Mmm this is a fun camera.
1. Check out my first wedding with it - http://peoplebyryan.com/weddings/a-full-wedding-at-westenhangar-castle Lead shot is at 12,800 ISO. I'd set lights and stuff up but I just wasn't loving the frame. I knew this would be a candidate for final shot of the album so needed to look good at double page. Flash off, ramp the ISO and shoot. It will need some work for double page but it will be fine. It looks OK full screen here.
2. The video's more fun than you might think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjctex3Itxc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjctex3Itxc) (click 720 and hit full screen)
It's a month old. Has only 3K clicks on it (that's gonna change significantly in the next week...) and I'm starting to trust it. Still need to look more closely at flash sync speed though. It may need a tweak from Nikon.
But definitely a keeper :)
Can't be bad if you rate it after using the Blad. Cracking series of shots JR. :tup:
In my limited experience of this level of kit I think its amazing, the problem is the better the kit you buy your expectations are pushed up and you could find it hard to down grade, its gone beyond taking a good image because most DSLRs will do that, its the facilites and the way it handles and the quality of build. The high ISO capability and taking movie clips extends its appeal.
That's a great wedding album Jonathan, I love the B&W of the bride and groom.
Question for you Jonathan. Is there any shots that you couldn't have got with any other camera? With the exception of the lead shot?
Quote from: anglefire on September 09, 2010, 10:52:50 PM
Question for you Jonathan. Is there any shots that you couldn't have got with any other camera? With the exception of the lead shot?
Not yet ;)
It's like a new car. I've pottered around town in it. Now I'm enjoying the daily drive a little bit more than I did before. But soon I'll take it on a track and thrash it :)
Have I taken shots with the D3 that I (personally) couldn't take with any other camera? Loads. Outrageous high ISO + lightning AF + excellent flash system +
every button is exactly where I think it is = I pretty much hit what I aim at.
Not certain if any other camera could do the underwater stuff I did - very low light for autofocus plus some were taken by pool light only. That's pretty tough conditions.
Iv'e not done any gigs yet with the D3s, but the new "Season" is about to begin and Iv'e got artists as diverse as Motorhead and Manic Street Preachers, through Kate Rusby and Elkie Brookes onto
The Treorcy Male voice Choir and JedWard....(Yes JedWard!)
I'm looking forward to using settings other than 60th @ f2.8
Graham. :tup:
Quote from: Jonathan on September 10, 2010, 08:00:26 AM
It's like a new car. I've pottered around town in it. Now I'm enjoying the daily drive a little bit more than I did before. But soon I'll take it on a track and thrash it :)
...
Oh, I can relate to the Car thing!
I'm just getting used to mine :tup:
(http://www.disco3club.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10255/IMG_6899.JPG)
My car, but not my picture (See (C) on the pic!)
Cracking set of shots Jonathan....very envious as usual (as I am of your work full stop) ever thought about doing a spot of teaching on the side? There's a lot of keen "rank" (I include myself in this) amateurs who could learn a lot from you.... :)
Quote from: Graham on September 10, 2010, 04:53:48 PM
Iv'e not done any gigs yet with the D3s, but the new "Season" is about to begin and Iv'e got artists as diverse as Motorhead and Manic Street Preachers, through Kate Rusby and Elkie Brookes onto
The Treorcy Male voice Choir and JedWard....(Yes JedWard!)
I'm looking forward to using settings other than 60th @ f2.8
Graham. :tup:
I had mine before the end of last seasons rugby, the games started at dusk most of the time and mine was the only camera that was getting anything like usable shots.
These were taken under very poor flood lights, no flash when your shooting sport !, the D3s is king of low light. Others will do this soon I'm sure but for now...............
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/team3.jpg)
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/push.jpg)
Great shots. What was the iso?
Nick
Sorry, just seen the shots on the gallery. Are they straight out of the camera or did you use software to reduce the noise?
