Hi.
(yes there is a question at bottom of the post)
I have been out of photography for some years now and are "still" about to invest in a good FF digital SLR and an A2 printer.
What I was hoping for was either a full frame foveon sensor DSLR, or eventually a sensor using Fujifilm organic multilayer sensor (hmm does it exist).
The reason for that is that I belive a sensor that captures all colors in same sensor (pixel) area might have some benefits when it comes to sharpness as well as one probably does not have to cram so many pixels in the sensor as compared to a traditional CMOS or CCD sensor. I also belive that fever MP per square mm also does not put so much strain on the glass..
Finally things are moving in the FF world.
Nikon D700 announced today, Sony's FF to be released sooner than laiter, as well as new FF models from Canon.
So why not buy the 1Ds MARK III then?
It is a heavy and large beast, and quite expensive for my kind of work as well.
Currently I own some Nikon "FF" lenses.
So being able to buy a Nikon body would be nice but not absolutely mandatory.
So to my question:
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
Full Version: D3/D700 for A2 prints
QUOTE (bongobongo @ Jul 1 2008, 03:59 PM)
So to my question:
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
If you are talking about 35 mm film, then my personnal answer is that the file of the D3 will withstand A2 printing better.
Regards,
Bernard
The easiest way to find this out is to try a D3 at a dealer, just snap a picture outside the shop. Then do the same with a film camera and get A2-sized prints. For some 20-30 EUR (film+prints) you'll get a better answer than from any internet forum.
QUOTE (bongobongo @ Jul 1 2008, 08:59 AM)
Hi.
(yes there is a question at bottom of the post)
I have been out of photography for some years now and are "still" about to invest in a good FF digital SLR and an A2 printer.
What I was hoping for was either a full frame foveon sensor DSLR, or eventually a sensor using Fujifilm organic multilayer sensor (hmm does it exist).
The reason for that is that I belive a sensor that captures all colors in same sensor (pixel) area might have some benefits when it comes to sharpness as well as one probably does not have to cram so many pixels in the sensor as compared to a traditional CMOS or CCD sensor. I also belive that fever MP per square mm also does not put so much strain on the glass..
Finally things are moving in the FF world.
Nikon D700 announced today, Sony's FF to be released sooner than laiter, as well as new FF models from Canon.
So why not buy the 1Ds MARK III then?
It is a heavy and large beast, and quite expensive for my kind of work as well.
Currently I own some Nikon "FF" lenses.
So being able to buy a Nikon body would be nice but not absolutely mandatory.
So to my question:
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
(yes there is a question at bottom of the post)
I have been out of photography for some years now and are "still" about to invest in a good FF digital SLR and an A2 printer.
What I was hoping for was either a full frame foveon sensor DSLR, or eventually a sensor using Fujifilm organic multilayer sensor (hmm does it exist).
The reason for that is that I belive a sensor that captures all colors in same sensor (pixel) area might have some benefits when it comes to sharpness as well as one probably does not have to cram so many pixels in the sensor as compared to a traditional CMOS or CCD sensor. I also belive that fever MP per square mm also does not put so much strain on the glass..
Finally things are moving in the FF world.
Nikon D700 announced today, Sony's FF to be released sooner than laiter, as well as new FF models from Canon.
So why not buy the 1Ds MARK III then?
It is a heavy and large beast, and quite expensive for my kind of work as well.
Currently I own some Nikon "FF" lenses.
So being able to buy a Nikon body would be nice but not absolutely mandatory.
So to my question:
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
The shoot one and see post is the best advice.
I see so many bad digital prints around craft shops, presumably made by people that think they are good, I sometimes wonder who is giving the advice. I was buying bits for my camera the other day, someone had brought in a pile of A4 prints to the shop, the print owner and staff were saying how wonderful they looked, to me they were just awful, that digital thin over saturated flat colour and over sharpened look you get plus that dreadful burnt out white cloud fall off.
But no everyone one was so impressed with the detail.
Try it yourself.
Kevin.
Thanks for your replies
Doing some test shots and print them sound like a good idea.
Was just hoping some with experience and a critical eye had done this and perhaps could share his/her's findings here.
Doing some test shots and print them sound like a good idea.
Was just hoping some with experience and a critical eye had done this and perhaps could share his/her's findings here.
Hi, and welcome to the digital world!!!!
"Take 2 pictures and then get two prints made......"
While I understand the concept of this I think making a major purchase on the results of such a test are potentially flawed unless you are not going to be getting involved in any PP workflow.
If you looked at many of my files straight out of camera you'd probably put my D2x in the bin compared to many others!
