What is a D3x? It is a large, heavy, expensive "35mm" DSLR - as a matter of fact, it is tied with three Canons (none of which ever got the pricing flak that the D3x got) for the most expensive small-format DSLR ever mass-marketed (numerous Kodaks and a few other cameras marketed primarily to institutions were much more expensive). Unfortunately, that is where a lot of the conversation stops - people see the high price and the 24x36 mm image sensor, and file it in the undesirable mental category of "very expensive 35mm DSLR". In the digital age, however, sensor size is a lot less important than what a camera's capabilities are. I just returned from a landscape shoot with my D3x to Acadia National Park on the Maine coast, a location I have worked many times in a variety of conditions, with a variety of equipment, and have returned convinced that the proper way to evaluate the D3x (and perhaps some other very high resolution DSLRs) is as a MEDIUM-FORMAT camera. It provided the finest images I have ever made in that location (including film up to 6x9 cm, and a wide variety of digital cameras). I used it as if it was a 6x9 camera - locked down on a tripod at low ISO, and was rewarded with results that exceeded anything I've ever gotten from medium format film. It also has the versatility to shoot handheld when needed, and provide results that, while not equal to its own tripod-mounted results, exceed anything I've ever gotten from handholding any other camera. It has replaced medium format film for me, and, for the first time, I look at the final prints and there's nothing missing - I don't say "digital was nice for this aspect, but I wish I was shooting 120 for this other reason". The only film I've ever handled that provides more detail is 4x5 inch - and that does, even with a modest scanner - the D3x can take the lead in overall image quality on certain scenes if its extended dynamic range makes up for the 4x5 film's increased resolution, though. For my type of work (fairly traditional landscape, but in color), the D3x has replaced medium-format film (indirectly, I went through other digital solutions I was never quite satisfied with first), and caused me NOT to move to MF digital. It is a medium-format camera as far as my use of it is concerned, but it is also capable of being a 35mm camera when it needs to be.
Different sensor sizes have blurred distinctions between formats - is a camera with an APS-C sensor, that otherwise handles like a 35mm SLR, and that would typically be used for 35mm applications, really in a different class from what we used to call 35mm cameras? A Nikon D300 or a Canon 50D appeals to the same group of photographers who would have previously bought a range of enthusiast 35mm cameras from the Nikon FM2 and Canon A1 to the N90 and EOS A2 series. Does the fact that their image sensor isn't the same size as 35mm film really mean they are a different kind of camera? Similarly, a D40 or the Rebel line are in the N65 or film Rebel class by any standard. The APS-C DSLRs are really "the new 35mm" in a very real sense, as they cover the same applications, appeal to the same users, and handle similarly. Some of the jobs that used to be the domain of Nikon's F series and Canon's F1 are now handled by APS-C cameras (especially the D300, popular for its quick AF), some by Canon's EOS-1D series with their intermediate sensor size, and some by the Nikon D3 and D700 with 24x36mm sensors.
At the same time that cameras with smaller than 35mm sensors have taken a lot of 35mm jobs, with better than 35mm quality, some of the 24x36 mm cameras, which coincidentally have image sensors the size of 35mm film, have been designed for work that is well outside of the range of 35mm film. The first attempt at this type of camera was the EOS 1Ds, which probably provided better image quality than even slow 35 mm film given the most careful processing and printing. By the second generation, Canon's EOS 1Ds mkII and 5D, these cameras were clearly superior to any 35mm film under most conditions, and were often used where 645 film was the previous choice, generally offering an image quality upgrade even over most 645 films in many conditions. The third generation of ultra high resolution 24x36 mm DSLRs (EOS 1Ds mkIII, 5D mk II, Alpha 900 and D3x) are an upgrade in image quality from medium format film, even from formats larger than 645, in most conditions and types of photography.
