The Nikon D3 makes everyone's life better, even mine!!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Mar 2, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Wow, with all this hype about the D3, and everyone feeling so chipper about
    being able to take better pictures without actually becoming abetter
    photographer, I just can't help but whistle a happy tune -- even though I
    don't actually own a D3.

    But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will finally be
    able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users have been able to
    take for decades.

    Grin,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 2, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Mar 2, 5:39 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:

    >abetter photographer


    Is that, like, an assistant photographer in a child pornography
    operation?

    Never mind.

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Mar 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Nervous Nick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 2, 5:39 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:
    >
    >>abetter photographer

    >
    > Is that, like, an assistant photographer in a child pornography
    > operation?
    >
    > Never mind.
    >
    > --
    > YOP...
    >

    Couldn't tell you. Never took part in anything quite that sad...
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    JT's Ghost Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote:

    > Wow, with all this hype about the D3, and everyone feeling so chipper about
    > being able to take better pictures without actually becoming abetter
    > photographer, I just can't help but whistle a happy tune -- even though I
    > don't actually own a D3.
    >


    Yep! I knew a guy that bought an 8,000 saxophone, thinking it would make
    him a better player. ;-)

    > But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will finally be
    > able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users have been able to
    > take for decades.
    >
    > Grin,
    > Dudley
    >


    Thanks... I needed a good "chuckle."

    - JT
    uses Nikon, has a sense of humor

    --
    Email Address is used to collect Spam!!!

    "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense,
    not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung
     
    JT's Ghost, Mar 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <SUGyj.63960$C61.35782@edtnps89>, Dudley Hanks says...

    > But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will finally be
    > able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users have been able to
    > take for decades.


    Has Canon been making DSLRs for decades?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 3, 2008
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Pete D Guest


    >> But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will finally
    >> be
    >> able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users have been able
    >> to
    >> take for decades.

    >
    > Has Canon been making DSLRs for decades?
    > --



    Apparently!!
     
    Pete D, Mar 3, 2008
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:47cbc866$0$23631$...
    >
    >
    >>> But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will finally
    >>> be
    >>> able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users have been able
    >>> to
    >>> take for decades.

    >>
    >> Has Canon been making DSLRs for decades?
    >> --

    >
    >
    > Apparently!!
    >


    Did I say digital shots?

    Grin,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 3, 2008
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in
    news:SUGyj.63960$C61.35782@edtnps89:

    > But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will
    > finally be able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users
    > have been able to take for decades.


    The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as far as
    IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as resolution goes.

    Of course, since Nikon conversions lean towards total desaturation of deep
    shadows, and chroma filtering in the brighter shadows and darker midtones,
    it may seem to some that the D3 has more of an edge, sensor-wise, than it
    does.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 4, 2008
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in
    >news:SUGyj.63960$C61.35782@edtnps89:
    >
    >> But, regardless, it's just nice that all those Nikon owners will
    >> finally be able to take shots almost as good as the ones Canon users
    >> have been able to take for decades.

    >
    >The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as far as
    >IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as resolution goes.


    Idiot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    news:47ccd9a5$0$36359$:

    > John Sheehy <> wrote:


    >>The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as
    >>far as IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as
    >>resolution goes.


    > Idiot.


    Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
    nothing to do with digital cameras?

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 4, 2008
    #10
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Sheehy <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    >> John Sheehy <> wrote:


    >>>The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as
    >>>far as IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as
    >>>resolution goes.

    >
    >> Idiot.

    >
    >Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
    >nothing to do with digital cameras?


    Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
    about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
    just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:47ce2586$0$36360$...
    > John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >> (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    >>> John Sheehy <> wrote:

    >
    >>>>The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as
    >>>>far as IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as
    >>>>resolution goes.

    >>
    >>> Idiot.

    >>
    >>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
    >>nothing to do with digital cameras?

    >
    > Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
    > about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
    > just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >
    >


    Actually, as I've said in other threads, I like both brands almost equally,
    and you can throw in Fuji and Pentax as well.

    But, it is interesting seeing who loses their cool and who doesn't...

    Smile,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 5, 2008
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:47ce2586$0$36360
    $:

    > John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >> (Ray Fischer) wrote in


    >>> Idiot.


    >>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
    >>nothing to do with digital cameras?


    > Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
    > about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
    > just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?


    Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
    or any camera as noise-free as the D3!

    Nice try, though.

    And I didn't say that the 1Dsmk3 was "SO" much better than the D3. In
    fact, my statements were of the objective variety.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 5, 2008
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 5, 5:25 pm, John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what?  I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
    > or any camera as noise-free as the D3!
    >
    > Nice try, though.
    >
    > And I didn't say that the 1Dsmk3 was "SO" much better than the D3.  In
    > fact, my statements were of the objective variety.


    You mentioned earlier about how the D3 gets most of its low-noise
    performance via software in the camera. Nikons are known for stomping
    all over the shadow detail in an effort to improve perceived contrast,
    but I don't want to go into that now.

    What if Canon came out with a 48MP body that was really just a 16MP
    body that had its files up-rezzed to 48MP? You know, kinda like Sigma
    does with its silly ads where they multiply the true res by 3.
    Imagine what the pundits would say. People would crucify Canon in the
    press, claiming that it was just a marketing gimmick meant to up the
    ante in the MP race.

    But when Nikon does the same thing with its aggressive NR, nobody says
    a peep. They get all giddy because now they can shoot stuff in the
    dark at 15000 ISO or something. But we all know it's just trickery.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    XxYyZz Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Mar 5, 5:25 pm, John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
    > or any camera as noise-free as the D3!
    >
    > Nice try, though.
    >
    > And I didn't say that the 1Dsmk3 was "SO" much better than the D3. In
    > fact, my statements were of the objective variety.