Digital Cameras are IMHO "data" collectors. How you set the camera up to collect that data (not quiet the same as film in some cases) whether you decide to "in camera" tweak or wait until PP is a personal choice. What RAW convertor do you use - different ones have different strengths! Also with certain software you can emulate film looks, or even different camera looks. But ultimately how well you use whatever team of body, lens, tripod, filters, technique, etc to collect the data will be of significant importance to the overall technical potential of your image.
How that image is prepared for print, choice of paper etc will also have a noticeable effect, and if framing the choice of matt and frame too!
I agree that many "digital" prints that I see in local shows, for sale in various shops / stands etc are poor compared to well made film and digital prints. I think this stems from the fact that while many traditional Dark Room prints are created with a wealth of experience by their creators, many digital printers are still inexperienced in both image digital data collection / PP manipulation / and printing.
Other factors are that a D40 sensor isn't like a D2x or D3. Digital is not like film when my F301 with the same film as an F3 could produce essentially the same output and print potential. So here we go back to the collected Data "potential" again.
It certainly does not help with web sites / printers etc that tell provide far too friendly feedback. Try finding a local camera club / workshop / gallery for some real thoughts and hopeful advice, although even there be careful of personal issues which may effect the advice you get - it's a tough world at times!
All the very best
Steven
"Take 2 pictures and then get two prints made......"
While I understand the concept of this I think making a major purchase on the results of such a test are potentially flawed unless you are not going to be getting involved in any PP workflow.
If you looked at many of my files straight out of camera you'd probably put my D2x in the bin compared to many others!
Digital Cameras are IMHO "data" collectors. How you set the camera up to collect that data (not quiet the same as film in some cases) whether you decide to "in camera" tweak or wait until PP is a personal choice. What RAW convertor do you use - different ones have different strengths! Also with certain software you can emulate film looks, or even different camera looks. But ultimately how well you use whatever team of body, lens, tripod, filters, technique, etc to collect the data will be of significant importance to the overall technical potential of your image.
How that image is prepared for print, choice of paper etc will also have a noticeable effect, and if framing the choice of matt and frame too!
I agree that many "digital" prints that I see in local shows, for sale in various shops / stands etc are poor compared to well made film and digital prints. I think this stems from the fact that while many traditional Dark Room prints are created with a wealth of experience by their creators, many digital printers are still inexperienced in both image digital data collection / PP manipulation / and printing.
Other factors are that a D40 sensor isn't like a D2x or D3. Digital is not like film when my F301 with the same film as an F3 could produce essentially the same output and print potential. So here we go back to the collected Data "potential" again.
It certainly does not help with web sites / printers etc that tell provide far too friendly feedback. Try finding a local camera club / workshop / gallery for some real thoughts and hopeful advice, although even there be careful of personal issues which may effect the advice you get - it's a tough world at times!
All the very best
Steven
QUOTE (bongobongo @ Jul 2 2008, 07:40 AM)
Thanks for your replies
Doing some test shots and print them sound like a good idea.
Was just hoping some with experience and a critical eye had done this and perhaps could share his/her's findings here.
Doing some test shots and print them sound like a good idea.
Was just hoping some with experience and a critical eye had done this and perhaps could share his/her's findings here.
That's the problem I could give my view, but you don't know the worth of my view. I think lots give their view, a couple of enlargements from the day at the Zoo and they post "Wow" you might think them awful.
Kevin.
the perceived quality of the print does not only depend on the number of megapixels of the camera, the preparation of the file....but to a very large extent on the amount of information contained in the picture. if you take a picture of a uniform surface you will need few pixels to resolve it, if you photograph a group of 500 persons you create a different order of magnitude of information which needs a lot of pixels to resolve. some time ago i read a posting in the leica m8 digital forum of a 'master printer' (in new york if i remember correctly), who claimed that his printing skills combined with the quality of the m8 sensor (?) allowed leica m8 files (10mpx) to print up to 40inches x 30 inches. to support his claim he showed a print of an abstract photograph, with very low information content. pretty laughable, a d2h (4mpx) would have done equally well.
just today i checked prints of some of my d3 files, 40x30 inces or so. they were perfect, but again it was files with low information content. so all in all, possible print size depends on many factors, last but not least on the viewer's quality standard and the subject of the photography. but the d3 does very well in its class....
peter
just today i checked prints of some of my d3 files, 40x30 inces or so. they were perfect, but again it was files with low information content. so all in all, possible print size depends on many factors, last but not least on the viewer's quality standard and the subject of the photography. but the d3 does very well in its class....
peter
QUOTE (Steven Draper @ Jul 2 2008, 09:04 AM)
Hi, and welcome to the digital world!!!!
"Take 2 pictures and then get two prints made......"
While I understand the concept of this I think making a major purchase on the results of such a test are potentially flawed unless you are not going to be getting involved in any PP workflow.