One possibly fair way to compare cameras is based on intended application - small format being built either for casual photography, speed or low light (or some combination) - all applications at which 35mm film excelled. Medium format cameras were (primarily, ignoring the Holga and its ilk) built for very high detail and resolution, in a package that was still reasonably convenient and could be handheld if needed (although designed to be used on a tripod much of the time). Most large format cameras were built for the ultimate in resolution, plus having camera movements to work with, at a huge cost in convenience. By this standard, the D3 is a small-format camera, while the D3x is medium format, despite having the same sensor dimensions and even the same body, due to their divergent sensor design philosophies. Most medium format digital backs count as medium format, but the highest resolution backs are clearly pushing large format territory, especially if equipped with a tilt-shift lens or adapter.
The highest-resolution 24x36 mm DSLRs (including, but perhaps not exclusively, the D3x) are capable of printing as large as 24x36 inches, even from very high detail subjects - something that 35mm film could never do. The D3x, in particular, also lacks a couple of traditional 35mm attributes - it isn't fast (1.8 fps at its highest quality setting), and it isn't an especially good camera for casual or candid shooting due to its size - although I HAVE occasionally used it for this when there was nothing else at hand. It IS a pretty good low-light camera, but low-light cameras as good or better are available for much less money.
That said, the D3x's strengths are quite dissimilar from traditional 35mm strengths, and make it appealing for landscape photography that would have traditionally been the preserve of medium (and even large) format. The first thing you notice about a D3x image at low ISO is stunning per-pixel detail. Handled carefully (ISO 100 or below, tripod mounted), the amount of detail in a D3x image is even higher than you'd expect from 24.5 mp. Most DSLRs don't look good at 100% on screen, because the blurring from the anti-aliasing filter is apparent at 100% magnification, even if it is not noticeable in a print. Properly focused D3x images look very good at 100%, indicating that the AA filter is either very weak, or alternatively, a new design. Thankfully, the autofocus is very precise, because, in common with all DSLRs, the D3x has a very bright focusing screen that it is not really meant for manual focus. 51 focusing points allow for a great deal of compositional freedom. The best way to focus this camera manually is probably through Live View, which I haven't learned to use yet, having never had it before.
The second quality noticeable in D3x images is enormous dynamic range - quite simply, this camera offers more range than any other I have used, and by a significant margin. While DxOmark's raw numbers are wrong - the D3x has more like 11+ stops of usable dynamic range than 13 - the differences between cameras captured in their testing seem about right to me. I have extensive experience with the Canon 1Ds mkII, and the D3x really does seem to have between 1.5 and 2 stops of additional DR over the (already pretty good) older Canon. A collection of older DSLRs I've used seem to fit in in roughly the same way - DxO is consistently optimistic by between 1.5 and 2 stops of DR, but their relative rankings are fairly consistent. I mentioned the superb dynamic range in my initial impressions of the D3x, and numerous posters said that 11 stops seemed awfully high - 1500 landscape images later, I'm convinced that 11 stops is, if anything, slightly conservative. In Zone System terms, the D3x goes roughly two zones farther than the original design of the system accommodates - picking up basic tone differentation all the way from Zone 0 to X (its 11 stops of DR), leaving paper white at Zone XI and untextured black at Zone -I. At least 9 of those 11 stops record good detail (as compared to 7 zones with detail in Ansel's original formulation). Medium format digital backs may well be able to match or better this dynamic range, as can Fuji's low resolution SuperCCD, but I have not seen a conventional DSLR that can come close.
A third characteristic of D3x images is beautiful, smooth tonal transitions. There is none of the tonal harshness (and, in extreme cases, posterization), that plagued many earlier DSLRs. This is aided by absolutely noiseless shadows at low ISOs - something that I have not seen from any other camera I have used. While I have not used medium-format digital systems extensively myself, I have seen quite a bit of MF digital output (I came close to buying into the H3D system before choosing the D3x), and the D3x files really do look like MF files to me, coming strikingly close to the detail, tonality and dynamic range that so impressed me in H3D sample files.
