| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon charging $500 for D3 buffer boost?
Andrew Sullivan, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Kissimmee | FL | USA | Posted: 11:40 AM on 07.31.08 |
->> Ouch. Looks good for sports photogs though...
http://tinyurl.com/5t6y89
Andrew Sullivan
www.picandrew.com |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 12:37 PM on 07.31.08 |
| ->> I haven't had an serious issues with running the buffer on a D3. But if you shoot RAW, it's probably a good thing to upgrade. |
|
Steve Puppe, Photographer
|
Olathe | KS | USA | Posted: 12:40 PM on 07.31.08 |
| ->> What will they charge to add a self cleaning sensor :) |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 12:45 PM on 07.31.08 |
->> Doesn't everyone shoot RAW?????????????
Now if I only had a D3 to upgrade! At least my D300 has a self cleaning sensor. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:03 PM on 07.31.08 |
->> Walter,
Why shoot raw? If you can shoot chrome you can shoot JPG |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:22 PM on 07.31.08 |
->> Raw is for shooters who can't get it right the first time.
;-) |
|
Robert Beck, Photographer
 |
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 3:58 PM on 07.31.08 |
| ->> Hmmmmmmm and ouch. Some folks shoot raw because their employers like it that way. At any rate, if you do not shoot raw you probably do not need the upgrade (Have you ever run out the buffer while shooting?). If you do shoot raw and need the "bigger buffer" then get it. I have seen a few complaints about the extra charge but it is similar to upgrading the memory in your computer (not free) albeit a bit trickier....Hence the cost. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:03 PM on 07.31.08 |
->> I shoot RAW + JPG on separate cards with my D3 and could definitely use the upgrade... but at £300 ex VAT and return shipping per camera, it's steep to say the least - moreso since my D3's are less than 3 months old.
I've emailed one of the NPS folk at Nikon UK to find out if there are any plans to offer an upgrade fee "amnesty" or reduced rate to those who purchased their D3's recently and/or NPS members.
And before anyone says it, yes: they did the same thing with the D1X... but at least that camera had been on the market for well over a year before the upgrade was announced. |
|
Scott Greenlee, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Crescent Springs | KY | United States | Posted: 8:57 PM on 07.31.08 |
| ->> I wish they would also do that for the D300. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:49 PM on 07.31.08 |
->> Steven said:
"Why shoot raw? If you can shoot chrome you can shoot JPG"
Or shooters like me that have requests to deliver 16 Bit Tiff files for catalog work!!
I have been uploading files to a client's FTP Site for 2 days straight now.
These files are BIG!!!
After this weekend shooting 14 BIT Raw, I might jump on the Buffer Upgrade, it's well worth it!!
I wish the D3 came with the Buffer Upgrade already included.
Y |
|
Daniel Harris, Photographer
 |
Palo Alto | CA | USA | Posted: 12:01 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> I was surprised to see the chart showing the expected buffer limits for JPEG Fine as I'm not getting anything close to 52 shots. I sometimes shoot RAW 14-bit lossless compressed and get a buffer limit of 16 which conforms to the chart. Other times I shoot JPEG Fine but the buffer only increases to 21 (even with High ISO, Active D-Lighting, and Image Authentication all off). I've always assumed I give up some buffer by shooting with the second slot in Backup mode, but I tried with just a single card and get the same results.
Is anyone getting 52-image buffer in JPEG Fine per the chart? |
|
David Richard, Photographer
|
Sheffield Village/Cleve. | OH | USA | Posted: 1:06 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> Daniel and others.
Same here. I normally have a buffer of 16-21 when shooting fine jpgs. It really has cost me a couple of times. I've tried turning every feature off but still get the small buffer. I have read and re-read the manual and can't find out why. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Torrance | CA | USA | Posted: 4:22 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> Yamil!
Can you just ship em a small hard drive? OWC has some nice compact ones and not too expensive. Then just include the cost on their invoice or include a return mailer? |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:04 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> Daniel, David:
Don't confuse the "burst" rating on the chart with what the buffer will hold (and what is reported via the LCD). The burst depth is counting on your use of a fast card (note they list SanDisk extreme IV in the chart) that will allow the first images to be written to the card before the buffer is full.
