Where there could be a significant difference in favour of the d3x at low ISO is in DR, smoothness of tonal transitions and detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe, but it could be negated by the lenses.
I have been shooting with the two zeiss primes for almost a year by now, (20 years of Nikon and 5 years of canon as well, not mentioning hassy and mamiya), the nikon primes do not have certain characteristics of the zeiss. It is too complicate to explain and even showing examples would be a daunting task. Only using the equipment several times on several condition with different bodies convinced me of that. that is enough for me.
where the d3x could have an advantage in DR and transitions (eventually), it could be made up by the Zeiss lenses on the other body. The CZ are on another planet compared to anything that Zeiss made for hasselblad, contax and all the manual focus that are unloading for the other makes. The CZ have been redesigned (even if on the same base) from scratch.
Sometimes you can see the difference immediately, sometime it takes few images on different lighting, but the difference will come to your eyes. It s mostly the micro-contrast on the mid range that make the difference. Something that cannot be achieved in post without screwing other tones on the image.
if you ever shot some film with nikon next to the Hasselblad or Rolley, you may know what I mean. it is not at the same extent, because the larger format gave some advantages, but that difference still carried on, on these lenses.
It does not have anything to do with sharpness.
By the way some of the beauty and portrait images from the D3x, has still the problem of the green tinge on skin shadows transition and magenta green shifts on gray backgrounds with gradients which was plaguing the kodaks. It is not at the same extent, it is actually almost invisible, but it is there. look at the girl with the pearl chin and some of the shots of the black girl with the horse on the beach. look at the sand.
With the Kodaks the problem came from the lenses that had the rear glass very narrow. you can mostly see it with the photos made with the 60mm micro which was unusable on the kodaks.
i'm still surprised that some of the Nikon experts did not catch this problem yet.