In overall image quality, the D3x easily exceeds any camera I have used before, although I have not used other "third generation" 24x36 mm DSLRs. There is no comparison between large prints I have made from D3x files and prints from SAMPLE files I have seen from the Canons or the Alpha 900 (the D3x is significantly better than both), but I have no idea how those samples were produced, and I suspect the workflows were not optimal - especially in the case of the Sony, where it is known that Sony's own RAW converter (which was almost certainly used to produce the samples) is far from an optimal choice for the camera. The only large prints of comparable quality to D3x prints I have personally seen come from either medium format digital or large format film.
Comparisons to other cameras I have personal experience with:
Nikon D200 - NOT even close (nor should it be) - I include the D200 only because I have had a great deal of experience with it and know its responses well. In addition to enough more detail that a D3x print at 24x36 inches appears more detailed per square inch than a 12x18 from the D200, there are close to three stops of additional dynamic range in the D3x file. The noiseless character of low-ISO D3x files only adds to the differences! Of course, this is a patently unfair comparison - a consumer DSLR from 2005 against the finest DSLR made in late 2008.
Canon EOS 1DsmkII - a more interesting comparison, because it is the same type of camera, only one generation older. The D3x appears to have approximately double the resolved image detail of the Canon (a 24x36 inch print from the Nikon is equivalently detailed to a 16x24 from the Canon). 150% of the detail is explained directly by the difference in resolution, while I tentatively attribute the rest to the Nikon's superb AA filter - the 1DsmkII has a reputation for strong AA filtration sapping some subject detail, while the D3x has a very weak AA filter that removes very little detail. The image quality difference is even slightly greater than the difference in detail would suggest alone, because the D3x's noiseless shadows and extended dynamic range both contribute to overall image quality. I was never completely satisfied with the 1DsII's shadow quality (it is quite good in midtones and highlights), and the D3x alleviates those concerns.
Hasselblad 501 C/M, scanned with a Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000 - Even Fuji Velvia 100 at 6x6 cm cannot reach the detail of a D3x file at low ISO. While resolution is probably higher, film grain and loss of sharpness from the scanning process interfere with image detail below the detail of a D3x file. Additionally, the dynamic range of Velvia does not even approach what the D3x is capable of, although tonal transitions are equally smooth. More or less the same applies to film I have exposed with a Horseman technical camera at 6x9 cm, although lens resolution was probably more of an issue with the Horseman.
Cameras I have either seen good samples from, or manipulated files from that I did not shoot:
4x5 inch film - A dear friend is a 4x5 landscape photographer, and I do most of her printing with her. Even scanned on a consumer scanner (Epson V700), 4x5 Velvia carries significantly more detail than a D3x file. The tonal smoothness of a 4x5 transparency is simply amazing as well, better than anything a D3x can manage. The one place where the D3x has an edge is in dynamic range - overall image quality of the 4x5 transparency is significantly higher as long as the scene fits within its dynamic range, but the D3x can pull ahead in a contrasty scene.
Hasselblad H3DII/31 - I haven't printed from these files myself, but am judging by large prints on display at PhotoPlus, part of the Hasselblad Masters showcase. I also have not had an opportunity to examine these prints alongside a D3x print (the D3x was not yet released at PhotoPlus). However, the prints in the Hasselblad Masters showcase should have been a reasonable indication of what the H3DII is capable of - it's a mature camera with well-known files, and Hasselblad has many years of experience presenting prints to photographers who know what to look for. Both the tonal gradations and dynamic range are comparable between the H3DII/31 and D3x, and the resolution difference is roughly what the numbers would suggest - the H3DII/31 has a small amount of additional detail (25% or so).
Cameras that should be in this comparison, but aren't, because I either haven't seen samples or don't trust the samples that I HAVE seen:
Canon IDs mk III, 5D mkII - Canon didn't have large samples in a clearly marked location at their PhotoPlus booth, so I cannot be completely sure that any given image wasn't, say, a 50D sample. I also didn't pay as much attention to the Canon samples as I did to the Hasselblad (and Sony) samples.
