Is D3 Recommended for Studio shoot?

[wildstallion]

Not pixel size lah... pixel size does not come into the equation.

Circle of confusion is determine by the 'resolution' of the human eye. The ability of the human eye to detect the blur in the image. The circle of confusion is expessed in the final image/print and the distance at which the image is viewed.

Focal length and aperture will determine the "amount of blur" projected onto the sensor/film. The 'blur' is than magnified into the final image/print. The amount of magnification is affected by the size of the sensor/film and how big the final image is. How much blur can be detected by the human eye is also affected by the distance you are viewing the photo.

This should be discussed in another thread. (I think this has been discussed before.)

BC

I have a fantastic link at home which explains all this very well, i ll post when I get back.

 

[lsisaxon]

Not pixel size lah... pixel size does not come into the equation.

Circle of confusion is determine by the 'resolution' of the human eye. The ability of the human eye to detect the blur in the image. The circle of confusion is expessed in the final image/print and the distance at which the image is viewed.

Focal length and aperture will determine the "amount of blur" projected onto the sensor/film. The 'blur' is than magnified into the final image/print. The amount of magnification is affected by the size of the sensor/film and how big the final image is. How much blur can be detected by the human eye is also affected by the distance you are viewing the photo.

This should be discussed in another thread. (I think this has been discussed before.)

BC

According to that site, the circle of confusion is what our eyes can see in a standard 8x10 print at 1 foot away (I wasn't aware of that standard. ;p). Then that justifies that it has nothing to do with pixel size but the frame size, provided that the resolution is sufficient.

My undestanding of it all is that in the case of digital photography, most of the time I would take 100% crop as a basis for comparison since circle of confusion for diffraction limited photography has to do with the pixel size. DoF would then be quite different.

 

[Scaglietti]

According to that site, the circle of confusion is what our eyes can see in a standard 8x10 print at 1 foot away (I wasn't aware of that standard. ;p). Then that justifies that it has nothing to do with pixel size but the frame size, provided that the resolution is sufficient.

My undestanding of it all is that in the case of digital photography, most of the time I would take 100% crop as a basis for comparison since circle of confusion for diffraction limited photography has to do with the pixel size. DoF would then be quite different.

DOF has never been expressed according the 100% crop. Even pixel size of the monitor can vary and not to mention the DPI of prints.

Anyway, I will start a new thread on this.

Here: http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=328736

BC

 

[litefoot]

Wrong! Sensor size is a critical factor of determining DOF.

Same Image on different sensor size. Agree.

 

[lsisaxon]

DOF has never been expressed according the 100% crop. Even pixel size of the monitor can vary and not to mention the DPI of prints.

Anyway, I will start a new thread on this.

Here: http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=328736

BC

Yeah.. I wasn't aware of it until I read the link. I thought the CoC for DoF is the same CoC for determining diffraction limits. :sweat:

 

[surflim]

I think it's not sensor size per se but rather the circle of confusion determined by the pixel size. Anyway, are we getting out of topic? ;p

It's ok, its a good post! it still do have some concern for D3 for studio shooting As its giving me more idea of FF comparing to DX sensor, DOF is a concern for Studio shoot.

 

[lsisaxon]

It's ok, its a good post! it still do have some concern for D3 for studio shooting As its giving me more idea of FF comparing to DX sensor, DOF is a concern for Studio shoot.

It really depends on what you're shooting. What kind of backdrop you have and whether you want to be able to capture the texture of the backdrop. How you want to portray your subject. No hard and fast rule really...

 

[Scaglietti]

It's ok, its a good post! it still do have some concern for D3 for studio shooting As its giving me more idea of FF comparing to DX sensor, DOF is a concern for Studio shoot.

What is your DOF concern?

There are quite a number of photographers using medium formats, significantly larger formate compared to FX and DX format.

BC

 

[YauTing]

Here are some non-sports links from pre-production D3. It shows that you have not been following the postings.. ;p

http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/ok-its-after-1a.html
http://www.craigsactions.com/Tips/NikonD3FirstTest.html

http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/09/nikon_d3_sample_images.php
This link scroll all the way down for the portrait of the fireman by Joe McNally. I'll link it here..


Anyway, always remember, when you blow an image big, you are not going to view it up close. Many times, in the case of D2X, the sensor has outresolved the optics. IMO, 12mp is convenient for storage and editing. It is already larger than a 16-base 35mm film scan.

Otherwise, if you really need the resolution, I am speculating that Nikon might release a >20mp D3X end of next year or early 2009. If Nikon maintains the same pixel density as D300's sensor to give 12mp for DX, FX would give 27mp, but I guess it might probably be something in between to give maybe 10MP DX and 22MP FX to give a better noise performance than the D300. It will definitely be slower than D3 and you will have to sacrifice some high ISO performance.

