D3X Observations

[ErikKaffehr]

Michael Reichmann says that there is very little difference at low ISOs, up to 800 ISO.

Best regards
Erik

At the end of the day, I would be interested in seeing studio photography comparisons between the a900 and the D3x
Since we tend to do post on most shots, I wonder what photos side by side look like using the same lighting set up.
Since the higher iso's are not necessary for studio work, I wonder how different the end result would be.

[BernardLanguillier]

At the end of the day, I would be interested in seeing studio photography comparisons between the a900 and the D3x
Since we tend to do post on most shots, I wonder what photos side by side look like using the same lighting set up.
Since the higher iso's are not necessary for studio work, I wonder how different the end result would be.

Such a comparison would indeed be mandatory if the goal is to provide guidance for photographers wondering if the difference of image quality between the 2 cameras will impact their applications or not.

I am not blaming Michael on this, but I don't believe he devoted enough time and attention to this matter to be able to tell us consitently the extend of the gap between the D3x and other DSLRs in a variety of real world shooting situations.

Just this morning, I found this 5DII sample (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lensman82/3321960126/in/photostream) at DPreview, shot at ISO200 +0.95EV in post according to the photographer. I was surprised by how noisy the oof hair looks on top of the image. Would typical high key images shot in Antartica reveal this? I don't believe so. Is this pixel peeping? That really depends on the application.

I have already linked the image shown below (at that time focusing on the fact that it is a 510 megapixel image with infinite DoF), but the darker stones on the left were lifted at least one stop in post and are a very important part of the image. Yet there isn't any noise to be found there although the brighest parts of the image, with direct spot illumination, are not blown at all.



How would the A900 and 5DII have performed here? I don't know but I know is that it would be mandatory to do this type of comparisons to get a realistic picture of their relative performance. Michael was not interested in doing this and that is why he called his report "observations" and not "review".

The image above could be achieved thanks to very accurate metering avoiding any in camera histogram clipping. Would I have shot a D3 the same way? Nope, I would have allowed a significant highlight clipping of the camera histogram because I do now know that the 2 cameras are callibrated differently as far as histogram display is concerned. Would a D3 like usage of the D3x have impacted my perception of the D3x's potential? Heck yes.

Cheers,
Bernard

[michaelprince]

I bought the D3X after working with some of my D3 images, and wishing that they had just a little more resolution.
The D3X performs flawlessly, and compared to my P45, it is a bargain. So Nikon hasn't alienated all of it's customers....

michael

[Graham Welland]

I bought the D3X after working with some of my D3 images, and wishing that they had just a little more resolution.
The D3X performs flawlessly, and compared to my P45, it is a bargain. So Nikon hasn't alienated all of it's customers....

michael

My rationale was very similar.

I originally started with a Kodak 645M 16mp digital back & Mamiya 645AFD but sold that outfit for various reasons (workflow, lack of support, sometimes flaky behaviour) and went back to Nikon DSLR's such as the D2x, D3 & D700. I missed the resolution in my landscape work and was frustrated with LF film & scanning.  I have a big investment in Nikon & Zeiss glass so changing systems under any circumstances wasn't an option. I've done the Canon -> Nikon -> Mamiya -> Nikon switches before and NEVER again ...

Compared to the P45 that I simply can't justify or afford, the D3x is more than a bargain! I don't feel alienated, I feel finally vindicated with my support of Nikon glass when Canon was the only game in town for high DSLR MP.

I don't care how great the A900 or 5DII is for the money, I can't stick $25k+ of Nikon & Zeiss lenses on it.

[jeffok]

" ... there's hardly a camera on the market that can touch the Nikon D3x in overall goodness..."

Once again, hyperbole. Comeon Michael. The D3X is a great camera, but it's not so much better than some of the others. Your own review of the A900 proves that, and the 1Ds3 is no slouch compared to the D3x by any measure.  In terms of practical real world use, and for what you see in a print of almost any size, can you really say there is that much of a difference in overall "goodness"?
These days, the differences between these high end cameras are so slight that we have to strain to make a distinction. More fodder for the fanboys to chew on however....

[Rob C]

Black Gold

Michael

In the photograph that you posted of Chris Sanderson, shot with your D3x and the 24-70 optic, there is a strange effect that has me puzzled.

The close-up of the wristwatch armband looks basically black; difficult to tell because of so many similar-looking rip-offs, but isn´t the watch a Rolex, in which case the band would probably be the President version and, as such, gold gold?

If I´m right, then Nikon can solve the world´s black gold problems too. Quite remarkable.

