"The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"

[David Anderson]

I have found this to be the case on nearly every job I've ever worked.

What sets apart the working stiffs from the superstars is delivery and showmanship.

And don't forget brown nosing with art directors ..  

Yep, any chump can get a good picture with a 5DsIIIx and an Octa-light, but brown nosing is an art..  

[eronald]

I just started shooting with a D3x. It kind of seems to "just work", more so than any other camera I have used. Looks more blocky than the Canons, though

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

I just started shooting with a D3x. It kind of seems to "just work", more so than any other camera I have used. Looks more blocky than the Canons, though

Welcome to the club.

It looks like our planned camera performance comparison will be pretty boring... D3x vs D3x... we could perhaps focus on drinking some Hakaisan instead then?

Nikon's philosophy has remained the same these past few years and is awfully simple. Provide a film like experience with a DSLR. The D3 was already amazingly good at doing just that, the D3x pushes the enveloppe further. Lack of moire, focus on smooth transitions, images that appear sharp when viewed at 100% on screen... the target of the D3x is a well exposed Velvia slide shot with a Pentax 645. The attempt to get great DR is just a means to reach a goal that is "non digital looking files".

Cheers,
Bernard

[lisa_r]

So let's see some photos boys.

[Ray]

Nikon's philosophy has remained the same these past few years and is awfully simple. Provide a film like experience with a DSLR. The D3 was already amazingly good at doing just that, the D3x pushes the enveloppe further. Lack of moire, focus on smooth transitions, images that appear sharp when viewed at 100% on screen... the target of the D3x is a well exposed Velvia slide shot with a Pentax 645. The attempt to get great DR is just a means to reach a goal that is "non digital looking files".

Cheers,
Bernard

Those don't seem to be strong reasons for getting a D3X, Bernard   . I thought the whole idea of image editing programs and RAW converters was to create any effect you want. Surely I don't need to splash $8,000 on a camera to get the Velvia look.

If we assume the reasons for buying a new camera are of a practical nature, and not merely as a new toy to play with or a status symbol to impress one's clients, then the major considerations would be; dynamic range; noise; resolution and perhaps most important of all, availability of the right type and quality of lenses for one's purposes.

Secondary considerations would be ergonomics and features such as high resolution LCD screen, Live View, micro-adjustment of autofocussing, flexibility of manual adjustments and any useful feature which contributes to the ease and speed of controling the camera's parameters for a good shot.

I bought my D700 mainly on the strength of a single lens, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. The Nikon is also an upgrade from my 5D in respect of DR and noise; auto-bracketing range and auto-ISO flexibility. However, I'm a bit disappointed that I can't find other Nikkor lenses which interest me. I'm not a fan of prime lenses because any resolution advantage is often dissipated in subsequent cropping if the focal length does not exactly match the composition. Nor do I see much point in buying a lens without image stabilisation unless it's a specialised lens such as a PC lens, or an exceptionally fine macro lens or an ultra-wide-aperture lens for extreme shallowness of DoF or for use in poor light without flash.

I considered the new Nikkor 50/1.4 AF-S, but I already have a couple of fine Canon 50mm lenses. I considered the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105/2.8 VR. That at least has the benefit of image stabilisation, but unfortunately the VR doesn't appear to be useful where it's most needed, ie., for macro photography. The closer you focus, the less effective the VR, according to Thom Hogan.

The 24-120 F3.5/5.6 VR seems a bit below par. The 80-400 VR is no better than the Canon 100-400 IS; maybe not as good. The AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR is a fine lens; at least the equal of the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS, but it's way too heavy for me. The Canon 70-200/F4 IS appears to be a slightly sharper lens (than both the Nikkor and Canon 70-200/2. and is both cheaper and lighter. If I were to buy a new lens at this stage, that's the lens I would buy.

The new Nikkor 70-300 VR seems useful and the right weight, but alas! it's really only a good quality 70-200. Performance at 300mm seems well below par.

I guess I'm stuffed. Sorry to be so provacative   .

[BernardLanguillier]

So let's see some photos boys.

There you go.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...57612182394492/

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

So let's see some photos boys.

Lisa,
Images may be more interesting than endless techno-babble, but unless we have comparisons using sound methodology, the images are worthless for the technical purposes of assessing image quality, although such images might well be esthetically pleasing despite such technical considerations or inadequacies.

