Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on September 17, 2014, 06:30:36 pm
-
Suppose I were going to convert to Nikon, specifically because their 200 macro lens + body produced better single images than a comparably-equipped Canon.
The D3x is still available ... why is nobody talking about this camera anymore ... and why is it still more than twice as expensive as the D810?
What advantages does the D3x have?
Does anyone shoot both?
If so, which do you prefer and why?
Thanks.
-
The D3x, that I used until the D800 came out, remains a very solid performer with a very good image quality at low ISO (only clearly second to the D800x in my view, close to the D6xo).
It offers amazing physical resilience and a dead solid battery life.
But the D810 is significantly ahead in terms of image quality across the board, AF and functions (EFS, live view, shutter vibration/noise),... Plus it is so much cheaper that you can buy a back up for the same amount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess it's the build of the D3x then.
Battery life is important, but you could buy a lot of batteries for the difference in price :P
I am warming to the idea of the D810.
I am not really a long-lens shooter, but have had my heart set on that 200-400. Still, most of what I actually do is single-image macro. Painstaking focus, composition, and (often) low light. (I hate the use of flash.)
The difference in image quality between the Canon + 180 macro and D810 + 200 macro was pretty sobering.
Mind you, they were just DxO scores, but the sharpness rendered was supposed to be double.
I may rent the combo for a week and see what it looks like in real life; if it really is that much more noticeable then I will have to take the plunge.
-
Hello,
I've owned a Nikon D3x and now use a Nikon D800E and D800.
The D800 camera have a far larger dynamic range the the D3x especially in the highlights.
Also the D800 raw files are what I call fatter compared to the D3x which can take raw adjustments compared to the D800.
The D800 files where as good if not better than the Leaf Aptus 75 I used to own.
It was after I purchase the D800E that I sold all my large format, medium format and D3x equipment as it all became redundant.
So in a nutshell go for the new D810.
Cheers
Simon
-
Thank you for that, Simon.
-
I owned a d3x - a d800e and i used the d810 for a week...
short: buy the d810... it is the best of the bunch... ( Why would Nikon make something less good?)
d3x was top 3 years ago... why they still sell it - i do not know... for the d800 is better already.
-
the 3dx has one advantage- more solid buit and a vertical grip... ( but weighing a pound more)
-
John:
Your idea of renting the combo is a great one. I would like to see what you think on the 200 macro. I am considering that lens also, or the 105mm. The 200 is supposed to be a great lens.
I think that as others have pointed out, you will be disappointed with the overall DR on the D3s compared to the newer Nikon's you have mentioned.
One good place to consider rental is the www.lensrentals.com. I have used them before and they have a great system.
Paul
-
I really did like the look of the D3x, it's colors, like the A900. I don't know what it was, but it sure looked good to me.
I think the D810 is probably it now.
But the one thing that I still miss is the finder on the D3x (as with the D3/D4). The D800 finder goes all wonky at the edges and corners. The D3/4 cameras just have finders that are nice and clean with plenty of clarity and edge room. I'd love it if they made just one change to the D810, and that was the finder.
-
... I'd love it if they made just one change to the D810, and that was the finder.
+1
they say the nikon F3 had a beautiful prisma... but never had it- I still like the prisma/viewfinder of my F100 better than the d800's
Maybe it has to do with the autofocus system - getting in the way..
-
Does anyone shoot both?
If so, which do you prefer and why?
I have both, although the D3x has been converted to IR. That alone tells you something. If you shoot macro, you're going to love the EFCS on the D810.
One downside to the D810 is you can't drive nails with it. ;D
Jim
-
Several years ago I was at a 2 day talk by Steve McCurry and Jim Richardson. Nikon was a sponsor. During a break one member of the audience asked the Nikon rep who in their right mind would spend $5000 on a D2X? The rep picked up the camera by the zoom lens and started hammering on the table, I mean really hard!
"Photographers who can't afford to "baby" their cameras" he replied.
My D2X was more durable than my D700 but the files from the newer camera are much better. I would assume the D810 has better files than the D3S as stated above, I hope to find out myself in due time.
