# Okay... I'm Even More Nuts Now



## Ian Farlow (Mar 26, 2008)

Well... it all started in late 2''7 when I purchased a Mac Pro. That was quickly followed by a MacBook, which was sold recently and replaced with a MacBook Pro. That's my recent, and expensive journey through nuts-ville. But I am about to embark on a new, even more expensive journey on a return trip to nuts-ville. Let me back up many, many years...

I started photography with a Minolta X7''. That lasted several years and was a blast to use. I learned quite a bit on that camera, most of which I've promptly forgotten. That camera ended up being replaced by a Nikon N9', which also saw a lot of use. Ultimately, that camera was replaced with a D1'' as I entered the dSLR world. Loved it.

Until I got the Canon 2'D. I loved it even more. Or so I thought. But I missed my comfort with Nikon. The ergonomics, the interaction... hard to explain, but I liken it to the Windows/Mac debate that has raged on for so long. Since moving to the Mac, I can understand why so many people love them. I feel the same way about Nikon, even though Canon is an excellent camera manufacturer. So I ended up in a D2'' and was happy again. Until I saw the low-light/high ISO noise. It could be corrected with software, but it was disappointing nonetheless.

During all of this, I wanted to go into a single piece body since I was always attaching a grip to my previous cameras, and so I compared the D2X with the 1D Mark IIn. Because of cost, I ended up with the Canon. This is a great camera and has served me well. Unfortunately, Nikon just kicked me in the gentleman's parts with the release of the D3.

I'm not here to debate Canon versus Nikon, and do not want this thread to go that way. Nor do I want it to break down into a Windows versus Mac argument. No, I simply want to point out that I hate Nikon for releasing the D3, as it has renewed my faith in Nikon products. I will be switching as the lure of a high-ISO performing, full frame CMOS sensor is just too great. Granted, I will be taking a shot in the wallet to do so, but eBay has been good to me in the past as I take very good care of my equipment, so all of my Canon stuff, the 1D Mark IIn, 7'-2'' 2.8L, 24-7' 2.8L, and the 58' EX Mark II, plus some extras, will be on eBay within a few hours.

Why did I post this? I guess I need to let everyone know I am certifiably insane! Oops... gotta run. I think I hear the men in white suits knocking on the front door...

By the way, anyone here have a D3 or D3'' and want to share their experiences?


----------



## rcannonp (Mar 27, 2008)

I thought you were going to say that you did something really crazy like buying the new Phase One camera and a P45 back. Selling your Canon gear to buy Nikon stuff is just kinda loopy. 

I hope that you don't have to buy it all back when the 5D successor comes out.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Mar 27, 2008)

rcannonp said:


> I thought you were going to say that you did something really crazy like buying the new Phase One camera and a P45 back. Selling your Canon gear to buy Nikon stuff is just kinda loopy.
> 
> I hope that you don't have to buy it all back when the 5D successor comes out.



I thought about that. I wish it were out now, so I could make a decent comparison. I am wondering if the 5D Mark II (if there even is such a thing) was/is delayed to watch the D3's progress?


----------



## rcannonp (Mar 27, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> I am wondering if the 5D Mark II (if there even is such a thing) was/is delayed to watch the D3's progress?



I bet that they did not delay the 5DMKII(or whatever) so that they could watch people sell off their Canon gear to buy a D3.

I think that Nikon seriously dropped the ball after the D1. The D1 was the first digital camera that I saw advertising pros use. When the 1Ds came out though, a lot of photographers that were on the fence finally took the plunge and went digital. Soon after that, everyone I knew was shooting with a Canon. Nikon's D2 was too little too late. The D3 looks like it has put them back in the game though. If I was looking to buy a serious camera and shot a lot of available light pictures, that is the one that I would get.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Mar 27, 2008)

Probably correct.