Rob C

[lisperit]

Hi
Would , very very much, to know the origin of that DXO Mark graph about D3X noise, MR shows D3x noise being 6db worse than D3 and 5d2 but on DXO Mark site the graphs tell another story as can be seen selecting SNR 18% (SCREEN tab and PRINT tab) :

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../(brand3)/Nikon

Best regards
Lisperit

[vydalex]

Agree with Lisperit, I don't know what are the DXO Mark Graph showing by MR about noise...? They are different on dxomark.com, and why not also publish the Dynamic Range graph?

alex

[Mark D Segal]

" ... there's hardly a camera on the market that can touch the Nikon D3x in overall goodness..."

Once again, hyperbole. Comeon Michael. The D3X is a great camera, but it's not so much better than some of the others. Your own review of the A900 proves that, and the 1Ds3 is no slouch compared to the D3x by any measure.  In terms of practical real world use, and for what you see in a print of almost any size, can you really say there is that much of a difference in overall "goodness"?
These days, the differences between these high end cameras are so slight that we have to strain to make a distinction. More fodder for the fanboys to chew on however....

If you go to our Camera Metrics spreadsheet, Csmera Metrics, you will see that the D3x shows "Slight" and "Moderate" differences for resolution and DxOMark respectively relative to the 1Ds3. There's no question that the Nikon feature set is an improvement over Canon in some respects, and it allows higher ISO performance at remarkable clarity considering the speeds at play here. Whether all that is worth an additional 1500 dollars is purely a matter of individual judgment, but objectively speaking on many prints you'd most likely see no difference, while under some imaging conditions the Nikon would have a clear advantage. It depends on what you're doing.

[Ben Rubinstein]

If you look at the camera as a whole MR's comment makes sense as I think he intended. It is the best pro level (AF/dual cards/weather proofing/viewfinder/lag/etc) camera feature and IQ wise on the market. Heck, the 1Ds mkIII still has a screen that's a disgrace and has just been recalled for yet another chapter in the saga of the mkIII AF fiasco. As such it's (D3X) probably the best DSLR on the market today when seen as a whole. Whether you need the 'best' is far more subjective.

[Mark D Segal]

If you look at the camera as a whole MR's comment makes sense as I think he intended. It is the best pro level (AF/dual cards/weather proofing/viewfinder/lag/etc) camera feature and IQ wise on the market. Heck, the 1Ds mkIII still has a screen that's a disgrace and has just been recalled for yet another chapter in the saga of the mkIII AF fiasco. As such it's (D3X) probably the best DSLR on the market today when seen as a whole. Whether you need the 'best' is far more subjective.

Ben, I wouldn't go so far as to call the 1Ds3 screen "a disgrace". At worst it's "second-best". More important though, what is this new AF recall all about? I'm interested, because I detected a focus problem with certain aspects of my 1Ds3 system and Canon Canada is charging me a heap of money combined with a time estimate that amounts to very slow service for evaluating and fixing it. (I'll be providing a report on my service experience in the Discussion Forum once I'm done with them.)

[lisperit]

Ben, I wouldn't go so far as to call the 1Ds3 screen "a disgrace". At worst it's "second-best". More important though, what is this new AF recall all about? I'm interested, because I detected a focus problem with certain aspects of my 1Ds3 system and Canon Canada is charging me a heap of money combined with a time estimate that amounts to very slow service for evaluating and fixing it. (I'll be providing a report on my service experience in the Discussion Forum once I'm done with them.)

Here you go:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310...mwareupdate.asp

And yes it can be called a Saga.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Ben, I wouldn't go so far as to call the 1Ds3 screen "a disgrace". At worst it's "second-best". More important though, what is this new AF recall all about? I'm interested, because I detected a focus problem with certain aspects of my 1Ds3 system and Canon Canada is charging me a heap of money combined with a time estimate that amounts to very slow service for evaluating and fixing it. (I'll be providing a report on my service experience in the Discussion Forum once I'm done with them.)

Given that the screens on all canon cameras but especially this $8000 one are a joke compared to P&S's costing a tiny fraction of the amount - I wouldn't agree. The new screens are better but they only put them in when Nikon forced them to.

[Mark D Segal]

Here you go:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310...mwareupdate.asp

And yes it can be called a Saga.

Thanks I checked it. Good for all owners to know, but not my problem. I only use the center AF point so it doesn't apply. My problem is soft focus on the left third of the image when using the 70~300 mm IS/DO zoom at focal lengths below 300mm and wide aperture. I suspect it is a lens issue, but Canon asked me to bring in everything, so I did.

