Nikon D3x Photos - ISO 100-6400

[markgoldstein]

Just to let you know that we've published sample photos taken with a production version of the brand new Nikon D3x camera, at ISO 100-6400.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_nikon_d3x_3.php

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for sharing.

Your model is still very cute at ISO6400.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

Interesting! My first impression was the ISO 6400 image looked terribly noisy; basically useless. It seems to be a characteristic of my browser, or maybe there's some option or preferences box I've not ticked. After opening the full size image in Internet Explorer, one can toggle between a large thumbnail size and a 100% view. I don't understand why the default minimum size (large thumbnail) looks so noisy. When I set any custom size between the default minimum and 100%, or open the image in PS, the image looks much cleaner and very usable.

[DesW]

Just to let you know that we've published sample photos taken with a production version of the brand new Nikon D3x camera, at ISO 100-6400.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_nikon_d3x_3.php

Hi,

Link is forbidden???

D

[Rory]

What happened to the ISO 1600 shot?  I'm a little confused as to why you would shoot the ISO 100 shot (which looks fantastic) at 1/125 and f/16, but shoot the ISO 1600 at f/4 and 1/30 if the EXIF is to be believed.  You appear to be using the same flash umbrella lighting scheme each time.  The ISO 800 shot does not appear sharp either.  Is this technique or the work of the in-camera noise reduction or diffraction at work (f/22)?

[jani]

What happened to the ISO 1600 shot?  I'm a little confused as to why you would shoot the ISO 100 shot (which looks fantastic) at 1/125 and f/16, but shoot the ISO 1600 at f/4 and 1/30 if the EXIF is to be believed.  You appear to be using the same flash umbrella lighting scheme each time.  The ISO 800 shot does not appear sharp either.  Is this technique or the work of the in-camera noise reduction or diffraction at work (f/22)?

There was also quite a lot of movement in the model's head. I'd say that the EXIF data is correct, and that the photographer was so eager to publish his test photos that he also forgot to check which ISO 1600 shot he uploaded.

[BernardLanguillier]

Some Raw Therapee conversions from raw:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30254888

They do indeed have a certain MF feel to them (lips rendition at base ISO for instance).

I don't like the colors at higher ISOs, but the noise is very well controlled I would say with still a tremendous amount of detail.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RobertJ]

Some Raw Therapee conversions from raw:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30254888

They do indeed have a certain MF feel to them (lips rendition at base ISO for instance).

I don't like the colors at higher ISOs, but the noise is very well controlled I would say with still a tremendous amount of detail.

Cheers,
Bernard

The RAW Therapee conversions at base ISO are just what I wanted to see out of the Nikon.  They look very good.  I hate "sample" images of the JPEGs from the Nikon website and everyone else on the planet/internet.

Don't care about high ISO images.