-
Several years ago I was at a 2 day talk by Steve McCurry and Jim Richardson. Nikon was a sponsor. During a break one member of the audience asked the Nikon rep who in their right mind would spend $5000 on a D2X? The rep picked up the camera by the zoom lens and started hammering on the table, I mean really hard!
"Photographers who can't afford to "baby" their cameras" he replied.
My D2X was more durable than my D700 but the files from the newer camera are much better. I would assume the D810 has better files than the D3S as stated above, I hope to find out myself in due time.
Yep, those Dx bodies are very rugged.
Now the problem is the accuracy of lens mount alignement and the sustainability thereof.
My personal view has changes a lot about how carefully high mp cameras have to be treated. I would, for example, never carry any of those with a 3+ kg lens attached any longer, be it in the best photobag.
The slightest fall (think 30cm on anything harder than sand) also means a trip to the service center.
My guess is that this may be one of the reasons why there isn't yet a 54mp D4x. Durability is a core objective of Nikon in their designs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
+1
they say the nikon F3 had a beautiful prisma... but never had it- I still like the prisma/viewfinder of my F100 better than the d800's
Maybe it has to do with the autofocus system - getting in the way..
The F3 has a wonderful finder. I would love to have that in an FX DSLR!
I know that finder optics is not a gizmodic feature that brings people into stores, but it means everything to me. I will always focus manually in any situation where it is technically feasible. The AF points are a creative distraction, as is 'focus and recompse.'
-
D3X: murderdeathkill it with a missile and it'll still work. Great colors.
D800 (810 could be similar, if a bit better. I can only comment on the former): Ho-hum colors, decent-to-good build, can leave the grad NDs at home if you're packing economically, better screen.
-
D3X: murderdeathkill it with a missile and it'll still work. Great colors.
D800 (810 could be similar, if a bit better. I can only comment on the former): Ho-hum colors, decent-to-good build, can leave the grad NDs at home if you're packing economically, better screen.
D810 has different colours than the d800e... i think better
also more contrast...
I do not know if its software or hardware making these changes, but it is not the same...
-
Ho-hum colors ...
Hardware / cfa colours relate to OOC camera jpegs as they're embedded in the file. Both Lr and C1 use their own profiles for RAW's and there are other providers of custom profiles such as huelight (http://www.colorfidelity.com/nikon.htm). If Lr and/or C1 profiles aren't suitable (?) - it's a matter of 'roll your own' ...
-
D3X: murderdeathkill it with a missile and it'll still work. Great colors.
D800 (810 could be similar, if a bit better. I can only comment on the former): Ho-hum colors, decent-to-good build, can leave the grad NDs at home if you're packing economically, better screen.
Ho-hum colors are a deal-breaker ...
Absolute resolution is nice, but shape and color are everything ...
-
Ho-hum colors are a deal-breaker ...
Absolute resolution is nice, but shape and color are everything ...
I personally like the colours I am getting with the D810 + C1 Pro 8.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157645832791611/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I personally like the colours I am getting with the D810 + C1 Pro 8.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157645832791611/
Cheers,
Bernard
It's hard to compare, since most of your shots are taken in broad daylight, where the lighting is not optimal.
One thing Canon shooters have always enjoyed is wonderful color rendition.
Here is my Photostream (https://www.flickr.com/photos/macrophotopro), and I just use a 7D.
I love the colors I get in my Canon, but part of that is simply capturing my shots in the early morning (pastel) light.
Jack
-
Jack,
I would buy a 7DII if I were you. It is obviously the body you had been waiting for.
I don't know you but I have read many of your posts recently. What gets conveyed in a totally unmistakable way is that a Nikon body will never satisfy you fully because... it isn't a Canon.
There is nothing wrong with that but you would IMHO save time and money by just acknowledging this and acting accordingly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jack,
I would buy a 7DII if I were you. It is obviously the body you had been waiting for.
But you're not me (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
I am sorry if my last post offended you, but the colors in your images are quite ordinary. Nothing spectacular about them IMO.