[BernardLanguillier]

Those don't seem to be strong reasons for getting a D3X, Bernard   . I thought the whole idea of image editing programs and RAW converters was to create any effect you want. Surely I don't need to splash $8,000 on a camera to get the Velvia look.

It is not a matter of look, but of ease of use.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Colorado David]

Ray, I think you're right, Nikon cameras and lenses are not for you.  Don't fight it, just give in.  From now on you should restrict your comments to Canon topics.

[Ray]

You see! Bernard has already responded with a link to some very fine images which have nothing to do with comparisons. We have surely got beyond the stage where we see a photograph that we like, which is even sublime or superb, and we ask the question, "Which camera took that shot?" I must buy that camera. Maybe I will also be able to take such a shot.

[Ray]

From now on you should restrict your comments to Canon topics.

Why should I restrict my comments to Canon topics? I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning. Are you trying to warn me, perhaps? Am I in a situation analgous to being in a Muslim country and criticising Mohammed? I would never be so foolish as to do that.

[Khun_K]

I'm afraid that a dropping test would damage or kill any of the bodies regardless of brand and grade.
On the other hand, a banging test  , will show that the pro grade bodies can take more abuse.

Well, it is really depend on how it dropped. I once have my Contax 645 with the battery pack, a P45 back, a Quantum Freewire transmitter, a Vario-Sonnar 45-90 zoom, a RRS L bracket, slide off my Arca-Swiss ballhead mounted on Foba studio stand - concrete floor, from about 1.3 meters height, I am still wondered today where is the dent or point it dropped? Seriously!
Samething happened to my older Canon 1Ds MK2 mounted with a 100/2.8 macro and a pocket wizard and the only thing damage was the filter mounted on the lens, and the filter itself does not even break, only the rim was damaged, so today's camera is I think stronger than we think. But anyway, I think of a professional camera is a little beyond the image quality only, it survive the accident like this and might save your work. So the equation might be yes, you need 3-4 lower level body to meet one top level body, and perhaps in many ways, offer advantages of being more flexible. So, let's hope the customer understands and willing to pay for quality and professional whosoever has no issue on budget of looking for the latest stuff of any budget and quantity.

Regards, K
P.S. This does not mean if I ever try to sell my equipment over this forum were somehow dropped

[ErikKaffehr]

Lisa,

That's a very good point!

My pictures are here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr

with more to come.

Best regards
Erik

So let's see some photos boys.

[BernardLanguillier]

Samething happened to my older Canon 1Ds MK2 mounted with a 100/2.8 macro and a pocket wizard and the only thing damage was the filter mounted on the lens, and the filter itself does not even break, only the rim was damaged, so today's camera is I think stronger than we think.

My personnal advice is to always have a camera checked after a fall.

There is a very significant chance that the lens mount's angular positioning is compromised. With today's sensor resolution, even a very small offset can impact sharpness.

It happened to my previous D2x, fell from a tripod only showing a slight dent in the magnesium body. When I had it checked a few months later prior to selling it, I was told that the lens mount was off...

Regards,
Bernard

[NikosR]

Those don't seem to be strong reasons for getting a D3X, Bernard   . I thought the whole idea of image editing programs and RAW converters was to create any effect you want. Surely I don't need to splash $8,000 on a camera to get the Velvia look.

If we assume the reasons for buying a new camera are of a practical nature, and not merely as a new toy to play with or a status symbol to impress one's clients, then the major considerations would be; dynamic range; noise; resolution and perhaps most important of all, availability of the right type and quality of lenses for one's purposes.

Secondary considerations would be ergonomics and features such as high resolution LCD screen, Live View, micro-adjustment of autofocussing, flexibility of manual adjustments and any useful feature which contributes to the ease and speed of controling the camera's parameters for a good shot.

I bought my D700 mainly on the strength of a single lens, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. The Nikon is also an upgrade from my 5D in respect of DR and noise; auto-bracketing range and auto-ISO flexibility. However, I'm a bit disappointed that I can't find other Nikkor lenses which interest me. I'm not a fan of prime lenses because any resolution advantage is often dissipated in subsequent cropping if the focal length does not exactly match the composition. Nor do I see much point in buying a lens without image stabilisation unless it's a specialised lens such as a PC lens, or an exceptionally fine macro lens or an ultra-wide-aperture lens for extreme shallowness of DoF or for use in poor light without flash.