----------



## Andrew Hayton (Mar 27, 2008)

Do you have a link to the ebay page, or what are you asking for it all. I belong to a forum http://www.theswampbbs.com/forums/ and there are a few people with the Nikon D3 and also with Canon cameras. Go take a look and tell them I sent you. You might find a good buyer for the gear.


----------



## theturninggate (Mar 27, 2008)

I'll agree that the D3 is a kick in the nuts for Canon users, but I suspect the 5D Mark II will more than make up for it. The D3 is really the first Nikon camera I've been impressed by. As impressions go, Canon has had a better run with me, and I doubt they're going to keep resting on their laurels now that the 5D finally has a serious competitor. If Nikon runs with the ball, now they've got it, they might start my head turning. But, in my opinion, I've seen them drop the ball more times than not.

Either way, though, I think you'll end up with a fine camera.

When I bought the 4'D to replace my 2'D, I was between it and the 5D. Took the cheaper option, more as a way of biding my time until the 5D Mark II. When that comes out, I'm hopeful I'll be in a financial place where I can throw down on it.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Mar 27, 2008)

Andrew, I haven't listed anything yet, but my eBay name is ifonline. I'll be getting to that in just a little bit.

Matthew, you make some very good points.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 27, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> By the way, anyone here have a D3 or D3'' and want to share their experiences?


On the D3'' side, here is an interesting review. Followed by many readers/users comments. Noise level on a D3'' at ISO8'' is about the same as that of the D2'' at ISO 4''. For the D3, the same noise level is around ISO64''/32''.

P.S.: Are you the author of "The neverending story"?


----------



## rcannonp (Mar 27, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> P.S.: Are you the author of "The neverending story"?



I think that we're all writing that one.

One thing that miss from the film days is that the camera body had little to do with the image quality. It may have helped getting certain types of photos with film advance features and such, but with good glass any camera could be used to take a great picture that was as good as any other camera. I could use my 3' year old Minolta SRT1'' and take as good a photo as I could with an N9' or F5. It bugs me that now the image quality is so tied to the body, and two years later it's outdated.


----------



## JBtheLD (Mar 27, 2008)

rcannonp,
Nevertheless a two year old digital camera can still be used to take as good shots now as when it was the latest, fastest "best" camera. The release of new cameras does not stop our old cameras from working, though we may aspire to the cleaner, sharper, brighter higher resolution photos that the new cameras may allow. I agree with you, but I try to remember (sometimes unsuccessfully) when reading through the kit reviews in the photographic press that the crucial part of my taking a photo is me and my eyes and not the particular gadget in my hand. It doesn't stop me dreaming though ...


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 27, 2008)

JBtheLD said:


> I agree with you, but I try to remember (sometimes unsuccessfully) when reading through the kit reviews in the photographic press that the crucial part of my taking a photo is me and my eyes and not the particular gadget in my hand. It doesn't stop me dreaming though ...


:!::!::!: Not so I think. Even a professional can not take a nice photograph with bad equipment. Altough, having the very best equipment do not make someone a professional; but that helps!


----------



## Ian Farlow (Mar 27, 2008)

All very true comments. In current cameras, film is replaced by sensors. Unfortunately, we can't rip out the old sensors and replace them with the new higher quality ones like we could replace old film with new, higher quality film. Therefore, all of us will, at some point, replace our gear to get the next great thing.

For some of us, that happens all too often because, admittedly, we are also techno-geeks at heart. I have always enjoyed opening a new bit of technology, and this will certainly be no exception.

But, while I also agree that a camera alone does not make a good photographer, good technology certainly allows more freedom for expression. For example, this camera will open up low-light/high quality doors that I had not been able to step through previously. I am very excited about that.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Mar 27, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> P.S.: Are you the author of "The neverending story"?



Yep. I am also the author of "Turning Dollars Into Dimes, A Geeks Guide To Blowing Money"


----------



## JBtheLD (Mar 27, 2008)

Ian, I've read various reviews of the D3's astonishing low noise at very high ISOs. By profession I'm a theatre lighting designer and shoot all my shows at ISO 8'' on my Canon 5D. I can generally shoot hand held at 16'sec at f2.8 (7'-2'' f2.8 LIS) and am (usually) delighted by the results, with not much noise to speak of. 