Nick
Quote from: krennon on September 10, 2010, 06:46:05 PM
Cracking set of shots Jonathan....very envious as usual (as I am of your work full stop) ever thought about doing a spot of teaching on the side? There's a lot of keen "rank" (I include myself in this) amateurs who could learn a lot from you.... :)
Nobody wants to pay for training any more.
Zack Arias is in London today. He's charging about £400 for a FULL day of his time (14 - 18 hours) and limiting it to about a dozen people. There are angry threads all over the internet about "how dare he" charge so much. 5 grand for what will effectively be at least a week's work isn't that much for somebody of his international rep.
@Bob - top shot + B&W = as Zack would say "the bomb"
@Nick, it was at night I used Auto WB so a little WB adjustment but no other adjustments made, its a great camera but then it should be at the price.
Bob
PS I have a few on flickr that you like to look at from the game, http://www.flickr.com/photos/rkspics/4428259758/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rkspics/4428259758/)
Quote from: Jonathan on September 11, 2010, 08:06:58 AM
Quote from: krennon on September 10, 2010, 06:46:05 PM
Cracking set of shots Jonathan....very envious as usual (as I am of your work full stop) ever thought about doing a spot of teaching on the side? There's a lot of keen "rank" (I include myself in this) amateurs who could learn a lot from you.... :)
Nobody wants to pay for training any more.
Maybe the real quote should be "nobody wants to pay for anything anymore".
It's certainly an observation that seems to be becoming more prevalent in our society...
Quote from: Jonathan on September 11, 2010, 08:06:58 AM
Quote from: krennon on September 10, 2010, 06:46:05 PM
Cracking set of shots Jonathan....very envious as usual (as I am of your work full stop) ever thought about doing a spot of teaching on the side? There's a lot of keen "rank" (I include myself in this) amateurs who could learn a lot from you.... :)
Nobody wants to pay for training any more.
Zack Arias is in London today. He's charging about £400 for a FULL day of his time (14 - 18 hours) and limiting it to about a dozen people. There are angry threads all over the internet about "how dare he" charge so much. 5 grand for what will effectively be at least a week's work isn't that much for somebody of his international rep.
@Bob - top shot + B&W = as Zack would say "the bomb"
Yes, people seem to think that the trainer starts work on arrival at the venue - they forget the preparation time. I've done training for work and preparation is everything!
So.........Hever Castle is pretty dark......
Here's a test shot from the ceremony room.
(http://homepage.mac.com/jonathan_ryan/filechute/SC_122441_06.jpg)
That's Mike my assistant sitting 3 rows back. Time as 12:24 pm (noon not midnight). SOOC the exif is f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO 12,800.........
The main window is right behind me. B&G stand 2 and a bit rows forward of that point so they are 2 stops brighter - 2.8 / 1/50 / 3,200 But they also move a little and you may need to kick it up a stop to make sure they are still.
Yes, I have pictures that I couldn't get with any other camera I've owned.... :D
[Of course 2.8 / 1/50 / 3,200 is roughly the same as 1.4 / 1/50 / 800 which is where I would have shot it on a D2X]
Soooo, if the available light is not casting harsh shadows would you forget the flash and just use that. I took a few test shots of my first wedding couple at the venue last night, she is amazed and delighted :)
Bob
and i could also get that shot with my 5D MkII - so it's good, but not alone... ;)
Quote from: picsfor on September 15, 2010, 02:22:04 PM
and i could also get that shot with my 5D MkII - so it's good, but not alone... ;)
I'll take your word for that. I found that the colours tend to drift on the Canons (and TBH anything before the D3) as you push the high ISO limit. Skin tones and the detail in the black jacket are what set this shot apart for me.
Mike uses a 5DII and he seemed impressed with the stuff on the back of the camera.
@Bob - can only remember using flash during a ceremony a couple of times ever. Both were outside on sunny days. And that includes the dark ages of 800 limit.
I'd like to say I could get that with my MkIII - but I couldn't without a fair bit of work in post.