If you looked at many of my files straight out of camera you'd probably put my D2x in the bin compared to many others!
Digital Cameras are IMHO "data" collectors. How you set the camera up to collect that data (not quiet the same as film in some cases) whether you decide to "in camera" tweak or wait until PP is a personal choice. What RAW convertor do you use - different ones have different strengths! Also with certain software you can emulate film looks, or even different camera looks. But ultimately how well you use whatever team of body, lens, tripod, filters, technique, etc to collect the data will be of significant importance to the overall technical potential of your image.
How that image is prepared for print, choice of paper etc will also have a noticeable effect, and if framing the choice of matt and frame too!
I agree that many "digital" prints that I see in local shows, for sale in various shops / stands etc are poor compared to well made film and digital prints. I think this stems from the fact that while many traditional Dark Room prints are created with a wealth of experience by their creators, many digital printers are still inexperienced in both image digital data collection / PP manipulation / and printing.
Other factors are that a D40 sensor isn't like a D2x or D3. Digital is not like film when my F301 with the same film as an F3 could produce essentially the same output and print potential. So here we go back to the collected Data "potential" again.
It certainly does not help with web sites / printers etc that tell provide far too friendly feedback. Try finding a local camera club / workshop / gallery for some real thoughts and hopeful advice, although even there be careful of personal issues which may effect the advice you get - it's a tough world at times!
All the very best
Steven
"Take 2 pictures and then get two prints made......"
While I understand the concept of this I think making a major purchase on the results of such a test are potentially flawed unless you are not going to be getting involved in any PP workflow.
If you looked at many of my files straight out of camera you'd probably put my D2x in the bin compared to many others!
Digital Cameras are IMHO "data" collectors. How you set the camera up to collect that data (not quiet the same as film in some cases) whether you decide to "in camera" tweak or wait until PP is a personal choice. What RAW convertor do you use - different ones have different strengths! Also with certain software you can emulate film looks, or even different camera looks. But ultimately how well you use whatever team of body, lens, tripod, filters, technique, etc to collect the data will be of significant importance to the overall technical potential of your image.
How that image is prepared for print, choice of paper etc will also have a noticeable effect, and if framing the choice of matt and frame too!
I agree that many "digital" prints that I see in local shows, for sale in various shops / stands etc are poor compared to well made film and digital prints. I think this stems from the fact that while many traditional Dark Room prints are created with a wealth of experience by their creators, many digital printers are still inexperienced in both image digital data collection / PP manipulation / and printing.
Other factors are that a D40 sensor isn't like a D2x or D3. Digital is not like film when my F301 with the same film as an F3 could produce essentially the same output and print potential. So here we go back to the collected Data "potential" again.
It certainly does not help with web sites / printers etc that tell provide far too friendly feedback. Try finding a local camera club / workshop / gallery for some real thoughts and hopeful advice, although even there be careful of personal issues which may effect the advice you get - it's a tough world at times!
All the very best
Steven
QUOTE (bongobongo @ Jul 1 2008, 08:59 AM)
Hi.
(yes there is a question at bottom of the post)
I have been out of photography for some years now and are "still" about to invest in a good FF digital SLR and an A2 printer.
What I was hoping for was either a full frame foveon sensor DSLR, or eventually a sensor using Fujifilm organic multilayer sensor (hmm does it exist).
The reason for that is that I belive a sensor that captures all colors in same sensor (pixel) area might have some benefits when it comes to sharpness as well as one probably does not have to cram so many pixels in the sensor as compared to a traditional CMOS or CCD sensor. I also belive that fever MP per square mm also does not put so much strain on the glass..
Finally things are moving in the FF world.
Nikon D700 announced today, Sony's FF to be released sooner than laiter, as well as new FF models from Canon.
So why not buy the 1Ds MARK III then?
It is a heavy and large beast, and quite expensive for my kind of work as well.
Currently I own some Nikon "FF" lenses.
So being able to buy a Nikon body would be nice but not absolutely mandatory.
So to my question:
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
(yes there is a question at bottom of the post)
I have been out of photography for some years now and are "still" about to invest in a good FF digital SLR and an A2 printer.
What I was hoping for was either a full frame foveon sensor DSLR, or eventually a sensor using Fujifilm organic multilayer sensor (hmm does it exist).
The reason for that is that I belive a sensor that captures all colors in same sensor (pixel) area might have some benefits when it comes to sharpness as well as one probably does not have to cram so many pixels in the sensor as compared to a traditional CMOS or CCD sensor. I also belive that fever MP per square mm also does not put so much strain on the glass..
Finally things are moving in the FF world.
Nikon D700 announced today, Sony's FF to be released sooner than laiter, as well as new FF models from Canon.