[jeffok]

If you look at the camera as a whole MR's comment makes sense as I think he intended. It is the best pro level (AF/dual cards/weather proofing/viewfinder/lag/etc) camera feature and IQ wise on the market. Heck, the 1Ds mkIII still has a screen that's a disgrace and has just been recalled for yet another chapter in the saga of the mkIII AF fiasco. As such it's (D3X) probably the best DSLR on the market today when seen as a whole. Whether you need the 'best' is far more subjective.

Well, first your opinions on the 1DsIII are based on faulty information, and second, the very point I am making is that the D3X is at best incrementally better at some things (eg. lownoise at higher ISO's) than, say the 1Ds3 but not as good at others (sensor cleaning). Where do you get this idea that the dual CF cards, weather proofing, viewfinder, lag, etc are demonstrably better than on the 1Ds3?? Show me the evidence, otherwise your assertions are just picked out of thin air to augment your fan perspective. And what is with this "fiasco"? Your link refers to the 1DMark III AF issue and does not relate to the 1DsIII. I certainly have never seen any issue with this.

As for the screen issue, this has been commented on before but who cares? I only use the screen to check my histograms like most people, not for previewing what the final image will look like. For that, you need a computer. A nice gimmick to have, but certainly not at all necessary to have a higher res screen. I'm concerned about final image quality and on that basis, the D3X is a great camera, but so is the 1Ds3 and the A900.

[Panopeeper]

As for the screen issue, this has been commented on before but who cares? I only use the screen to check my histograms like most people, not for previewing what the final image will look like

The LCD issue is really a disgrace for a high end camera. Although you have no basis for talking for "most people", you are right in the sense, that most people don't use it for verifying the focusing, because it is not good enough.

This too shows, how much Canon was spoiled before serious competition appeared. I guess Canon have learned a lot in this aspect.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Well, first your opinions on the 1DsIII are based on faulty information, and second, the very point I am making is that the D3X is at best incrementally better at some things (eg. lownoise at higher ISO's) than, say the 1Ds3 but not as good at others (sensor cleaning). Where do you get this idea that the dual CF cards, weather proofing, viewfinder, lag, etc are demonstrably better than on the 1Ds3?? Show me the evidence, otherwise your assertions are just picked out of thin air to augment your fan perspective. And what is with this "fiasco"? Your link refers to the 1DMark III AF issue and does not relate to the 1DsIII. I certainly have never seen any issue with this.

As for the screen issue, this has been commented on before but who cares? I only use the screen to check my histograms like most people, not for previewing what the final image will look like. For that, you need a computer. A nice gimmick to have, but certainly not at all necessary to have a higher res screen. I'm concerned about final image quality and on that basis, the D3X is a great camera, but so is the 1Ds3 and the A900.

groan....I was describing how it was defined as a pro body with those features and as such it's a better CAMERA than those such as the A900 and 5D mkII. I've never understood the point of comparing pro am cameras to pro bodies, if you need pro features then no A900 is going to cut it.  Then and only then I started to compare it to the 1Ds mkIII. The D3X is by certain lights a better overall machine/tool. I can't see how that can be denied.

But feel free to get indignant about your lack of reading skills.

Oh and as for the screen, once you're focusing with LV is suddenly becomes important. Ditto trying to check focus with playback on the fuzz that is that generation of screens. But that isn't the point, in 2008 at a release price of $8000 canon released a camera with a screen that was a joke in comparison to most p&s's.

[Panopeeper]

groan....I was describing how it was defined as a pro body with those features and as such it's a better CAMERA than those such as the A900 and 5D mkII.

When the 1DsMkII has been "defined", there was neither an A900 nor a 5DMkII on the horizon. Thus it was certainly not defined in those terms. The 5DMkII is *defined* to have better image quality than the 1DsMkIII. The A900 is far from it, not only in price.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I said CAMERA not chip. If you want to define the best camera then you can't see as competitor a camera that cannot be used in the rain, has a single useable AF point, , etc, etc. Otherwise you would be saying that the best all rounder was a Mamiya with a P65+ attached which is surely nonsense. Again, talking camera, a camera as a whole, the whole package of which a percent difference (at this level!) is only a part, surely a small part of the equation. I think that is what MR meant and I concur, as a whole the D3X is the most advanced and best camera on the market today. Whether you need the best tool to do the job is relative to the specific photoraphers needs. You tell the people who went to Antartica that a 5D mkII was a better camera than a 1Ds mkIII because it may or may not have a tiny IQ advantage.

[DarkPenguin]

This too shows, how much Canon was spoiled before serious competition appeared. I guess Canon have learned a lot in this aspect.

Competition is a good thing.  I'm very appreciative of Nikon's work on De-assing Canon's collective head.