Sony Alpha 900 - Sony DID have large samples printed from converted RAW files at PhotoPlus, clearly marked as from the Alpha 900, but I didn't trust that they were truly representative of what the camera could do. If the samples were "true", the Alpha 900 stands between the 1Ds mk II and the D3x - resolution closer to the D3x, but with noise reducing image quality significantly, and with dynamic range in between the two and a tonal scale more like the older Canon. Even this is a very impressive performance for a $3000 camera - it clearly beat a camera that sold for $8000 the year before. However, there are several caveats about the PhotoPlus samples that make me think the Sony could do even better under other circumstances. First, it was VERY new at PhotoPlus - it was actually not yet for sale in the US at the time (it arrived about a week later) - who knows what stage of final development the cameras that made those samples were in? Second, the Alpha cogniscenti both here and on DPReview don't especially like Sony's RAW converter, which is almost certainly what was used to convert those files - Capture One and RAW Developer are both supposed to do a much better job. I wouldn't call the camera and workflow that made the suspicious samples ready for 24x36 - although it could certainly do 16x24 with no problem. This was clearly a late beta or early production camera that nobody knew how to handle yet, up against fairly well optimized workflows on the cameras I've worked with myself.
Reading other people's thoughts on the Alpha 900 (perhaps the most interesting competitor, due to the common pedigree of the sensor - while not the same, they're clearly related) , I'm inclined to believe that the image quality difference is there in RAW files, but it's not huge - some cleaner shadows at low ISOs increasing dynamic range, plus high ISO performance. Some reviewers who've used both, including Michael, believe that there isn't a difference (most are Alpha shooters who have only quickly picked up a D3x), while others believe that there is a significant difference (most are Nikon shooters who have less experience with the Alpha). My best guess is that, given two different photographers - one for whom the D3x is his or her chosen tool, the other one the Alpha 900, and the same subject matter, the D3x will have a slight, but visible advantage on certain subjects in an optimized workflow. However, with ANY camera at this level, every photographer will get their best results with their own camera - if I picked up an Alpha 900, I couldn't get what I get out of the D3x after months of experimentation, and if an Alpha shooter picked up a D3x, they wouldn't get results to match their Alpha.
The more significant difference between the D3x and the Alpha 900 is in the type of body they use. The Alpha 900 body is a near-direct copy of the $1100 Alpha 700, which is itself partially a hodgepodge of pieces from various Konica-Minolta film SLRs, ranging from the very well respected advanced-amateur Maxxum/Dynax 7 to several $300 consumer SLRs. I couldn't get comfortable with an Alpha 900 quickly (I've never used one for an extended period, and I'm sure I'd do better with time), and there are a couple of places where its sealing worries me - it uses several slide switches which are just about impossible to seal, and its card and battery doors don't lock. In addition, the Alpha 900 uses consumer-level AF (although folks who use it say that the center AF point is truly superb) and metering systems, while the D3x uses the best in the business. A large part of the $5000 difference in price between the two cameras goes to the bulletproof body of the D3x, with its 50 year professional heritage going back to the original Nikon F (although that doesn't explain why you can buy that SAME body with a lower-resolution sensor in it, plus an Alpha 900, for the price of a D3x).
Medium format above the H3DII/31 - I didn't see any samples clearly marked as coming from a high-resolution back. I would believe that the 50 MP backs are just about as good per pixel as the D3x without a problem (leading to twice the overall image detail). If that is true, twice the performance is available for 4-5 times the price, and it'll take a whopping print/printer to see it to its best advantage. Of course, the D3x itself is extracting a little bit of extra performance (plus a very different type of body) for a big premium over a 5D mkII or an Alpha 900.