I can only be perfectly honest when I give opinions.
It was honestly hard for me to tell what kind of color rendition your D810 had, based on the subject matter you chose (as well as the lighting conditions).
I know my 7D isn't as good a camera as a D810, but the colors in my images "pop" more than yours, precisely because of the subject matter + lighting conditions.
Similarly, THESE colors (with the same camera you have) truly blow me away: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydaley
Do you honestly think there is any comparison in "wow" between the colors of your images (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157645832791611) and these above?
It's not the camera; it's not even the photographer.
It's the subject matter + light conditions.
I don't know you but I have read many of your posts recently. What gets conveyed in a totally unmistakable way is that a Nikon body will never satisfy you fully because... it isn't a Canon.
You could actually repeat that sentence to yourself in the mirror ... substitute the word "Nikon" for Canon (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
There is nothing wrong with that but you would IMHO save time and money by just acknowledging this and acting accordingly.
Cheers,
Bernard
This is an absurd post, Bernard, and again I am sorry if you got offended.
If you actually did read my latest posts you'd see I am seriously considering the D810.
One poster merely said the D800 had ho-hum colors, compared to the D3x, which is definitely a deal-breaker for me.
Another poster said the D810 had superior color rendition than the D800, which is good news.
You posted your Photostream as "proof" of the color rendition in the D810, but I am sorry, my honest opinion is there is nothing "spectacular" about the color of any of your nature shots.
That is merely my opinion, and I am sorry if this offends you, but that is just the way it is. This isn't a slam on you personally at all. The colors in your shots are simply quite ordinary IMO.
However, the colors in Jay Daley's shots are for the most part fabulous IMO.
It's all about the subject matter and light.
You can take a photo of the grass and trees at 12 noon ... and then you can take a photograph of the sunset at 6:30 pm ... with the same camera ... and one photo will simply come out ho-hum, while the other one spectacular.
Same camera, same photographer ...
Different colors, different light, different "wow" factor ...
Have a good one,
Jack
-
Jack,
I am not offended the least bit by your opinion. Make no mistake, I would tell you clearly if I were.
My goal in posting this link wasn't to impress you or to convince you that the D810 is right fir you, but simply to provide you with one data point.
Getting impressive colors isn't something I am shooting for in these images, it would be easy to increase saturation if that were the objective.
My opinion remains, you should buy the 7DII and this is a sincere first degree statment devoid of any cynical content. If you prove me wrong and buy a D810 I will gladly provide you with advice on usage. But I am 99% sure that you will not buy a D810 or won't be fully satisfied even if you do.
As far as I am concerned, I'll buy the first Canon body offering one stop additional DR over its Nikon equivalent. I know what I need and the brand on the box is irrelevant to me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Different colors, different light, different "wow" factor ...
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/
-
But you're not me (http://www.macrophotopro.com/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
I am sorry if my last post offended you, but the colors in your images are quite ordinary. Nothing spectacular about them IMO.
You posted your Photostream as "proof" of the color rendition in the D810, but I am sorry, my honest opinion is there is nothing "spectacular" about the color of any of your nature shots.
That is merely my opinion, and I am sorry if this offends you, but that is just the way it is. This isn't a slam on you personally at all. The colors in your shots are simply quite ordinary IMO.
However, the colors in Jay Daley's shots are for the most part fabulous IMO.
It's all about the subject matter and light.
You can take a photo of the grass and trees at 12 noon ... and then you can take a photograph of the sunset at 6:30 pm ... with the same camera ... and one photo will simply come out ho-hum, while the other one spectacular.
Same camera, same photographer ...
Different colors, different light, different "wow" factor ...
Have a good one,
Jack
I saw a comparison of images taken by the owner of a camera shop with the Nikon 800 and 810, side by side, and they were very similar.
-
I always saw the D800e as a D3x replacement rather then a D700...the only thing is to get rid of the pop up flash so I could work better with the PC-e lenses!