    You mentioned earlier about how the D3 gets most of its low-noise
    performance via software in the camera. Nikons are known for stomping
    all over the shadow detail in an effort to improve perceived contrast,
    but I don't want to go into that now.


    If you can provide a website that explains what you are talking about I sure
    would appreciate it. It's not the first itme I have heard that.


    What if Canon came out with a 48MP body that was really just a 16MP
    body that had its files up-rezzed to 48MP? You know, kinda like Sigma
    does with its silly ads where they multiply the true res by 3.
    Imagine what the pundits would say. People would crucify Canon in the
    press, claiming that it was just a marketing gimmick meant to up the
    ante in the MP race.

    But when Nikon does the same thing with its aggressive NR, nobody says
    a peep. They get all giddy because now they can shoot stuff in the
    dark at 15000 ISO or something. But we all know it's just trickery.
     
    XxYyZz, Mar 6, 2008
    #15
  16. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    Annika1980 <> wrote in news:d0d23e5a-1692-4121-9161-
    :

    > You mentioned earlier about how the D3 gets most of its low-noise
    > performance via software in the camera.


    Well, what I said was that it looks even better than it is to many
    people, because of the NR. That doesn't mean that it isn't very good to
    begin with, because it is. The D3 is superior, RAW-IQ-wise to all Canons
    except the 1Dsmk3 (at all ISOs, but especially at low ISO) and the 1Dsmk3
    at low ISOs in the shadows, because of their higher resolution.

    > What if Canon came out with a 48MP body that was really just a 16MP
    > body that had its files up-rezzed to 48MP? You know, kinda like Sigma
    > does with its silly ads where they multiply the true res by 3.
    > Imagine what the pundits would say. People would crucify Canon in the
    > press, claiming that it was just a marketing gimmick meant to up the
    > ante in the MP race.


    That isn't a fitting analogy, though, because NR is not equivalent to
    reducing resolution. NR can still allow a sharpened edge to register at
    any pixel column or row; an upscaled image can not.

    > But when Nikon does the same thing with its aggressive NR, nobody says
    > a peep. They get all giddy because now they can shoot stuff in the
    > dark at 15000 ISO or something. But we all know it's just trickery.


    No, it's not just trickery. The D3 really has moved up into the top
    range of noise performance. The NR, however, has people making strange
    statements like "the D3 is a couple stops ahead of all other DSLRs".

    Even many of the most famous experts on photography don't realize that
    they see digital as an "artist's rendition" through RAW conversion. Film
    was always RAW right through to the print; there was no layer of
    deception.

    Canon is going to lose a lot of customers because they are an arrogant
    company that is out of touch with what people want. They need a wider
    range of NR options in their camera JPEGs if they're going to compete in
    a world where people obviously like cartoonish output from their cameras,
    and this can be done without sacrificing the integrity of RAW or
    excluding more natural looking renditions as an option.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 6, 2008
    #16
  17. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    "XxYyZz" <> needs to fix or change his newsreader.

    It is not attributing quotes properly.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 6, 2008
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Sheehy <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:47ce2586$0$36360
    >> John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >>> (Ray Fischer) wrote in


    >>>> Idiot.

    >
    >>>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
    >>>nothing to do with digital cameras?

    >
    >> Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
    >> about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
    >> just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?

    >
    >Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
    >or any camera as noise-free as the D3!
    >
    >Nice try, though.


    And there is the usual pathetic bragging again.

    It's just a machine, sucker.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 6, 2008
    #18
  19. Dudley Hanks

    John Sheehy Guest

    (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:47cf7ff2$0$36410
    $:

    > John Sheehy <> wrote:


    >>Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a
    >>1Dsmk3!,
    >>or any camera as noise-free as the D3!


    >>Nice try, though.


    > And there is the usual pathetic bragging again.


    What bragging is that? That I don't have any camera like the D3 or the
    1Dsmk3? Do you have reading comprehension problems?

    > It's just a machine, sucker.


    You are hallucinating if you detected any irrational personal attachment
    to a camera I don't own, nor do I plan to, unless bags of money fall from
    the sky onto my terrace. I am attached to the truth, and I see a lot of
    lies out there, which suggest that Nikon's sensor technology is a couple
    stops ahead of Canon's.

    There seem to be an awful lot of personality disorders here on usenet.
    It's like an aviary, I tell you!

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Mar 7, 2008
    #19
  20. John Sheehy wrote:

    >> It's just a machine, sucker.


    Yep, and it should be sold after 18-months of use.

    > You are hallucinating if you detected any irrational personal
    > attachment to a camera I don't own, nor do I plan to, unless bags of
    > money fall from the sky onto my terrace. I am attached to the truth,
    > and I see a lot of lies out there, which suggest that Nikon's sensor
    > technology is a couple stops ahead of Canon's.


    Personally, I think both of you guys are just pissing in the wind with open
    mouths catching the overspray. The D3 is the best dSLR on the market at the
    moment and will probably still top Canon's next release. Anyway, it really
    doesn't matter since I have all the Canon stuff worked out of my blood and
    it's Nikon forever.

    > There seem to be an awful lot of personality disorders here on usenet.
    > It's like an aviary, I tell you!


    The fundamental flaw to your logic is you are letting the idiot stimulate
    you. It is *YOU* that need to learn how to embrace the idiot and stimulate
    it for maximum entertainment value.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    259
  2. demi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    782
  3. demi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,046
  4. Newcomer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    733
    G. Morgan
    Nov 15, 2009
  5. Newcomer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    481
    Newcomer
    Nov 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page