I considered the new Nikkor 50/1.4 AF-S, but I already have a couple of fine Canon 50mm lenses. I considered the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105/2.8 VR. That at least has the benefit of image stabilisation, but unfortunately the VR doesn't appear to be useful where it's most needed, ie., for macro photography. The closer you focus, the less effective the VR, according to Thom Hogan.

The 24-120 F3.5/5.6 VR seems a bit below par. The 80-400 VR is no better than the Canon 100-400 IS; maybe not as good. The AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR is a fine lens; at least the equal of the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS, but it's way too heavy for me. The Canon 70-200/F4 IS appears to be a slightly sharper lens (than both the Nikkor and Canon 70-200/2. and is both cheaper and lighter. If I were to buy a new lens at this stage, that's the lens I would buy.

The new Nikkor 70-300 VR seems useful and the right weight, but alas! it's really only a good quality 70-200. Performance at 300mm seems well below par.

I guess I'm stuffed. Sorry to be so provacative   .

Ladies and Gents,

You're reading the nth post in the new Ray 'can't find a Nikon lens that I want to buy' saga. Keep tuned. This is going to be much fun, even more fun than last year's ' D3 High ISO is not really better than 5D underexposed and overdeveloped' saga which broke the world record of 2999 episodes. The story of a man with too much time in his hands trying to negotiate his way through the Nikon wasteland with lots of internet parrot knowledge and no real experience under his arm.

Yes Ray, you ARE in my ignore list, but I admit it, sometimes when I'm feeling masochistic, I can't resist peeking at your posts. I know I shouldn't do that it's just that this urge overcomes me sometimes. Now, where did I place my shrink's phone number?

[Ray]

It is not a matter of look, but of ease of use.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,
Have you found Canon cameras difficult to operate? I've found them quite easy to use. I'm rather dismayed by the fact that the D700 has about 21 buttons, 4 dials, 3 multi-position switches and a 434 page manual on how to operate them.  

Am I to become a button-pusher in my old age   .

[David Anderson]

It is not a matter of look, but of ease of use.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry Bernard, I have to STRONGLY disagree with you on that !

I tried one yeaterday at ECS with a couple zooms (14-24 and 24-70) and found it almost impossible to use because everything is backwards on it, all the bottons are in the wrong place and the zooms zoom the wrong direction.

I also turned the camera off 4 times while trying to change the aperture..    

Clearly Nikon don't have long term Canon users in mind when they design these things !!    

Seriously - it's a nice camera and the zooms where very impressive, it's hard to tell much about absolute image quality from the large Jpegs I shot, but they do look good for zoom lenses and no doubt would look better again had I taken more time and shot raws.
 
The price (12,500 ish) here in OZ does seem a tad expensive when compared to the now $10,ooo  DSIII given that the DSIII has been around for over a year now, but I guess to a dedicated Nikon person the extra resolution and image quality might be worth the money.

[John Camp]

Bernard,

I love "The Cat." All that severe rectilinear weathered wood with that furry curved ball in the middle. Is that also the cat in "On the Way to the Cat," that you can barely see in the back? What happens when you take advantage of the D3x's famous resolution to blow up *that* cat?

JC

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,

I love "The Cat." All that severe rectilinear weathered wood with that furry curved ball in the middle. Is that also the cat in "On the Way to the Cat," that you can barely see in the back? What happens when you take advantage of the D3x's famous resolution to blow up *that* cat?

The cat is there all along...







These 3 images will be part of a single very large print with a progressive zoom towards the cat. Only the D3x made such a revolutionary concept possible... or not?!?

Incidently, each of these 3 images is itself a multi-row panorama in the 150+ MP resolutions... so the blowing up of the cat can be pretty explosive!

Cheers,
Bernard

[ziocan]

I read once where Joe McNally was in a pissing contest with the art director of a shoot where he was the photographer, and he kept saying he wanted to do the shoot with one light and she was saying that just wasn't possible with one light and that they needed a minimum of four lights and that was that. So he set up the lights, turn all of them off but one, shot the test shots, and she said, "See, it looks great." He never told her the truth.

big deal.
we all do that, even without having the AD complaining.

just to make a client comfortable that is spending few hundred grands on agency, model and photographer fees on a beauty campaign shoot, but you just need one strobe and an umbrella only. that is what makes the light you need. OK plus a reflector.
You order few cases of lights and ask the assistants to put everything on the stands and make them look like they are being used, except that they are never going to be turned on.