But mine is an old camera now ;D
I have to say (Though gritted teeth >:() that the latest Nikon's have Canon beaten WRT noise at the moment.
But it will change again. Or Canon will aim for something else that they feel the market needs and that may or may not be the next best thing. :tup:
Or Sony will do better, Or Oly, or Pentax or..............
Quote from: anglefire on September 15, 2010, 07:55:34 PM
I'd like to say I could get that with my MkIII - but I couldn't without a fair bit of work in post.
But mine is an old camera now ;D
I have to say (Though gritted teeth >:() that the latest Nikon's have Canon beaten WRT noise at the moment.
But it will change again. Or Canon will aim for something else that they feel the market needs and that may or may not be the next best thing. :tup:
Or Sony will do better, Or Oly, or Pentax or..............Nikon will outgun them all again! :2funny:
Oldboy, maybe - but will it take as long as it did for Nikon to get the pro models to the same standard as Canon? I mean, the 5D was the king for about 3 years! And before that, any canon was better than any Nikon! ;D :D :legit:
Mark, take it from me - your 1D3 isn't a patch on a 5D2 for noise, and the 5D2 trails behind the 1D4 for noise.
I've seen some of the shots and it really does work a treat. The battle is not over, i think it is fairly evenly matched between D3s and 1D4 up to 25600, with the 5D2 sitting just behind a bit.
What concerns me is the new sensor fitted to the D7000, which means Nikon must be sitting on something altogether different for a D4!
When is Photokina and when are we supposed to hear about the much rumoured 1Ds4?
For reference these are from a 1D4 at 12800...
http://www.mikedinsdale.co.uk/Music/Jem-Cooke-The-Jamm/12006308_t8WXR#850775330_2HXxu
He lives down the road and was rather chuffed...
Quote from: picsfor on September 15, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
http://www.mikedinsdale.co.uk/Music/Jem-Cooke-The-Jamm/12006308_t8WXR#850775330_2HXxu
He lives down the road and was rather chuffed...
Remember him from DCM days. Cracking shots. ;D
Yes I have PM'd Mike on a few occasions - and I remember the shots.
TBH, I would be very happy with a 1D4 - I've used one and was very impressed with lots of things about it. AF is better, noise is better and the rear screen is tons better. The price is not.
The MkIII is not shabby - this is not my shot, so can't absolutely be sure of the setting accuracy.
1/30", f/2.8 ISO3200 underexposed by 2/3 stop (ISO5000 Equiv?)
(http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/8273/1d356245000.jpg)
But it has been post processed with a special action using NeatImage.
>> this is not my shot, so can't absolutely be sure of the setting accuracy.
So you wouldn't be able to explain how the light eased its way under the hat brim or where that hard shadow on his ear came from.......?
>> For reference these are from a 1D4 at 12800...
Very hard to tell under the red lights but there's that weird kind of colour drift I associate with high ISO going on there.
Bottom line: That room didn't get any darker when the D3S came out. A month ago I would have had my D2X set at 800 with a 1.4 and a steady hand. That picture of Mike - I could have shot at 800 with some soft flash from where the window is. But now I have some more options.
Quote from: Jonathan on September 16, 2010, 07:55:52 AM
That picture of Mike - I could have shot at 800 with some soft flash from where the window is. But now I have some more options.
To my knowledge, after speaking to Mike, the venue in Brixton doesn't have any windows and the pics were taken about 21:00-22:00.
Yes, you could have used a flash - i could have got the same with my Canon 30D with a flash.
But this thread is about NOT using flash.
As i said, the D3, D3s have extremely good low light capability - but they are no longer alone in that field, and Canon are matching to a certain level.
If they weren't, i would now be the owner of either a D3 or D700 instead of my 5D MkII... Mike was also looking at moving over to a D3 until he tested a 1D4, and he got his for shooting football by flood light at the local teams' pitch which is nothing more than a park pitch with a couple of nice lights to help.