Nevertheless, as you suggest, I too am interested in the next best thing and I would be intrigued to shoot at say ISO 32'' on a D3 with even less noise than I get now. 
I was slightly suprised to read that the Canon 1DS MkIII doesn't seem to be as noiseless at high ISOs despite being the top Canon camera.

It beggars belief trying to imagine what the specs of digital cameras will be in say 5 or 1' year's time! I guess trying to keep something like Lightroom up to date with the development of digital cameras and also build in new features along the way must be a truly Herculean task! Bravo to all those involved.

I wish you well with your new gear and look forward to hearing of your success with it!

John


----------



## JBtheLD (Mar 27, 2008)

Denis,

What I meant was that the arrival of new cameras don't make our old cameras bad. They still do what they always did - even the new, must-have features that they had when we upgraded to them from our previous still-working film cameras.

John


----------



## Ian Farlow (Mar 27, 2008)

JBtheLD said:


> Ian, I've read various reviews of the D3's astonishing low noise at very high ISOs. By profession I'm a theatre lighting designer and shoot all my shows at ISO 8'' on my Canon 5D. I can generally shoot hand held at 16'sec at f2.8 (7'-2'' f2.8 LIS) and am (usually) delighted by the results, with not much noise to speak of.
> 
> Nevertheless, as you suggest, I too am interested in the next best thing and I would be intrigued to shoot at say ISO 32'' on a D3 with even less noise than I get now.
> I was slightly suprised to read that the Canon 1DS MkIII doesn't seem to be as noiseless at high ISOs despite being the top Canon camera.
> ...



I have been browsing YouTube for videos on the D3, and have been very impressed with what I have found. I have also done a fair amount of actual reading of reviews, opinions, examples, and even the manual that I downloaded from Nikon. Amazing technology, and you're right, I can't even imagine where we will be in 5 years time.



> I wish you well with your new gear and look forward to hearing of your success with it!
> 
> John



Thanks. I will most certainly post up my opinions of the camera, as soon as Nikon decides to start making enough to meet demand. I might be sans camera for a bit, unfortunately.



JBtheLD said:


> Denis,
> 
> What I meant was that the arrival of new cameras don't make our old cameras bad. They still do what they always did - even the new, must-have features that they had when we upgraded to them from our previous still-working film cameras.
> 
> John



This is true. My roommate still shoots a 2'D and loves it. Well, he tolerates it, at any rate, waiting for the 5D Mark II (or whatever Canon decides to call it). It's still a good camera, though.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 28, 2008)

JBtheLD said:


> Denis,
> 
> What I meant was that the arrival of new cameras don't make our old cameras bad. They still do what they always did - even the new, must-have features that they had when we upgraded to them from our previous still-working film cameras.


I agree but I did not quote that part of your post...:up:


----------



## MikeCaine (Apr 2, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> By the way, anyone here have a D3 or D3'' and want to share their experiences?



After using Windows since 3.' I changed over to a Mac a couple of years ago and I love it. Still use Windows at work and all of my friends are Windows users, although a few are now considering Macs now.

I've bee a Canon use all of my life and have enjoyed collecting Canon cameras (see link in sig). On Valentines day this year I treaded myself to a Nikon D3'' and I think it's a great camera. I've also bought the 1'.5 / 12-24 / 18-2'' lenses for it.

I'm still keeping my Canon gear though

There's got to be space in this world for Canon and Nikon to exist side by side, same as Windows and Macs. I'm glad there's a choice, life would be dull if we all liked the same things


----------



## Ian Farlow (Apr 2, 2008)

Good point! I have some news related to this, but the Lightroom news is a little more important right now!