-
Hardware / cfa colours relate to OOC camera jpegs as they're embedded in the file. Both Lr and C1 use their own profiles for RAW's and there are other providers of custom profiles such as huelight (http://www.colorfidelity.com/nikon.htm). If Lr and/or C1 profiles aren't suitable (?) - it's a matter of 'roll your own' ...
I wasn't talking about OOC colors or even standard profiles. I had previously mentioned in the forum that the D800 delivers its best color output when the IQ 250 profile is used in C1P (With a few tweaks here and there). It still doesn't look all that impressive to me, at least for portraiture. D3X wins any day for color in my books.
As a matter of fact, I still love the color rendering of my long dead D70s. If only it wasn't a measly 6MP... :(
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/1465180_10151859701404209_310454908_n.jpg?oh=f336c43e80a004a804f4472a7889e644&oe=54884DED)
Lastly, take my opinion as very biased. My serious work gets done on a Leaf Credo and it's very hard to objectively judge 35mm colors once you work with a Leaf back.
-
Lastly, take my opinion as very biased. My serious work gets done on a Leaf Credo and it's very hard to objectively judge 35mm colors once you work with a Leaf back.
Yep, I feel for you, it isn't easy to deal with the everyday world when you get used to that level of excellence.
Now I was glad to read your comment about leaf's new Sony CMOS sensor based back. It seems to get a good rating from you in terms of colors. This means it isn't a CMOS issue, nor a Sony sensor issue.
So, who knows, perhaps Nikon's engineers may be able to overcome their color incompetence some day using the same Sony sensors. This is good news for the millions unable to afford a Leaf who currently live in a near colorless world. :))
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canikon engineers will never prioritize color as long as they are chasing umptigazillion ISOs. Gotta make those moonlit shots, don't we?
-
Canikon engineers will never prioritize color as long as they are chasing umptigazillion ISOs. Gotta make those moonlit shots, don't we?
Argh... we are doomed.
I'll probably stop photography next week, what would be the point...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I always saw the D800e as a D3x replacement rather then a D700...the only thing is to get rid of the pop up flash so I could work better with the PC-e lenses!
You only have a slight problem with the 24PCE lens... one position...
-
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/
Interesting ... thanks.
-
Jack,
I am not offended the least bit by your opinion. Make no mistake, I would tell you clearly if I were.
My goal in posting this link wasn't to impress you or to convince you that the D810 is right fir you, but simply to provide you with one data point.
Getting impressive colors isn't something I am shooting for in these images, it would be easy to increase saturation if that were the objective.
My opinion remains, you should buy the 7DII and this is a sincere first degree statment devoid of any cynical content. If you prove me wrong and buy a D810 I will gladly provide you with advice on usage. But I am 99% sure that you will not buy a D810 or won't be fully satisfied even if you do.
As far as I am concerned, I'll buy the first Canon body offering one stop additional DR over its Nikon equivalent. I know what I need and the brand on the box is irrelevant to me.
Cheers,
Bernard
Honestly, Bernard, you should worry about your own hoola-hoop.
What I decide to buy should be of no consequence to you.
I don't claim to understand it all, but how a camera renders color appears to vary, some being more pleasing, some less pleasing ...
Of course this is all subjective, based on the user, or (shall I say) viewer.
Having awesome resolution is a good thing, but if a camera renders colors in a flat or displeasing fashion, this would be a bad thing.
I won't be making a decision until December, so we'll see what happens.
Have a good one,
Jack
-
I wasn't talking about OOC colors or even standard profiles. I had previously mentioned in the forum that the D800 delivers its best color output when the IQ 250 profile is used in C1P (With a few tweaks here and there).
Which is exactly the point I made - final colour rendering is mostly dependent on profile and post.
Now the Nikon's (D800) do have a reputation for being heavy handed in the reds, and this is probably one of the reasons they have such a good reputation as a B&W cam. Straight out. Bottom line is you need to differentiate between accurate colour and pleasing colour. The latter, your interest, is, IMO, more relevant in portraiture. The 'wow-colour' shots the OP has linked to above have little to do with OOC colours, more with post.