The field in high ISO is starting to become blurred again.
Quote from: picsfor on September 16, 2010, 05:11:32 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on September 16, 2010, 07:55:52 AM
That picture of Mike - I could have shot at 800 with some soft flash from where the window is. But now I have some more options.
To my knowledge, after speaking to Mike, the venue in Brixton doesn't have any windows and the pics were taken about 21:00-22:00.
Too many Mikes.
I meant the shot I took of Mike (man in black) at Hever. If I hadn't had a D3S I could have replicated that with flash. But I didn't need to ;)
QuoteAs i said, the D3, D3s have extremely good low light capability - but they are no longer alone in that field, and Canon are matching to a certain level.
Hmmm. We need to settle this somehow........
Actually we dont! :)
Both Canon and Nikon are no very good at High ISO. When using high end cameras - ie semi-pro or pro. Nikon is probably better. Just.
Its the lower end that is probably more difficult to call. Pretty much any current make/model is good to ISO1600, most to 3200. But above that, then the choice is harder.
But it really doesn't matter - it was only 3 years ago that ISO 3200 was the limit (Canon 5D probably still the king then?) Film days it was pushing it with ISO400 film!
We really have nothing to complain about. :tup:
Quote from: anglefire on September 16, 2010, 08:56:44 PM
Actually we dont! :)
Both Canon and Nikon are no very good at High ISO. When using high end cameras - ie semi-pro or pro. Nikon is probably better. Just.
You're right. Guesses by people with single samples are much better ;)
Chicken.
Jonathan, I'm not chicken - and the sample was one I found quickly - the thread I found it on (not forgetting that the sample have been taken through NR reduction in CS4 - so is not SOOC).
I've posted a shot on here before that I took at ISO6400 that was pretty clean.
But really, is it worth it? The 1DMkIV which I don't have is pretty close to the latest Nikons. Look, I've already said the Nikons are ahead of Canon? Which is what most pundits believe. So what is the point!
Though it would be an interesting exercise to compare like with like. I.e. same venue same subject. That would be a true test. :tup:
The samples I found it looks like the D3s is still miles ahead at the high end, problem is you don't know how the test was done.
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/02/10/nikon-d3s-vs-canon-1d-mark-iv-iso-comparison-part-ii/
Bob
Dunno. Testing method seems pretty clear to me.
Shows that Canon's 102K is really pretty silly. In fact I can't see an ISO setting where the Nikon doesn't outperform the Canon in this test as the files are presented.
HOWEVER, the Canon has more pixels so viewing at 100% makes for invalid comparisons. The only real test would be to target output at a particular size and either uprez or downrez. But the more s/w you get in the way the less scientific it gets.
>> But really, is it worth it? The 1DMkIV which I don't have is pretty close to the latest Nikons. Look, I've already said the Nikons are ahead of Canon? Which is what most pundits believe. So what is the point!
None really. I just find it interesting all the people really keen to say "oh they are all pretty similar" and shy away from head to heads. Nobody really does proper tests any more. I would seriously love to know how a D3000 stacks up against a D3 (and especially against a D2).
Well folks. I just got a call to go and photograph this lot! (In about an hour from now. :o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd-Tq6eVhV8&feature=related
I'll let you know how the D3s performs. :)
Good job I like "Da Blooze"!
Graham.
JR, the Canon 102K is pretty crap. But the differences in size does make it hard to compare properly. (not the last one, the canon just looks bad!)
If I had the time, I'd download the full size files and compare. But at the moment i don't. :)
I've found some time.
I've loaded both images at ISO12800 and converted by DPP and NX. I've cropped the Nikon file to roughly the same size as the Canon.
I was going to say the noise is similar, but the Nikon is clearly more pleasing to the eye. That was at full screen, with the images side by side at about the same size.
Zooming in so that the church tower, for example is a similar size on the screen and the noise on the Canon is less pronounced. And more detail - which is not surprising given the additional pixes covering the area.