----------



## Ian Farlow (Apr 6, 2008)

Let me share with you a recent post on my blog:



> _This is the sad story of a stupid guy by the name of Ian. You see, Ian was sitting at home one evening, oh, approximately one week ago, and he came across a post about the Nikon D3.
> 
> “Wow!” he thought to himself. “What an amazing camera. I should sell my Canon equipment and get this!”
> 
> ...



I am sure the D3 is an excellent camera, and I will always love the ergonomics of Nikon equipment, but at this point, I am settled in with Canon. Not settled in a bad way, but comfortable and happy.

My first few shots with the Mark III have been awe inspiring. The low light capability is excellent, even if not exactly like the D3. The speed, 14 bit processing, etc. all make for a wonderful tool.

So... anyone have $17''.'' they would like to donate to the "Help Ian get over his stupid mistake fund" so I can re-buy a 7'-2''L IS USM lens? 

Oh, and I'm thinking of authoring a new book titled "Leave Well Enough Alone"!


----------



## rcannonp (Apr 6, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> Oh, and I'm thinking of authoring a new book titled "Leave Well Enough Alone"!



Will there be a LRF member discount when it comes out?


----------



## Ian Farlow (Apr 6, 2008)

Yep. The discounted price is $17''.'', no tax and free shipping!


----------



## rcannonp (Apr 6, 2008)

What a bargain!


----------



## Ian Farlow (Apr 6, 2008)

rcannonp said:


> What a bargain!



Exactly what I was thinking!


----------



## Denis Pagé (Apr 7, 2008)

So what about growing Oak Trees Ian?
That should give you enough time to think...
... before getting "Nut". :lol:


----------



## Ian Farlow (Apr 7, 2008)

Yeah... I could watch paint dry, I suppose.


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 12, 2008)

Ian Farlow;114'8 said:
			
		

> Yep. I am also the author of "Turning Dollars Into Dimes, A Geeks Guide To Blowing Money"


Just buyed Ian's book _*"A Geeks guide..."*_.
Very efficient writing Ian! 

So much that last saturday, for the first time, I went into the Apple store in Montreal. To make a long story short, I fell in love with the big Mac Pro!
Can you tell me (within 3' minutes from this message's publication time) if OS 1'.5.1 can read/write NTFS formatted disks? If so, I am jumping in the car to go right back there to order this wonder! 

On a side note: I saw that little Mac Air. The image on it was so amazing that the pictures on it were more like the real thing than a "picture". Is that OLED?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 12, 2008)

It can read but not write to NTFS.... well, without workarounds anyway.

And you can always move the data onto another drive and reformat your drives.

Go on.... you know you want to!!!


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 12, 2008)

Of course, you can always leave your PC hooked up, and read and write to those drives over the network too....


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 12, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It can read but not write to NTFS.... well, without workarounds anyway.
> 
> And you can always move the data onto another drive and reformat your drives.
> 
> Go on.... you know you want to!!!


I will be more specific:
I have 2'''$ worth of compatible stuff I already paid for. HDD for example. I wish to have the Mac Pro with only one drive for OS 1'.5.1. Then add a drive to "Boot Camp" on Windows XP and have a third drive for data. This third drive I want both OSX and Windows being able to write/read to.

Is that possible? With what format? FAT32 and not NTFS?...


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 12, 2008)

OSX and Windows will both natively read and write FAT32 formatted drives, and there are workarounds from both directions to be able to read/write natively formatted drives as well, so your hard drives can certainly be used.

Go order it!  :lol:


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 12, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> OSX and Windows will both natively read and write FAT32 formatted drives, and there are workarounds from both directions to be able to read/write natively formatted drives as well, so your hard drives can certainly be used.
> 
> Go order it! :lol:


7 minutes left...
What are those "workarounds"?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 12, 2008)

Ooops, sorry Denis.  I wandered off!!!!

Ok, to write to NTFS drives from OSX, http://www.tuaw.com/2''7/11/19/ntfs-on-your-mac-two-ways/ or run Windows using Parallels or Fusion will also give you NTFS drive write ability (that's the option I prefer if I need NTFS).