So why not buy the 1Ds MARK III then?
It is a heavy and large beast, and quite expensive for my kind of work as well.
Currently I own some Nikon "FF" lenses.
So being able to buy a Nikon body would be nice but not absolutely mandatory.
So to my question:
Would appreciate if someone using D3 could say something about the print quality from D3. A2 print size, low ISO (100) etc...
How do they compare to let say a Velvia 50 ISO A2 print?
Another opinion..D700 and with the $ difference from the D3 buy new glass..either the 14-24 or the 24-70.
Steve
QUOTE
the perceived quality of the print does not only depend on the number of megapixels of the camera, the preparation of the file....but to a very large extent on the amount of information contained in the picture.
The above comment from Marcowich
You are abosolutely corrrect and I should have said in my original post that I do most landscape photography (nature that is).
Thanks for bringing focus to that important issue
Hi,
Lenses are a very important part of the equation. Both A2 and digital sensors put heavy demands on lenses. Now both the D3 and D700 are relatively low res, but the high res FF sensors probably coming in the autumn will demand the very best lenses ever built.
Image quality is a very complex issue, involving both MTF, noise characteristics and perception. Add to this significant image processing which is always there in digital.
Check this page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...rmance.summary/
Erik
Lenses are a very important part of the equation. Both A2 and digital sensors put heavy demands on lenses. Now both the D3 and D700 are relatively low res, but the high res FF sensors probably coming in the autumn will demand the very best lenses ever built.
Image quality is a very complex issue, involving both MTF, noise characteristics and perception. Add to this significant image processing which is always there in digital.
Check this page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...rmance.summary/
Erik
i just did a 40x30 inch print of a landscape (view from zabriesky point in death valley) of a D3 file,
taken with the 105mm DC lens at 200 iso (which is the base iso for the D3) and it turned out to be spectacular (sharp viewed from 5 inches distance). but then again, this is a low information content landscape (no trees...). i figure that A2 is more or less maxing out D3 pixel information for classic, high detail landscape. this claim is supported by a macro shot of a desktop motherboard (not a landscape but very high detail) which i did with the D3 (and the 85mm PC micro lens). it is sharp and detailed to every viewing distance.
as said by another poster, the lenses are also a big factor in this.
peter
taken with the 105mm DC lens at 200 iso (which is the base iso for the D3) and it turned out to be spectacular (sharp viewed from 5 inches distance). but then again, this is a low information content landscape (no trees...). i figure that A2 is more or less maxing out D3 pixel information for classic, high detail landscape. this claim is supported by a macro shot of a desktop motherboard (not a landscape but very high detail) which i did with the D3 (and the 85mm PC micro lens). it is sharp and detailed to every viewing distance.
as said by another poster, the lenses are also a big factor in this.
peter
QUOTE (KevinA @ Jul 2 2008, 03:26 AM)
The shoot one and see post is the best advice.
I see so many bad digital prints around craft shops, presumably made by people that think they are good, I sometimes wonder who is giving the advice. I was buying bits for my camera the other day, someone had brought in a pile of A4 prints to the shop, the print owner and staff were saying how wonderful they looked, to me they were just awful, that digital thin over saturated flat colour and over sharpened look you get plus that dreadful burnt out white cloud fall off.
But no everyone one was so impressed with the detail.
Try it yourself.
Kevin.
I see so many bad digital prints around craft shops, presumably made by people that think they are good, I sometimes wonder who is giving the advice. I was buying bits for my camera the other day, someone had brought in a pile of A4 prints to the shop, the print owner and staff were saying how wonderful they looked, to me they were just awful, that digital thin over saturated flat colour and over sharpened look you get plus that dreadful burnt out white cloud fall off.
But no everyone one was so impressed with the detail.
Try it yourself.
Kevin.
The problem with the shoot one and see theory is that Kevin (above) is right.....but the same thing was true about film....when film was king you could wander around art fairs and see a lot of horrible film prints too.
Technique is important to whatever medium you are using to capture. If you go out and shoot a few files on a D3 your experience as a cameraman may give you a good file but that is only half the battle. Making a good print from this file involves a long learning process and developed technique. You won't get it right the first time.
My answer to your question is that the Nikon d3 will make a wonderful large print. For me, it makes a much better print than I can make with any kind of film because although I have 3 Leica and maybe half a dozen Nikon film bodies in the room with me now, I will probably never shoot another roll of film in any of them ever again...haven't for years.
What I like about the digital capture world is that I have more control. Like most folks my digital capture and darkroom techniques are evolving daily and hopefully getting better. Digital is not easier but it gives me the opportunity control every aspect of the process. Is it better? I can't tell you that...It is what I do and I am happy with it....most of the time?
JohnCote
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.