...snip snip...
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 y 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.
... snip snip ...
-Dan
Dan,
Thanks for your write-up. While reading this thread a few minutes ago I was also printing two 24 x 30 inch images on an Epson 7800. Same SouthWest landscape scene, one shot with a Pentax 67 on Velvia 100, the other shot at the same time with a Sony A900 and Zeiss 24-70/2.8 lens. The Velvia transparency was scanned with a Minolta MultiPro, glass plates and Scanhancer diffuser. I worked pretty hard to get the tones and contrast to agree and spent a good deal of time on the Capture and Output sharpening (Photokit Sharpener). Result... both are very similar, almost equally sharp. From 18 inches away I can't tell the difference. However, not too surprisingly, the deep shadows are much better in the A900 image. While the Photoshop Shadow/Highlight layer did help to pull out shadows the only way to get the needed dynamic range would have been to combine two Velvia transparency exposures.
I am considering purchasing an A900, especially after seeing these results (D3x is too much $ for me). But, one of my main concerns is focusing and depth of field which you mentioned above. With my Pentax system, fixed focal length lenses, and a DOF chart with a CoC of 0.045 mm (vs Pentax lens barrel marking) it is pretty foolproof to get near optimum focus. With the zoom lenses on digital cameras - very short throw, sparse distance scale markings, no DOF scale, and no readout in the LCD monitor of the actual focused distance I am perplexed as too how one can feel confident all is in critical focus?
I've posted this question before and received lots of conflicting responses.
The positive, 'I've got the focus/DOF nailed' feeling I get with my Pentax/folding focusing hood/ground glass magnifier seems like something I might really miss.
Could you tell me what focusing method works, or doesn't work for you? What percentage of your shots are rejected because of bad focus/DOF?
Thanks,
Ken