But the biggest thing that I notice is that the Nikon image seems a lot sharper. That is true of all of them from scanning the thumbnails. But again, at the same size on screen, the Canon is actually the better image (Ignoring colour). But more pixels explains it.
Colour. Which one is the right colour? The Canon is muted in colour - particularly the building adjacent the church tower. The Nikon is much redder and brighter. Its as if the metering is not the same - which is probably true. Theoretically time is time, so the shutter speeds (1/5" in each case) should be the same, but the aperture may be actually different. Both say f8.
So. My conclusion. Un-scientific that it is, is that The Canon is better if the image is looked at, at a given size. At 100%, then the Nikon is better.
So if printed out at the same size, the Canon would probably look better WRT noise. WRT colour. Hard call. They are different. What is true is not known.
But since I shoot Canon, I say the Canon wins.
I fully expect to be told I'm talking B *&*& ks, but I can live with that.
Of course, I don't have a MkIV, JR has a D3S. So, who can actually get the lower noise image is not me. ;D
Sorry.....meant to reply to this since you went to a lot of effort but other stuff got in the way....
Interesting reading and it seems pretty fair. Actually on a second look, I'd say that the ISOs are actually slightly different. With the same exposure etc the Canon files tend to be a little lighter. This could be a bias in the tone curve or that Canon are slightly more generous than Nikon with the ISO. DSLRs often disagree with studio meters.
Anyway, on to more unscientific testing. I was at a party last night in a DARK warehouse in Fulham. For complicated reasons involving a h-u-g-e wedding my assistant Mike went along for an hour before me and then we shot for a couple of hours side by side. Mike has a 5DMkII and I was using my D3S. Since they were real pictures for a real client we couldn't go crazy. I shot a couple at 8K, 5 at 12,800 and all the rest at 6,400 or below. Mike shot mostly at 2,500. Most of my shots and all of Mike's were with flash.
Things I learnt:
(Remember the 5D MkII is prosumer and ready for refresh - D3S is state of the art pro level)
1. Both cameras were amazingly good in very difficult situations.
2. On the LCD on the back at 100%, the Canon files looked better 90% of the time (I stopped showing Mike 100% zooms of mine after a bit....)
3. Technique plays a bit part because the position on the histogram is crucial. You really really want to expose as far to the right as you can because noise in the top 10% is significantly lower than in the next 10%.
4. Shooting in tough conditions after a 12 hour shoot and 3 cans of Red Bull is not recommended.
5. The Canon is really amazingly surprisingly good. At 2,500 with flash you can see every hair and more facial details than most ladies would like. However as soon as you roll off into even very light shadow (edge of jaw line) the noise ramps up very quickly.
6. The D3S just kills the Canon. It's not even close (though see the bit at the top about last year's prosumer vs this year's pro). My files are cleaner in the subject area at 6,400 than Mikes at 2,500. In the shadows it's not even funny.
[BTW the reason I was running higher ISO was not just because I could - I like to let my backgrounds bleed a little light in dance shots - Mike's are more "dancer + disco light + black". Both look pretty nice.]
[BTW2 shooting on a D2X I'd have done this very differently and the pics would look different. That would have been very very hard after a long day.]
It will be interesting to see some of those shots Jonathan, I took an 8 second shot of the stars at the side of the house tonight and it came out quite well after a few little tweeks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rkspics/5027457444/sizes/o/in/photostream/
An interesting and fair comparison Jonathan. Funnily enough, the rumours are suggesting that the 5D will be refreshed before the 1DsMkIv is released - hopefully with a decent AF system and not one that is at least 5 years old.
I went to Quarry Bank Mill near Manchester Airport about a month ago. Some parts of the Mill were pretty dark - not as dark as it sounds you were in JR, as you could see - but I was shooting ISO2500 and 1/10" @ f/5.6. And my MkIII wasn't bad. I was pleased. I'd prefer a MkIv - but you can't have it all - As my wife keeps telling me.