One element of the D3x that should excite even Nikon shooters who don't like the price or the size is the way Nikon tends to reuse a sensor. Unlike Canon, who use innumerable sensor and resolution variants across their line, Nikon tends to go for "variations on a theme" - they made nothing but 6mp and under cameras for years, then jumped straight to 12mp with the D2x. Later, they explored the 12mp theme very thoroughly before jumping straight to 24mp. If this is the theme on which Nikon will build three or four years worth of variations, it is a darned good basis to start from.
The D3x provides the detail and tonality necessary to make high detail landscape prints up to 24x36 inches, and it provides it in a rugged and feature-laden body that contains every option any photographer might want. It is a joy to work with in the field, including in harsh conditions, and is easier to carry than what we used to lug around to make the same type of images (which doesn't make it light). Is it worth $8000? To me it is - I will probably never buy another high-end camera for its features - what more could I need? Finally, we have reached a point where resolution, dynamic range and tonal scale are so good that, even for large, highly detailed prints, we can focus on the art instead of the equipment.
Does a "better" camera exist? Yes - almost certainly - but it costs five times as much. I wouldn't want to be any of the MF digital manufacturers right now, with the D3x and the other 20+ MP DSLRs coming so close to their entry-level 31mp products. The high end of medium format is safe, because the laws of physics will reduce per-pixel image quality if anyone tries to cram much over 30mp on a 24x36mm sensor, but the market of photographers who need to print OVER 24x36 for close viewing is tiny, and the market for $30,000+ bodies is smaller still. Just as the MF manufacturers were making some progress on the pricing of their lower-end models, 24x36mm SLRs infringe on their image quality.
What about the lower-cost cameras with most of the D3x's image quality? The 5D mkII seems to have some durability worries, plus it has greatly inferior AF, metering and other body features. It's a viable option in the studio, but, especially after the Antarctica report, I wouldn't want to take it into the field the way I use my D3x. The 1Ds mk III is comparable to the D3x in body quality, but also fairly close in cost, especially with its recent price increase - Nikon leads in image quality right now, but the next revision of the 1Ds will probably regain the lead for Canon. Choose between Nikon and Canon's top bodies based on the rest of the system - do you prefer Nikon's wides, or Canon's teles? Do you prefer the speed, durability and low-light capability of the D700 as a second tier body, or the resolution of the 5D mk II? The most interesting competitor is the Alpha 900 - it's better made than the 5D mk II, its image quality is superb, and it has several unique features like body image stabilization, all for a very reasonable price. The question in my mind with the Alpha is Sony - both Canon and Nikon have been selling and supporting top-level professional cameras for many years, and both have developed full systems to support those cameras. Minolta has been in and out of the pro market since the original Maxxum 9000, but never demonstrated a sustained commitment - they would develop an interesting camera like the 9000, the 9xi or the Maxxum 9, but they would never have a full line of pro lenses, flashes or other accessories. Will Sony take a sustained interest in the top end of the market, and in the needs of the photographers who buy these cameras? Sony has a VERY interesting body, and hiring Carl Zeiss to make their top-grade lenses was a great move - perhaps they are going to take a sustained interest in this market? If so, I wouldn't be surprised to see an "Alpha 1000" - a camera like the 900, but with top-end AF, metering and more complete seals (no slide switches).
Right now, the D3x is simply the best DSLR available, taking image quality, durability and features into account. It's certainly not the camera for everyone, as much because of weight and features as price. For those of us who work rugged and print big, it offers a unique combination of attributes that go a long way towards justifying its price. It can easily replace medium-format film, and compete with low-end MF digital, at a cost lower than either (assuming a large number of images per year). It is supported by the 50-year Nikon system, with an incredible range of lenses and accessories for any task, plus other bodies that compliment the D3x for other purposes.
Any of the three 20+ mp systems are so good that they can handle just about any photographic task (especially when combined with other bodies with different strengths in the same line - pick one, learn it well and make the best images you can with it. I've preferred Nikon handling and glass for many years, so I was excited when they released a SLR with this image quality, but both Canon and Sony make viable alternatives for photographers who prefer those systems.
-Dan
