon pissing contest somewhere else and keep this thread for discussing the D300 & D3 images?

Kris wrote:Gary, you must be seriously doing something wrong with your Canon camera.

That could well be the case.

If you're stating you use good glass with your cameras, why are you using a 17-85 on the 30D yet using a 85 1.4 on the Nikon, compare apples with apples.

Where did I say I was using the Canon kit lens for the side-by-sides?

For these comparisons, I've been using the 50 f/1.8 on the Canon, and the 50 f/1.4 on the Nikon. Not quite an exact match, but for the purposes of a simple evaluation, it should be able to provide me with a typical result set.

Given that we also have performed evaluations on various EOS1D bodies with L glass, all with similar non-sharp images from the camera, I have to support Leigh's assertions.

Now ...

Please note that I needed to correct your inaccurate assumptions about the lenses I was using, and, for the last bloody time: STAY ON TOPIC.

Glen wrote:Can we remove the Canon/Nikon pissing contest somewhere else and keep this thread for discussing the D300 & D3 images?

Glen, exactly.

I've already made several warnings about this, and I'm very close to taking some sort of action.

Kris, trying to keep this on topic, when I tested the 1DS Mk2 kit with L glass I had I was comparing it with a D2x with the same types of glass.

Not that it matters in relation to this thread, but my tests showed -- and I wasn't the only one there at the time -- that while both were excellent cameras, the Nikon was getting a slightly sharper result. They were very close, that said.

Now, if you want to go do your own tests instead of be on the defensive for Canon, go right ahead.

But otherwise, this is a thread for the conversation and discussion on the D3 and D300 & someone coming along and starting a pissing contest between Canon & Nikon is entirely pointless.

How are you keeping it on topic by posting what you did?

Glen wrote:Can we remove the Canon/Nikon pissing contest somewhere else and keep this thread for discussing the D300 & D3 images?

Seconded.

I'd be quite interested to see some more images from the ECS preview if Dan or anyone can get a hold of them. I'm surprised by the softness in the D300 images, and being in the market for one in the new year I for one would like to see if it is a real issue or a result of this set of conditions.

Hi,

I'm going to ECS on Friday afternoon and I'll give a tryout to the D300 and hopefully the D3. I'll see what I could post over the weekend. I'll be bringing my D200 so I'll try to do the same photos with at least D200/D300, so I may be able to compare, hopefully.

Cheers,

André

I'm fully expecting that we may be seeing some members' D300 images posted - from production cameras - by early next week.

I'm almost tempted to ask Poon to send me a body tonight, which means that I would have it on Sunday at the Bindimeet.

Almost.

Thanks for posting these Leigh, will take a look when I have time.

Getting a bit heated in here... but all I can say is if Rob Galbraith can make this comment - "there's no doubt that the D3 produces a less noisy, higher quality file at ISO 3200 and beyond. This is an incredible achievement on Nikon's part." - then I'm impressed. BTW Gary... hehe... you know you want to...