I've noted this phenomenon on my D300 tests. Operates pretty much the same way. The buffer is "open at both ends" - it is writing while it accepts new frames, so by the time you reach frame #21, the camera has already written out several frames to the card so there's still room in the buffer for new images.
Try shooting a really long burst and watch the buffer frame counter on the LCD. It will not decrease with every frame - it will decrease somewhat unevenly.
Chuck |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 8:15 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> Shooting jpeg is like shooting Polaroid, yes if you get the exposure and white balance correct, you have a fine image.
Shooting RAW gets you a jpeg in the end, but it is like shooting the finest color negative film ever made. You always have the negative to reinterpret the end results later.
For my clients, they want the very best – ALWAYS.
And if anyone wants to have a lesson in shooting transparency film, I'm here with over 32 years experience. I use to help shooters all over the nation with telephone instructions while a photo editor for USA Today. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 10:42 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> Yamil-
Wouldn't it have been easier to FedEx (overnight) your client DVD's or a hard drive?
dbr |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 10:56 AM on 08.01.08 |
->> Okay, had a response from one of the Nikon UK relationship managers.
Nikon UK reckons that there'll be limited demand for this upgrade; they theorise that most sports photographers shoot JPG and thus are already well catered for with the D3's existing buffer.
With regards to plans for an upgrade fee "amnesty" or reduced rate, they have no plans as such at this time.
Now, I'm one of the guys that shoots RAW+JPG spanned across the two card slots. I like a JPG for rapid file transmission but, if my editors know a shot is destined for print (especially a double-truck of full page) then having the RAW file as the starting point makes for the best possible image quality.
So: looks like 2x £300 + VAT and round-trip shipping for me. All I need to do now is figure out when I can send them away in turn or - more accurately - when I won't be on a job that requires two bodies at the same time. |
|
Randy Janoski, Photographer
|
Washington DC & Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 12:11 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> "Why shoot raw? If you can shoot chrome you can shoot JPG"
Steven, you're so right. It still amazes me that most people do not understand raw and jpeg, their relationship, and have been brain washed into the whole raw shooting only for quality misconception. |
|
Randy Janoski, Photographer
|
Washington DC & Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 12:31 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> For those interested in learning more let me direct you to;
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
I've known Ken for many years and have directed so many photographers and companies to him looking to set up their production areas correctly. Ken does a great job in explaining things to the masses and the uninformed. |
|
Josh Lehrer, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> Personally, one of my biggest problems with the D3 when I first used it was the smallish buffer for Raw 14 bit + jpeg. For what I shoot I need both of those files, and it entails a lot of constant shooting. I think this is a great upgrade, but it's too bad they couldn't have just made the camera with that functionality.
Also, I think the raw vs. jpeg argument is one of my favorites, since there is no winner. Use what you need when you need it.
But I would have to respectfully disagree with anyone who says raw is the same quality as jpeg. That just isn't true. Sure, with a 5-stop studio scene at ISO 100 perfectly exposed you probably won't be able to tell the difference, but a RAW file gives so much more control, and if you develop a good work flow, you can still retain a very fast turnover for files.
Just my 2 cents.
JL |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> Steven, you're so right. It still amazes me that most people do not understand raw and jpeg, their relationship, and have been brain washed into the whole raw shooting only for quality misconception.
Not a misconception - a fact. RAW does give you a lot more quality (primarily when dealing with saturated colors) and flexibility in post. But for most sports shooters, "post" consists of cropping and captioning and that's it.
One of the gigs I do is photographing glass sculptures in the studio. Lots of saturated colors, lots of things that have a lot of gradient detail. There simply is no comparison between RAW and JPEG when it comes to that type of work. If you're shooting anything that is a lighting challenge and you don't need the speed or have field storage limitations, there's no reason NOT to shoot RAW.
