D3 owners- your impression of the improvement of dynamic range

[dave_gionet2]

I am trying to get into architectural photography and I am interested in

getting the best natural light look for an interior shot possible. Here is a

sample- with three flash units used. could a D3 take a picture like this with

natural light only. I heard that you can take up to ten shot on a single

exposure to get a final image with greater dynamic range?<div></div>

[gy]

Dave can I ask how was the falsh setup in this picture ?

 

tks / Gokce

[elliot1]

You can combine multiple images in programs like Photoshop which would probably be a better choice than doing it inside a camera. The D200/D300 cameras are capable of in-camera multiple exposures.

 

There is no substitute for good/proper lighting, regardless of which camera body you are using While there apparently is a slight increase in dynamic range with the D3, technique is more important. . A really good lens, a tripod, proper lighting and highly advanced image processing software will do more for your images than a D3 body.

[mjt]

hi Dave ...

 

the process you've suggested is HDR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

 

you can use the HDR technique with any camera. if you're asking whether the "D3 has enough dynamic range so that a *single shot* can capture the complete DR of the room", can only be answered based on the current [lighting] conditions of the room.

 

to be a big more concrete, if a room reflects 11 stops of DR, then the answer is *no*, the D3 will not be able to capture it. the D3 has somewhere between 9 and 9.5 stops of DR. (as a point of contrast, you could capture the room's DR, in a single shot, with an Fuji S5 Pro, which easily has a 2 stop advantage over other cameras).

 

what you *can* do with the D3 is bump up the ISO in low-light conditions to obtain a better exposure - maybe that's what you're talking about?

[ShunCheung]

No amount of high dynamic range will fix the not-so-pleasing dark areas, ugly shadows, and poor lighting, regardless of whether you use a Nikon D3, Fuji S5 or HDR in PhotoShop.

 

For still, interior shots, proper lighting is certainly key, and you don't need a very fancy camera to achieve it. How to achieve good lighting requires skills and some trial and error.

 

The 51 AF points, 9 frames/sec, and weather sealing capabilities on the D3 are totally meaningless in this type of photography.

[joseph_wisniewski]

As the others point out, there is no substitute for proper lighting.

 

That aside, if you want to squeeze more dynamic range out of a D3, or any other DSRL, in an interior architecture situation, dust off that old 80A blue filter.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OQYM

 

It will give you about two full stops more DR in an incandescent, candlelight, or firelight situation.

[dave_gionet2]

Thanks to everyone for some good advice. To Gokce- I used a su-800 on camera, sb-600 in kitchen on floor aimed to ceiling, su-600 to right center, aimied to ceiling, and hand held sb-800 high above camera w/diffuser directed straight to scene. to mj t, I have been getting some success w/ hdr outside but all effort at interior look like junk, to Shun, I know you are right, but I was trying to justify that little dream machine somehow. thanks to all, It is very difficult to get up to date techniques on this type of photography. I am always looking for workshops or classes, can't find anything. Architectural photographer must belong to a secret society.

thanks again, Dave<div></div>

[joseph_wisniewski]

Yes, we do. And not all of us survive the secret initiation rites...

[rene gm]

You have done a great interior lighting job here. The only spot I do not like is the white linen in front. I doubt that this image has anything to do with the camera. It is all about your great light arrangement.

[ilkka_nissila]

If you want a good reason to get a D3, the 24mm f/3.5 PC-E might be it. Should be excellent for interior photography on FX/35mm cameras.

[ShunCheung]

Dave, the D3 is a fantasic camera. It is probably good for most if not all application, but it is especially great for sports (particularly night sports and indoor sports), news, wildlife action and perhaps PJ type photography. Because of the D3's excellent low-light performance and accuract AF, it should be excellent for wedding photography too.

 

However, the D3 can be an overkill for a lot of situations. If money and weight are not issues, by all means get one. But IMO one should buy a D3 for the right reasons. Once I asked John Shaw why he bought the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR since he is such a strong tripod advocate, and he simply replied "I wanted one." And that should be a good enough reason.

 

The D3 is not going to be the only FX-sensor DSLR Nikon will produce. For those who want an FX sensor but don't need 9 frames/second and a shutter that is rated for 300K actuations, I think it may be a good idea to wait another year or two. I assume we all other camera to use in the mean time.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>"It's probably good for most if not all application"</i>

<p>

I think this is quite an understatement. The D3 is <i>great</i> for wide angle and architectural photography, the best Nikon yet (it can take advantage of all the five PC Nikkors from 24mm to 85mm and other wide angles such as the 14-24). It's the <i>only</i> digital SLR by Nikon which has a broad selection of wide angles and some other special purpose lenses available. [Another application for which the D3 would be excellent, is portraits - lens choice, again.]

<p>

I don't think the D3 is overkill for anyone who can get one. It costs the same [less in inflation corrected currency] as the other Nikon professional DSLRs did when new, so it's not really expensive for a high end model. While many of us like the idea of an inexpensive mid-range FX DSLR, no doubt there will be compromises in such a design. I don't think the 9fps or 300K shutter take anything away from the usefulness of the camera for professional interior photography. They're just features in a long list, which this general purpose camera supports. Pro camera stores here advice against the Canon 5D, because of reliability issues (I can't stop from being amused by the story of the mirror dropping out of the 5D of a wedding photographer during use). Why would the Nikon equivalent be different? Nikon's construction quality is normally excellent but what would the price of an FX prosumer model be, if there are no essential compromises?<p>

 

I don't get a provision for marketing the D3. I just feel I woke up from a 4-year DX nightmare after I got mine. :-)