And accessing HFS Drives from Boot Camp - MacDrive http://www.mediafour.com/support/macdrive/

I'd bet there are a few more alternatives too, but I've never bothered.  I run Parallels for the odd occasions that I want Windows, and I keep a FAT32 external to hand for easy file transfer the rest of the time.


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 13, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Ooops, sorry Denis. I wandered off!!!!
> 
> Ok, to write to NTFS drives from OSX, http://www.tuaw.com/2''7/11/19/ntfs-on-your-mac-two-ways/ or run Windows using Parallels or Fusion will also give you NTFS drive write ability (that's the option I prefer if I need NTFS).
> 
> ...


Too late! See my new signature... 

But thanks for the above details. I will keep it at hand should I change my mind going from Bootcamp to Parallels... 8)

I had a lenghty conversation with the Apple representative. He answered all my questions with on screen demonstrations. So, I got a crash course on how to do it all and how to use it. My first impression was that FAT32 was limited to 32GB partitions but it is in XP world. I now know it can go far beyond if formatted from OSX.

I think I will absolutely love it.  But it is about 17 days before I get it! It is sad I can not upgrade my watch to make it speedier. Seem the needles are running slower since last night. :(

The 16 inches thick layer of ice we had last winter destroyed my swimming pool and I added a Mac Pro?! Thanks to Ian's book "A Geek guide...", I am now totally broken for years to come.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 13, 2008)

He he he!!!  Well congratulations Denis!


----------



## Ian Farlow (May 13, 2008)

Denis Pagé;1424' said:
			
		

> Thanks to Ian's book "A Geek guide...", I am now totally broken for years to come.


 
Welcome to the fold. It's all downhill, financially speaking, from this point on...


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 13, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> Welcome to the fold. It's all downhill, financially speaking, from this point on...


Well... Seem that I skipped the chapter about the most expensive printers on the market tough. That book is quite thick! Maybe as much as my wallet is thin now. :roll:


----------



## Ian Farlow (May 13, 2008)

You didn't read the chapter that said when you want to buy a printer, just go buy an expensive one, like the PIXMA Pro 95'' I just bought? While I'm very happy with it, I had never considered spending close to a grand on a printer a reasonable thing to do until I really starting putting a lot of my time into photography.

Okay, so it's still not a reasonable thing to do, but it's a great printer. And sure, there are more expensive printers available, but I had to draw the line somewhere so that I could justify the cost by saying _hey, at least it's not two grand!_ <-- that tip and others for convincing yourself that it's okay to spend too much money are available in the book.


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 14, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> You didn't read the chapter that said when you want to buy a printer, just go buy an expensive one, like the PIXMA Pro 95'' I just bought?


I already have one that size. I am looking for an Epson 488'. 
But wallet is empty. 
And things may get worse as I may have to buy MonacoEZcolor + Device twice! The reason is that I have version 2.' and that OSX 1'.5.1 need 2.6.6 which is a free upgrade from 2.5. Now waiting for an answer from X-Rite. :roll:


----------



## Ian Farlow (May 14, 2008)

Have you seen the Colormunki? Looks interesting.

Oh, and yeah... I'd love to have an even bigger printer, but there's no way. I _have_ to draw the line somewhere... really, I do... I swear I won't get one someday... honest...


----------



## Denis Pagé (May 15, 2008)

> I _have_ to draw the line somewhere... really, I do... I swear I won't get one someday... honest...


:down:
*_______________* 


:up:

Your wishes are orders! Satisfied? :mrgreen:
Just don't draw the line from back to front but from left to right.


----------



## Ian Farlow (May 30, 2008)

Well... it's done. I went back to Nikon and am now the proud owner of a Nikon D3 and 24-7' f2.8 lens. The rest is pending some payments to me, but I will be getting a couple of SB-8''s and a 7'-2'' f/2.8 to pair with the 24-7'. From there... who knows? Maybe the 14-24?

