Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

FX Equivalent ??

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

snapbandit
snapbandit  102205 forum posts Northern Ireland3 Constructive Critique Points
16 Dec 2012 - 3:58 PM

I have to put my 2p's worth in, having had the opportunity to compare the D800 (a friends) to my D3s at the same time (identical pics) my observations were no discernable difference in noise up to ISO 3200 and then the D3s was less noisy from there & above (as Leftforum has said though the noise has different 'structure' and may be a matter of opinion as to which is preferable), at really high ISO the D3s is still considerably better, (if High ISO is needed as with some of my low light sports shots the D3s is still much more useable).

I did not notice much of a difference with the weight (the D800 had a battery grip attached) but I found both of them balanced well hand holding with the heavy lenses I use (70-200 f2.8 & 300mm f2.8).

If most of my work was in better light, was going to produce huge prints & required fine detail (landscape etc.) then the D800 would definitely be the better option, if low light & bad weather conditions (D3s seems better weather sealed) were part of your main shooting then IMHO the Dd3s still is the better option.

Just my 2p

Joe B

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Dec 2012 - 3:58 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strokebloke
16 Dec 2012 - 4:11 PM

And interesting observation.
It really does seem to be about the old 'horses-for-courses', doesn't it?

strokebloke
16 Dec 2012 - 4:14 PM

Thank you Jo. Informative and practical, so of real value. A very worthy 2 penneth Smile

Last Modified By strokebloke at 16 Dec 2012 - 4:16 PM
LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62481 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
16 Dec 2012 - 5:03 PM

Sorry to sound negative but I would not choose to use a 28 to 300 on a D3s or D800 because it is not fast to autofocus and is not one of Nikon's top optical performers. It is a good "do it all a lens" but for fast focusing on the D3s or top image quality on a D800 something better than than a do it all lens is preferable.

strokebloke
16 Dec 2012 - 5:18 PM

Any suggestions Leonard?
I guess that in asking for an equivalent to the 18-200 DX lens, I received the response to that question.
In light of your reticence, perhaps I should now ask which lens would you recommend, for optimum performance.
I do want a 'do-it-all' lens for the D3, as I have with the 18-200 on the D300. But if there is a better specialist lens with a similar range of function, I will be very pleased to receive some direction.

Jack

thewilliam
16 Dec 2012 - 6:48 PM

Nikon is a well managed company so we can assume that every camera that remains in the line-up is there for a good reason. They discontinue a body or lens when it's been superceded by a better model.

The D3s will do things that the D800 won't, such as continue to work in the rain or survive hard use. The pixel count is plenty for many purposes.

strokebloke
16 Dec 2012 - 6:57 PM

I started digital life with a D100 ~ 6.1MP ~ and I got some super shots out of it. And decent sized prints too.
I confess to never having been to 'taken' by the pixel race.
I learned a lot with my D100. And sold it for 80% of what I paid for it Grin

I've had a look through the Nikon lens provision brochure, and so far as I'm able to determine, it's back to the 'horses-for-courses' issue again.
What do you want the body for? What do you want the lens for?

Quote: ... is there for a good reason.

strokebloke
16 Dec 2012 - 7:08 PM

I suppose the other component for this body/lens issue is, how capable am I with a camera?
Well, I am sufficiently old, and mature, to happily recognise my strengths and weaknesses. I don't live in cuckoo land.
And being a Bailey/a Litchfield/a Cornish, is definitely not one of my strengths.
So buying a lens that they would, for their particular genrč, and trying to emulate them would be of little value to me, because I would still turn out my standard of photo, regardless of how impressed I was with the capabilities of the lens Smile

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62481 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
17 Dec 2012 - 2:35 PM


Quote: Any suggestions Leonard?
In light of your reticence, perhaps I should now ask which lens would you recommend, for optimum performance
Jack

It is for you to decide which of Nikons better lenses you wish to purchase.
For autofocused speed and resolution one stop down from wide open the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 our front runners.

thewilliam
17 Dec 2012 - 5:50 PM


Quote: It is for you to decide which of Nikons better lenses you wish to purchase.
For autofocused speed and resolution one stop down from wide open the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 our front runners.

These two lenses need to be good if Nikon wants to maintain its "professional" reputation because I imagine they're standard issue for most working photographers.

Last Modified By thewilliam at 17 Dec 2012 - 5:51 PM
strokebloke
17 Dec 2012 - 6:31 PM

Please do correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of this, but it appears that the what is being said, is that

an enthusiastic non-pro would opt for the 28 - 300 all-purpose lens; as a 'do-it-all ~ take-it-anywhere lens, whereas
the pro would select possibly two, of which the 24-70 & the 70-200 f2.8's would probably be the lens ranges of choice.
And purely because the quality of the glass in the two is so much better than the glass in the one.
And he would time, or otherwise organise, his work flow to ensure that he had the correct lens on the camera for any given situation.

thewilliam
17 Dec 2012 - 8:20 PM

Or, more likely, be using several camera bodies.

strokebloke
17 Dec 2012 - 9:09 PM

Ahhh ~ yes. GrinGrin
I hadn't even considered that. Smile

It is an expensive occupation, this photography, isn't it?

User_Removed
17 Dec 2012 - 11:34 PM


Quote: ......
And purely because the quality of the glass in the two is so much better than the glass in the one.
.........

Not true.

I have the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.

I also have the Nikkor 28-300mm

(all the current versions)

..and I can assure you that the "quality of the glass" in the two is not "much better" than the glass in the one.

It might be a "little better" at the extremes of performance but, on a D800 (and previously on a D3s) no-one could tell the difference in the image quality in 99% of photographs blown up to A3+ from, say, 25% of the total frame area.

A few weeks after getting my D800 in March, I embarked upon a 7-week photo tour of western USA and, to save airline hand baggage surcharges took only the 28-300mm and a 20mm prime. The 24-70mm and 70-200mm were left at home in Scotland. Do you think I would have spent all that money on a photographic holiday and taken that lens if I was not 100% certain that I would be able to produce exhibition quality (and competition winning) prints when I got home?

Last Modified By User_Removed at 17 Dec 2012 - 11:36 PM
strokebloke
17 Dec 2012 - 11:52 PM

OK LF. I accept your assurance, without reservation.
However, it does beg the question.
If the 28-300 is so comparably good, why did you spend a lot of money on two pro lenses?
And what do you use them for, that would preclude the use of the 28-300?
I'm not doubting anyone's sincerity here - rather recognising a variety of opinion probably based upon requirement, professional or otherwise, and expectation/personal or client satisfaction.
I don't assume that I'm going to receive definitive answers, though I may, but I would like to understand and appreciate what people are saying to me.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.