With 1TB hard drives selling at Best Buy for $300, archival storage space is not an excuse. If you're worried about compatibility in the future, drop it into DNG. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> There is an *enormous* difference between RAW and JPEG and what can be done with the files. The D3 produces the prettiest (read: best) in-camera JPEGs of any camera on the market right now...yet for virtually everything but sports I shoot RAW with that camera. And yes, I shot and printed chromes for 25 years...and nail my exposures consistently in full manual. "Fixing" exposure is not why I shoot RAW (although it's really nice for pulling details and color in highlights).
I am tempted by the buffer upgrade...actually hit the limit once or twice while (you guessed it) shooting NEFs. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:46 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> Delane, you are right, but we were running a test!!
Slow, but now we know that this is not going to work!!
We are going the hard Drive route.
I have an old WD 80GB Drive that will go between here (Peoria, AZ" Springfield, MA several times a year :D |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:47 PM on 08.01.08 |
->> Patrick,
that is what I'll be doing, we now know that their FTP server is too slow for the volume. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 08.04.08 |
->> "If you can shoot chrome you can shoot JPG"
For once Wikipedia nails it:
"The compression method [JPEG] is usually lossy compression, meaning that some visual quality is lost in the process and cannot be restored."
Note the "cannot be restored" part. With a RAW file you have all the info that the camera can produce and it's up to you to reduce the "visual quality" later on.
===
"It still amazes me that most people do not understand raw and jpeg"
It is really amazing, isn't it?
From that Ken Rockwell link:
"Saving this raw data is exactly like people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles around their house."
Or, in fact, it's like saving the original negatives from your entire take instead of just holding on to a few 3X5 inch prints. This guy Rockwell is none too clever. |
|
Michael Clark, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 12:15 PM on 08.04.08 |
->> I'll add my voice to the fray here and step in on Walter's side. Maybe for newspaper photographers shooting jpeg is ok, but for anyone who values their images and wants the highest quality output they shoot in raw.
The reality is unless you are doing custom white balance readings and taking the time to dial in the perfect exposure FOR EVERY IMAGE, then your jpeg images are suffering from some serious quality issues. I know some shooters in the studio that have the exposures dialed and the white balance nailed and shooting jpeg's works just fine for them but otherwise it's a rough way to go...
As Jim said in the post above, "It is really amazing, isn't it?" That, "people do not understand raw and jpeg".
And as Walter said, my clients and I myself want the best image quality I can produce and that is raw. No one can debate that. If I am a pro and want to produce the best quality I go with the best method to get that quality....
just my two cents... |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:20 PM on 08.04.08 |
->> Walter, yes we did talk a lot about slide film when you were at USA Today. But since I wasnt that far away I would just pop in :) IT seems that it was just yesterday when we had those planes scraping the top of the building as they flew by, YIKES!
Colburn your're totally right Wiki's nails it down. And the more you work on the JPG image the more data is lost.
I like to think of RAW as a perfectly develop neg while JPG is a copy or scan version of that negative.
More 2 Come
www.ManuelloPaganelli.com |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Torrance | CA | USA | Posted: 3:32 PM on 08.04.08 |
->> Wow. 'The Off Topic' Police out in force again eh?
Chill Out.
Yamil mentioned briefly his issues with delivering TIFFs to his clients, Delane and I just offered a brief suggestion that he may have overlooked. We are only trying to help people here - in the end thats what this forum is all about. You marking "Off Topic" helps nobody. This thread started out about the buffer upgrade and through the course of the discussion has shifted topics to RAW vs. JPG and how to handle them - Thats how conversations work. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 08.04.08 |
->> The "Off Topics" are indeed inappropriate.
In the second post, Robert Hanashiro says, "But if you shoot RAW, it's probably a good thing to upgrade."
I don't appreciate getting an "Off Topic" (my first ever) while discussing the value of shooting RAW and indicating that I've hit the buffer a couple times when doing so. But thanks for the feedback. :o/
And, to keep this post ON TOPIC, I did have the upgrade performed with my D1x bodies years ago and Nikon was very speedy in their turnaround. If anyone here has there D3s done I'd be interested to know how long it takes; I think Nikon is quoting a couple weeks. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|