I can't talk right now... I need to get back into my corner so I can go fetal and suck my thumb some more. I'm still in shock how much money a spent this morning.


----------



## billg71 (Jun 1, 2008)

Ian Farlow;15'37 said:
			
		

> Well... it's done. I went back to Nikon and am now the proud owner of a Nikon D3 and 24-7' f2.8 lens. The rest is pending some payments to me, but I will be getting a couple of SB-8''s and a 7'-2'' f/2.8 to pair with the 24-7'. From there... who knows? Maybe the 14-24?
> 
> I can't talk right now... I need to get back into my corner so I can go fetal and suck my thumb some more. I'm still in shock how much money a spent this morning.




Congrats, Ian!  :mrgreen: 

Saw your post on another forum and figured it had to be you!

Those folks at Showcase sure are good at separating a fellow from his money...(I speak from experience) but it's a great store and I've found if you whine a little they'll give you a break on pricing, at least enough to make up for the outrageous Atlanta sales tax.

The 7'-2'' is a great lens. Don't play with one unless you can afford to buy it, I was satisfied with my 8'-2'' until a friend(?) let me use his for a few shots. Within a week I was hauling a box of stuff down to KEH to sell.....

Anyway, congratulations again! How are things working out with the new gear?

Bill


----------



## wblink (Jun 1, 2008)

Ian Farlow;15'37 said:
			
		

> Well... it's done. I went back to Nikon and am now the proud owner of a Nikon D3 and 24-7' f2.8 lens. The rest is pending some payments to me, but I will be getting a couple of SB-8''s and a 7'-2'' f/2.8 to pair with the 24-7'. From there... who knows? Maybe the 14-24?


 
I use A D3'' (DX sensor). What I read in tests (dpreview I think) is that this lens is optimized for the DX format and I heared from expierenced D3 users they switched off the vignetting correction to get the best result.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Jun 2, 2008)

I expect that many of the lenses will start to show their flaws with the FX sensor. It's just a matter of how much one is willing to live with those flaws and if they are considered major or minor. The 24-7' exhibits mild vignetting at 24 mm. Nothing terrible, in my opinion. I can definitely live with it, and I can't remember the last time I had a similar lens on an actual film camera, so I can't recall if there were similar issues then as well.

I hear the 7'-2'' is soft in the corners on the D3. Again, I doubt that will be a big enough issue for me to move past the lens and avoid purchasing it. Now I just have to find it...


----------



## wblink (Jun 2, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> I expect that many of the lenses will start to show their flaws with the FX sensor. It's just a matter of how much one is willing to live with those flaws and if they are considered major or minor. The 24-7' exhibits mild vignetting at 24 mm. Nothing terrible, in my opinion. I can definitely live with it, and I can't remember the last time I had a similar lens on an actual film camera, so I can't recall if there were similar issues then as well.
> 
> I hear the 7'-2'' is soft in the corners on the D3. Again, I doubt that will be a big enough issue for me to move past the lens and avoid purchasing it. Now I just have to find it...


 
That would mean Nikon has set it's mind on DX. I hear the Canon 7'-2''/2.8 is just the other way around: better in full frame.
I don't know anything about other lenses (you could check dpreview), I use DX Nikon and that suits me. I wonder what will happen when the 24Mp is introduced (D4'', D3X, D4?). Onfortunatly there is no equivalent for the 7'-2''/2.8.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jun 2, 2008)

wblink said:


> That would mean Nikon has set it's mind on DX.



It would mean Nikon _had_ set its mind on DX -- the 7'-2''/2.8 AF-S VR was released around the time of the D1, when FX sensors were a long way off for Nikon.  The rumor mill promises large numbers of high-end lens updates in the next few years for Nikon; one could guess that these will include better suitability on FX sensors.