If you look at the 100% image of the fireman, you willl find that the limiting resolution still seems to be the optics. If that's the case, you would not get any better image even if you up the MP count. So at the end of the day, it did made me think if it's really necessary to go for higher MP count. Maybe it would be useful if you do cropping a lot but the price difference between a D3 and a D3X might be able to get you a spare D300 body. ;p

Good analysis :thumbsup:. I had same dilemma whether should I go for higher MP or higher ISO. In the end of the day, I prefer low light photography and some spare cash for other things.

 

[Ambious]

it shoots anything.
the only thing it cant shoot is through walls.

It can, just change the motor and put armoured piercing bullet in it. :bsmilie:

 

[chanjyj]

It can, just change the motor and put armoured piercing bullet in it. :bsmilie:

Or use the D3 and bash the wall...... down :sweatsm:

 

[randytay]

Vince,

Probably i'm thinking on the resolution, and the main target Nikon make this cam for which i believe is more on for sport rather than for studio shooting.

I'm very sorry if i am wrong, and please comments & advices if i am wrong.

Because i have some fellow photogs which own 1D MkIII which they mainly forcus more on sports rather than using it as studio.

Dude/Dudess,

Just because the official samples are sports images does not mean that they are for sports only. Anyone has an ipod but plays Chinese songs? I don't see any official ads from Apple that says the iPod plays Chinese songs.... get the picture? (pun intended).

Any reason why samples hardly uses studio setting: Studio = controlled => it can make any shitty camera produce great images.

Seriously, just because a camera is equipped with a high fps (9 in this case) and excellent high iso capabilities does not mean it is for PJ work or sports ONLY. It simply means this is one hell of a camera which is the most VERSATILE to date, which means this camera can be used for *almost* any situations and delivers for the working pro.

As an example, the last flagship from Nikon is the D2Xs, 12+ MP. I have yet to hear a client reject an image from this camera due to "quality" and "mp" alone (or together, for you smart alecks out there). Reject is*always* due to user error. Now the D3, other than being a full frame, it has an almost identical MP count (12.1 vs 12.3) I cannot see any reason why this camera will be any less adequate in studio setting. If you are worry about the lack of pixel density, just use a longer lens so you can make use of the full sensor area.

 

[surflim]

Dude/Dudess,

Just because the official samples are sports images does not mean that they are for sports only. Anyone has an ipod but plays Chinese songs? I don't see any official ads from Apple that says the iPod plays Chinese songs.... get the picture? (pun intended).

Any reason why samples hardly uses studio setting: Studio = controlled => it can make any shitty camera produce great images.

Seriously, just because a camera is equipped with a high fps (9 in this case) and excellent high iso capabilities does not mean it is for PJ work or sports ONLY. It simply means this is one hell of a camera which is the most VERSATILE to date, which means this camera can be used for *almost* any situations and delivers for the working pro.

As an example, the last flagship from Nikon is the D2Xs, 12+ MP. I have yet to hear a client reject an image from this camera due to "quality" and "mp" alone (or together, for you smart alecks out there). Reject is*always* due to user error. Now the D3, other than being a full frame, it has an almost identical MP count (12.1 vs 12.3) I cannot see any reason why this camera will be any less adequate in studio setting. If you are worry about the lack of pixel density, just use a longer lens so you can make use of the full sensor area.

Thanks Randy! Sorry i wasn't confident in Studio shoot thats why my curiosity pound on this topic on a D3.

 

[catchlights]

Thanks Randy! Sorry i wasn't confident in Studio shoot thats why my curiosity pound on this topic on a D3.

it will be a joke if D3 can't handle studio better than other Nikon SLR/DSLR.

 

[snowspeeder]

No, the D3 is "not recommended" for studio shoot -- if you don't know how to use it.

 

[calebk]

Or use the D3 and bash the wall...... down :sweatsm:

Can imagine you doing that...

 

[Godzilla Invades]

No matter how high end one camera maybe, if your art of studio lighting is average, you will get average results.

 

[catchlights]

No matter how high end one camera maybe, if your art of studio lighting is average, you will get average results.

as in: garbage in, garbage out.

btw, got any camera can set studio lighting for photographers or not??

 

[Godzilla Invades]

as in: garbage in, garbage out.

btw, got any camera can set studio lighting for photographers or not??

Hehe.....you know what i mean lar....wahahaha............

Sorry for the OT but I cannot help it but typing this.......
Yes there is a Nikon D9xs MkIIIII with 100 MP with built in meter to emulate studio lights (Future of Nikon cameras). :thumbsup:

In the near future, anybody can become super professional photographers.:bsmilie:

 

[lsisaxon]

Hehe.....you know what i mean lar....wahahaha............

Sorry for the OT but I cannot help it but typing this.......
Yes there is a Nikon D9xs MkIIIII with 100 MP with built in meter to emulate studio lights (Future of Nikon cameras). :thumbsup:

In the near future, anybody can become super professional photographers.:bsmilie:

In the future, you don't even need the subject to be present to take a picture.