wondering how nikon d3 does on landscape? im planning on moving to d3 but
since d3's iso starts at 200.. wondering if iso 200 has some noise problem?
haven't seen lot of d3 shots on here or i missed alot
Jiyoung Sung wrote:
wondering how nikon d3 does on landscape? im planning on moving to d3 but
since d3's iso starts at 200.. wondering if iso 200 has some noise problem?
haven't seen lot of d3 shots on here or i missed alot
thanks
Ji
All information I've seen on the subject says that noise doesn't depend on what is the camera's lowest ISO setting, but on what is its base ISO setting.
I have a D300 which, like the D3, has a base ISO of 200. That means, ISO200 has the least noise. The D200 has a base ISO of 100, therefore it has the least noise at ISO100. You can set the D3/D300/D700 to Lo-1, which is equivalent to ISO100, but it's "pulled back" i.e. not a native ISO setting and will therefore have slightly less quality than ISO200.
The D3 sensor is optimised for ISO200, so that in noise terms, it is the same as other cameras at ISO100, ISO64 or whatever ISO is the base ISO for their sensor. By the way, the D3 is renowned for its low-noise characteristics - if it's amazing at ISO1600, what are the odds at 200
The D3 is an incredible camera. For $5000 it better not have noise at ISO 200...
You can take the ISO down to 100 also, but the D3 is one of the most noise free cameras out there, you will be totally happy with it for sure!
What camera are you using now? And what made you interested in the D3?
This is probably better suited for the Nikon Forum.
Jim
currently using a d300 interest in d3...hm a full frame sensor? haha i just wanted to get more wide angle for landscape oh thank you for moving it to the nikon forum
The low ISO images are also very clean. The only problem for landscape is that you'll probably want more than 12MP. I would wait for the D3X if that's your intent. Otherwise, just go with a D700 because that is going to give you the same image quality but without the bulk that really is not necessary for landscape.
All information I've seen on the subject says that noise doesn't depend on what is the camera's lowest ISO setting, but on what is its base ISO setting.
I have a D300 which, like the D3, has a base ISO of 200. That means, ISO200 has the least noise. The D200 has a base ISO of 100, therefore it has the least noise at ISO100. You can set the D3/D300/D700 to Lo-1, which is equivalent to ISO100, but it's "pulled back" i.e. not a native ISO setting and will therefore have slightly less quality than ISO200.
The D3 sensor is optimised for ISO200, so that in noise terms, it is the same as other cameras at ISO100, ISO64 or whatever ISO is the base ISO for their sensor. By the way, the D3 is renowned for its low-noise characteristics - if it's amazing at ISO1600, what are the odds at 200 ...Show more →
i dunno i thought it differently, canon has a iso start 50-100 so thought the d3 iso 200 was a bit of a high start then a canon ? and thought it would make noise haha(stupid me) i usually take pictures of landscapes so i was wondering how the d3 does it maybe i should wait for d3x or whatevers comming next for bigger mp :P
12 megapixels are not enough for landscape photography? Are we talking about making murals on all the pictures taken with the camera?
Man, am I old fashioned by still using a 4.1 megapixels camera (D2H)
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
With regards to the D3 being only 12mp, try and think of what size of prints you will be doing. I have no problem up to 16x24 viewed at close distances. Larger may be a problem.
The nice thing is that the files are deep. You can get away with a lot of PP manipulation that I could never do with my old 1ds.
Jiyoung Sung wrote:
i dunno i thought it differently, canon has a iso start 50-100 so thought the d3 iso 200 was a bit of a high start then a canon ? and thought it would make noise haha(stupid me) i usually take pictures of landscapes so i was wondering how the d3 does it maybe i should wait for d3x or whatevers comming next for bigger mp :P
If you want to review statistical data on noise characteristics for this sensor at various ISO's, the most objective data that I have seen so far come from recent tests conducted by Bjorn Rorslett and synthesized in a thread (D700 test diary) over at Nikongear.com.
I'm not sure about 12MP not enough. I have an excellent 16x20 landscape photo I shot with a Fujifilm F30--a mere 6MP P+S. And when I say excellent I mean sharp, great color and contrast and still looks great from 5 feet away. When I use my Schneider loupe I begin to see some grain
camerapapi wrote:
12 megapixels are not enough for landscape photography? Are we talking about making murals on all the pictures taken with the camera?
Man, am I old fashioned by still using a 4.1 megapixels camera (D2H)
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
And I bet you are getting stellar images out of that camera, 12 megapixels is quite enough for most purposes, that is until they release one that is 24 megapixels, whoooa wallet!
landscape photographers are ones that will pixel peep a 4ft x 6ft print by walking up to it. that is what landscape photographers do. the fanatics will pull out a magnifying glass. that's what landscape paintings encouraged and landscape photographers followed. 200MP is about enough for me. my friend Vince who randomly posts here now and then, believes that 200MP is just getting warmed up and 2GP is really the place to aim.
Herb...
wjlapier wrote:
I'm not sure about 12MP not enough. I have an excellent 16x20 landscape photo I shot with a Fujifilm F30--a mere 6MP P+S. And when I say excellent I mean sharp, great color and contrast and still looks great from 5 feet away. When I use my Schneider loupe I begin to see some grain
camerapapi wrote:
12 megapixels are not enough for landscape photography? Are we talking about making murals on all the pictures taken with the camera?
Man, am I old fashioned by still using a 4.1 megapixels camera (D2H)
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
12 megapixels gives you roughly a 9 x 14 inch print at 300 ppi. You can interpolate beyond that for larger sizes. However, I've always come from the viewpoint that landscape photos should be enjoyed at a large print size... 20x30 and larger at times. 12MP is barely enough. The D3X will be stunning at 24MP whenever it is announced. The OP asked if the D3 does well for that. It will do a decent job, but if that's the sole intent, and the OP has some money to spend and some time to wait, the D3X will be a better camera for the original intentions.
HerbChong wrote:
landscape photographers are ones that will pixel peep a 4ft x 6ft print by walking up to it. that is what landscape photographers do. the fanatics will pull out a magnifying glass. that's what landscape paintings encouraged and landscape photographers followed. 200MP is about enough for me. my friend Vince who randomly posts here now and then, believes that 200MP is just getting warmed up and 2GP is really the place to aim.
Herb...
Words of wisdom from Herb, but why limit to a paltry 2GP. Think big
wow thank you for all the infos im not a professional but i'd like to print my favorite
shots and put it on my wall..well thats what i wanted to do hah..
With regards to the noise on the D3, what are you thinking that might be better than it in any noticeable way? If you're that fussy get a large format film camera.
oh thank you for moving it to the nikon forum 
maybe i should wait for d3x or whatevers comming next for bigger mp :P