----------



## wblink (Jun 2, 2008)

Mark Sirota said:


> It would mean Nikon _had_ set its mind on DX -- the 7'-2''/2.8 AF-S VR was released around the time of the D1, when FX sensors were a long way off for Nikon. The rumor mill promises large numbers of high-end lens updates in the next few years for Nikon; one could guess that these will include better suitability on FX sensors.


 
I hope so! That would be the time for me to move to Dx3 or D4, whathever they choose as a modelnumber.

It is hip-hop: new camera -> new lenses -> new camera -> new lenses aso. For me it means I will stick with the D3'' (finance matters too!!) I am always one leap behind in technical things, like a D3'' and not a D3. Same for phone, TV and other things. I like it that way: NOT the newest technoligy, but the one before (a year ago ...).


----------



## Denis Pagé (Jun 3, 2008)

Ian Farlow;15'37 said:
			
		

> Well... it's done. I went back to Nikon and am now the proud owner of a Nikon D3 and 24-7' f2.8 lens. The rest is pending some payments to me, but I will be getting a couple of SB-8''s and a 7'-2'' f/2.8 to pair with the 24-7'. From there... who knows? Maybe the 14-24?
> 
> I can't talk right now... I need to get back into my corner so I can go fetal and suck my thumb some more. I'm still in shock how much money a spent this morning.


Ian, This 7'-2'' is a marvel! Sell your house and go for it! 

I do have one and I mostly shoot Football and Car Racing with my D2''. I can easily see clothes fibers at great distance...

Well... I may have to sell my house for a D3 that I miss so much for late games at night. But I do have an advantage as I get everything for half the price! 

My trick? I share my equipment with a _(carefull)_ friend. He first offered me to share and after a couple years of this, we had only two "need at the same time" problem. At those times, we did with our lower end cameras. He buyed all the lenses and I buyed the rest.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Jun 3, 2008)

wblink said:


> That would mean Nikon has set it's mind on DX. I hear the Canon 7'-2''/2.8 is just the other way around: better in full frame...


Don't tell Ian as he may sell his D3 to go back with Canon! :mrgreen:


----------



## BobH (Jun 3, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> Don't tell Ian as he may sell his D3 to go back with Canon! :mrgreen:


 
That's what I'd do. Dump that Nikon stuff as quick as you can, it's nearly worthless. Canon is definitely the way to go.

Ian, since I'm such a nice guy, I'll offer you $5'' for that used D3...  

Oh, and do you have any of those (nearly worthless) Nikon lenses you don't want?


----------



## Ian Farlow (Jun 5, 2008)

BobH said:


> That's what I'd do. Dump that Nikon stuff as quick as you can, it's nearly worthless. Canon is definitely the way to go.
> 
> Ian, since I'm such a nice guy, I'll offer you $5'' for that used D3...
> 
> Oh, and do you have any of those (nearly worthless) Nikon lenses you don't want?


 
You mean a $5''.'' down payment, right?


----------



## BobH (Jun 5, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> You mean a $5''.'' down payment, right?


 
Well no, I mean after all if Canon is the way to go, Nikon stuff can't be worth very much, right? Ok, I'll offer $6'' if you throw in the lenses. :mrgreen:



All joking aside, I'm very happy with my D3'' and how well it does in low light. I can only imagine how much fun you must be having with the D3 and it's even better capabilities. I'm sure Canon stuff is good too, or they wouldn't sell much of it, but I really do enjoy my Nikon.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Jun 6, 2008)

BobH said:


> All joking aside, I'm very happy with my D3'' and how well it does in low light. I can only imagine how much fun you must be having with the D3 and it's even better capabilities. I'm sure Canon stuff is good too, or they wouldn't sell much of it, but I really do enjoy my Nikon.



I'm thrilled with the camera, but I am currently reading and figuring out how to tweak the default camera settings in Lightroom for a "baseline" that I am happy with. I feel like the RAW image (14 bits) straight from the camera is a bit flat and a little too hot, but I am finding that a bit of fiddling in the Tone Curve is doing wonders. This thing is a completely different beast from the Canon!