It still doesn't look all that impressive to me, at least for portraiture. D3X wins any day for color in my books. [...] Lastly, take my opinion as very biased. My serious work gets done on a Leaf Credo and it's very hard to objectively judge 35mm colors once you work with a Leaf back.
Skin tones though, are a whole different ball game - now we're not just discussing colours and we're back into Leaf v Nikon (or MF v FF, if you prefer) and CCD v CMOS. Perhaps another time ... (then again, perhaps not).
I've limited colour experience, but rather than perpetuate inaccuracies and myths, strongly suggest a quick PM to either Edmund or Bart who have a far greater understanding and expertise than most of us. If they're reading this, they might even give us the benefit of their input of their own accord. Nothing wrong with biased opinions, we all have them, just as long as they're recognised as such.
Edit:
Remembered this post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84654.msg685288#msg685288) which gives an indication of how a simple WB adjustment to a colour checker passport reference can neutralise colours and, in this case, skin tones.
" .. here are 3 images from the GX7, 645D, and A7R with the white balance set to the same numeric value. The difference between how the sensor picks up the colours is different, especially on the skin tones. "
-
I have test shot both, but have not owned either.
For me, the D810 without question, but then I don't need the absolute durability of the D3x. I would be swayed by the dynamic range, pixel count and noise control at higher ISO.
There is a objective process to make these choices. List all the your "Must Haves" and all your "Wants" The "Must Haves" can be reflected in the wants as well. For example, you might have a "Must Have" of 12MP but then also have a "Want" of "Highest MP Possible". Then rank your "Wants" in importance using a numerical scale...say 1-5 with 1 being low priority and 5 being higher. Any camera that doesn't meet the "Must Haves" is dropped from consideration. The remainders you just add up the wants values and take the highest scoring body! You might actually find that one of these don't even make the cut on your Must Haves!
-
@Manoli: I don't want to hijack another person's thread, but c'mon mate. It's kinda naive to imagine that other folk are not aware of color profiling, color checker passport and so on. I use them both in my workflow. Everything is calibrated from start to end. My opinions on cameras are based on how they perform under that consistent workflow, which has been developed after reading up and talking to very accomplished people in the industry. and it's a fact that some cameras do some things better than the others. Color rendition being one of them.
I have no interest in getting into another technological war about CCD vs CMOS and whatnot. (Last time I checked, the D3X and D800 were both CMOS btw). My whole point, after shooting both cameras is that the D3X delivers more pleasing colors out of the box than the D800. You can tweak them both to be whatever, but you'll get there faster with the D3X. I am not sure if you own/ owned either/ both of these cameras, but I highly recommend that you try it out within your workflow and verify this for yourself.
The D800 is a fantastic camera. It has helped me make images that were simply not possible (At least, at that price point) in the past. It does a lot of things well, just that color rendition isn't one of them. Not within the 35mm realm, not even within the Nikon portfolio, IMO.
Please accept this extremely subjective (As mentioned clearly in the disclaimer) and move on. :)
-
Yes, the Sigma Foveon Merrill sensors have lots of good features, but color rendition can be a bit idiosyncratic in some conditions. Fun cameras to shoot with, as long as you can stay at ISO 100-400. The post-processing, well, that is less fun, starting with the somewhat unstable Sigma Photo Pro RAW converter, which crashes every third or fourth session.
I consider that we are fortunate to have all the choices that we have.
-
Hi,
Really nice picture!
Best regards
Erik
I wasn't talking about OOC colors or even standard profiles. I had previously mentioned in the forum that the D800 delivers its best color output when the IQ 250 profile is used in C1P (With a few tweaks here and there). It still doesn't look all that impressive to me, at least for portraiture. D3X wins any day for color in my books.
As a matter of fact, I still love the color rendering of my long dead D70s. If only it wasn't a measly 6MP... :(
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/1465180_10151859701404209_310454908_n.jpg?oh=f336c43e80a004a804f4472a7889e644&oe=54884DED)
Lastly, take my opinion as very biased. My serious work gets done on a Leaf Credo and it's very hard to objectively judge 35mm colors once you work with a Leaf back.