Nikon D3 now the pinnacle of DSLR image quality

According to every report on this thing I've seen. Even at 6400 ISO.

In article
,
RichA wrote:

According to every report on this thing I've seen. Even at 6400 ISO.

But then, you don't know **** about photography.

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
RichA wrote:

According to every report on this thing I've seen. Even at 6400 ISO.

But then, you don't know **** about photography.

If you are making 16x24 prints, the Canon 1Dsmk3 will blow the 3D out of the
water. So he's simply dead wrong.

But, if you can't afford a 1Dsmk3, the D3 looks real sweet.

The D3 has the latest generation of improved microlenses: Canon implies that
they've upped the collection efficiency from 70 to 90%, so presumably
Nikon's microlenses are doing the same 90% collection bit, whereas the 5D is
still stuck in the 70% slow lane.

So the 3D should have about a 1/3 stop advantage over the 5D at high ISOs.
Probably not enough to see in a 12x18 print. But the pixel-peepers will get
all hot and bothered.

Also, if the 14-bit A/D converter works, it could have as much as a two stop
dynamic range advantage over the 5D at ISO 100. (This is less likely,
because fast A/D converters are noisy, and the D3 is a screamingly fast 9
fps.) Actually using this dynamic range will require HDR techniques, but for
those making the effort, it'll be seriously neat.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

If you are making 16x24 prints, the Canon 1Dsmk3 will blow the 3D out of the
water. So he's simply dead wrong.

I'm sure the Nikon is a decent camera, but you know as well as I do
that RichA doesn't know squat.

On Dec 6, 5:32 pm, "Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , David J.

Littleboy wrote:
If you are making 16x24 prints, the Canon 1Dsmk3 will blow the 3D out of the
water. So he's simply dead wrong.

I'm sure the Nikon is a decent camera, but you know as well as I do
that RichA doesn't know squat.

Someone has to come to Rich's defense so I will, Rich does know squat.

Scott

In article
,
Scott W wrote:

Someone has to come to Rich's defense so I will, Rich does know squat.

So far, we've seen no evidence.

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
Scott W wrote:

Someone has to come to Rich's defense so I will, Rich does know squat.

So far, we've seen no evidence.

So far we've we've seen a lot more evidence of Rich's photographic
knowledge than of yours.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 7 Dec 2007 07:40:19 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
Scott W wrote:

Someone has to come to Rich's defense so I will, Rich does know squat.

So far, we've seen no evidence.

So far we've we've seen a lot more evidence of Rich's photographic
knowledge than of yours.

But Rich only repeats here what he reads somewhere else, and who types
it for him?

Email replies remove REMOVE
Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php

On 7 Dec, 09:54, JG wrote:
On 7 Dec 2007 07:40:19 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
Scott W wrote:

Someone has to come to Rich's defense so I will, Rich does know squat.

So far, we've seen no evidence.

So far we've we've seen a lot more evidence of Rich's photographic
knowledge than of yours.

But Rich only repeats here what he reads somewhere else, and who types
it for him?

CTRL+C, CTRL+V

Doc

On Dec 6, 9:40 pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
Scott W wrote:
Someone has to come to Rich's defense so I will, Rich does know squat.
So far, we've seen no evidence.

So far we've we've seen a lot more evidence of Rich's photographic
knowledge than of yours.


And it is that evidence of Rich's photographic knowledge that worries
many of us.

Scott