Oh, and I just got the 85 f/1.4. Nice lens. Very nice. Big. Seems a bit out of focus, though. I will be messing with the focus adjustments this weekend to see if anything improves.


----------



## BobH (Jun 6, 2008)

Ian Farlow;154'6 said:
			
		

> I'm thrilled with the camera, but I am currently reading and figuring out how to tweak the default camera settings in Lightroom for a "baseline" that I am happy with. I feel like the RAW image (14 bits) straight from the camera is a bit flat and a little too hot, but I am finding that a bit of fiddling in the Tone Curve is doing wonders. This thing is a completely different beast from the Canon!


 
That's the one area I like least... I do not feel that Lightroom and Nikon play well together. I've posted that before, and was told it was only my opinion, not a fact. OK, yeah, well, whatever, it's my *opinion* that how the image looks on the camera's LCD screen is how it should look when I open it in Lightroom. I certainly don't feel that's an unreasonable expectation... 

I have yet to figure out how to adjust the default camera settings, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency to the variations. In 'easy' situations (well lit etc), the image Lightroom shows looks great. However, when shooting under challenging conditions, low light, flash, etc, there can be a big difference. 

I also have some of the same frustrations with printing. When I print from LR it does not look the same as when I print from Photoshop. I've read that has to do with printer profiles or something along those lines, but for the moment I've given up on spending time trying to fix it. 

For difficult photos, I work in Capture NX, which does a great job of rendering the colors the way I expect them to look, as well as making any high ISO digital noise look a lot less like digital noise and a lot more like film grain (still visible, but without the multi-color speckled look.)


----------



## BobH (Jun 6, 2008)

BTW, you mentioned you are you shooting in 14 bits? To be honest, I haven't even tried it. Do you see a noticable difference? I figure that neither my consumer grade screen or consumer grade printer is up to the challenge of the fine subtlies imparted by that resolution. Since the files are reportedly larger, I've not experimented with it yet. 

Do you feel the difference is worth it? I guess you must, or you wouldn't be shooting 14 bits. I'd be interested in your comments though...


----------



## Ian Farlow (Jun 6, 2008)

I'm shooting 14 bits primarily because it's an available option. No idea, quite honestly, if it makes a noticeable difference.


----------



## BobH (Jun 6, 2008)

Well, I guess there's an easy way to find out... I'll try some of both on my next outing and see what I think of the results. I'm shooting with the D3'' not the D3, but the end results should be comparable. 

The one book I've read that mentions it at all suggested limiting it to portaits and other work where having an especially smooth gradation was critical. Since I don't shoot portraits, I hadn't bothered to try it.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Jun 6, 2008)

BobH said:


> Well, I guess there's an easy way to find out... I'll try some of both on my next outing and see what I think of the results. I'm shooting with the D3'' not the D3, but the end results should be comparable.
> 
> The one book I've read that mentions it at all suggested limiting it to portaits and other work where having an especially smooth gradation was critical. Since I don't shoot portraits, I hadn't bothered to try it.



Yeah... I have a lot of experimenting (and learning) to do this weekend. I need to try different settings and see what happens. As I stated before, this camera is very different in the way it performs than the Canon, so I need to get back to basics, it seems.

Sounds tedious, but I am actually looking forward to it.

By the way... was that a book specifically written about the D3''? If so, my first guess would be that the suggestion is based more on the loss of continuous speed on the D3'' with 14 bit shooting than anything else (frame rate drops to something like 2.5 FPS).


----------



## Denis Pagé (Jun 11, 2008)

Ian Farlow said:


> I'm shooting 14 bits primarily because it's an available option. No idea, quite honestly, if it makes a noticeable difference.


Ian, you can get a clear idea to make a decision between 12/14 bits by reading *Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs* by Emil Martinec _( May 2''8 )_. This is the most interseting article I read since a while. Highly technical but so much enlightening! My feeling is that I would shoot 12 bits most of the time...

... and don't forget rule #5


----------

