"The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"

[douglasf13]

These results are very similar to my own tests using Imaging Resource jpegs I downloaded from their Comparator. The D3X image after downsampling to the D3 size is still slightly sharper than the D3 image and, even at ISO 6400, hardly noisier. I got the impression that a D3 would be completely redundant for anyone who owned both cameras.

  Iliah Borg, who owns both cameras, claims that, in many situations, using the D3 and upsizing at >ISO 800 is better than using the D3x, FWIW.

[Ray]

Iliah Borg, who owns both cameras, claims that, in many situations, using the D3 and upsizing at >ISO 800 is better than using the D3x, FWIW.

Well, it certainly can't be better resolution-wise, so I suppose he must be referring to noise. When noise is an issue, the higher resolution image can still have an advantage. Resolution can be traded for lower noise, using noise reduction programs.

If anyone has an example of a D3 image which has lower noise yet at least equal resolution to the D3X, then I'd like to see it.

[DarkPenguin]

Well, it certainly can't be better resolution-wise, so I suppose he must be referring to noise. When noise is an issue, the higher resolution image can still have an advantage. Resolution can be traded for lower noise, using noise reduction programs.

If anyone has an example of a D3 image which has lower noise yet at least equal resolution to the D3X, then I'd like to see it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30499149

[Ray]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30499149

I would like to see the image, the camparison and the methodology. I can then question the methodology. It's clear to me that the D3X will always produce a higher resolution image than the D3 whatever the ISO. If noise is likely to be an issue because it might be obvious on a print of a particular size, then the superior resolution of the Dx3 can be sacrificed to reduce noise with a program such as Noise Ninja, before the print is made. That's the principle.

The only doubt in my mind is whether or not the full resolution advantage of the D3X image would have to be sacrificed in order to equal D3 noise. I suspect that after equalising noise, even at ISO 6400, the D3X image would still have a resolution edge.

[Tony Beach]

I would like to see the image, the camparison and the methodology. I can then question the methodology. It's clear to me that the D3X will always produce a higher resolution image than the D3 whatever the ISO. If noise is likely to be an issue because it might be obvious on a print of a particular size, then the superior resolution of the Dx3 can be sacrificed to reduce noise with a program such as Noise Ninja, before the print is made. That's the principle.

The only doubt in my mind is whether or not the full resolution advantage of the D3X image would have to be sacrificed in order to equal D3 noise. I suspect that after equalising noise, even at ISO 6400, the D3X image would still have a resolution edge.

According to two extremely experienced photographers you would be wrong, and the difference between them and you is that they have both cameras and have done the head to head comparisons while you are speculating that you can do it better than they can.  Thom Hogan and Iliah Borg agree that the resolution of the two cameras is pretty much the same at ISO 1600.  Iliah Borg replied to me in that thread (and you can read it again just to get it clear what he wrote) that there are other parameters besides resolution that give an advantage to the D3 even as low as ISO 800 -- I'm sure color fidelity is one of those parameters he was referring to.

All of this discussion about downsampling images from higher resolution cameras to make them match lower resolution cameras reminds me killing flies with a shotgun -- you might be able to do it, but the guy with a flyswatter does it more efficiently and does a better job at it too.  In the past this argument held up because the higher resolution cameras were newer technology, but right now the D3 sensor is still state of the art, so it still beats higher resolution cameras at what it does best, which is high ISO under dim artificial lighting.

[Leping]

Thom is far from where I am but Lloyd Chambers is nearby, and I can observe he did his study as carefully as one possibly can with the world's best optics.

And from my scientific training, and experiences as a senior imaging scientist and also an experienced and well respected landscape photographer, it is a no brainer that for Bayer sensors more MPs always means less demosiacing artifacts, which is, again, clearly shown here:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-01-blog....0090109NikonD3x

Killing flies with arrays of shotgun is called oversampling, even no Bayer sensors are involved, which is almost always a good thing in the world of digital sampling, and, in the case of flies, a cost insensitive over but more sure kill.

Get into Lloyd's DAP to see with your own eyes if the resolution at ISO 1600 is the same.  Of course there are tons of ways to make them the same (handhold, not top notch optics, out of focus, motion, etc.) where only one way, called the right methodology, to demonstrate the big differences.  If someone tells you D3x does not record any more details than the D3 at 1600 ISO, what it tells is only that you were listening to an incompetent tester, even he or she actually has the means to own the equipment.

According to two extremely experienced photographers you would be wrong, and the difference between them and you is that they have both cameras and have done the head to head comparisons while you are speculating that you can do it better than they can.  Thom Hogan and Iliah Borg agree that the resolution of the two cameras is pretty much the same at ISO 1600.  Iliah Borg replied to me in that thread (and you can read it again just to get it clear what he wrote) that there are other parameters besides resolution that give an advantage to the D3 even as low as ISO 800 -- I'm sure color fidelity is one of those parameters he was referring to.

All of this discussion about downsampling images from higher resolution cameras to make them match lower resolution cameras reminds me killing flies with a shotgun -- you might be able to do it, but the guy with a flyswatter does it more efficiently and does a better job at it too.  In the past this argument held up because the higher resolution cameras were newer technology, but right now the D3 sensor is still state of the art, so it still beats higher resolution cameras at what it does best, which is high ISO under dim artificial lighting.

[Ray]

According to two extremely experienced photographers you would be wrong, and the difference between them and you is that they have both cameras and have done the head to head comparisons while you are speculating that you can do it better than they can.

I'm always happy to be proved wrong. That's how I learn. I do a few tests with the material available. I use my common sense, experience and what little knowledge I possess to make certain deductions and draw certain conclusions.

If I've overlooked something, or my testing material was flawed in some way, or perhaps I didn't use the best converter available for a particular camera, then I'm happy to have such flaws in my methodology mentioned. I've got no barrow to push here except getting at the facts.

What I don't go along with are claims that because so and so are very experienced photographers and actually own the equipment under discussion, they must always be right on all issues.

Show me the images. Describe the methodology.

[ErikKaffehr]

I don't have any issue with your conclusions but I'm suspicious about using JPEGs. Really looking forward to see the analysis of the D3X sensor on the DxO-mark site, BTW.

As I see it we need to see a camera as a part of workflow. IMHO it is perfectly OK to process a high res image in Noise Ninja (or similar products). What I really would like to see is a parametric workflow like in LR but Noise Ninja introduced early in the process. Bibble 5 is coming this year, it has a lot of promise in this area.

What I see as a problem with high ISOs is that DR is going down. According to DxO-mark it's going down faster on the Alpha 900 than on the Canon 5DII, this could be possibly an area where 14 bits are in advantage over 12 bits.

The issue doesn't really matter for me, in the film days I was shooting Panatomic and Velvia even on my Pentax 67 and always had the view that a tripod was a perfect place to put the camera on.

Erik

These results are very similar to my own tests using Imaging Resource jpegs I downloaded from their Comparator. The D3X image after downsampling to the D3 size is still slightly sharper than the D3 image and, even at ISO 6400, hardly noisier. I got the impression that a D3 would be completely redundant for anyone who owned both cameras.

[Ray]

I don't have any issue with your conclusions but I'm suspicious about using JPEGs. Really looking forward to see the analysis of the D3X sensor on the DxO-mark site, BTW.
Erik

Erik,
Unfortunately DXOmark does not show results at equal image size. But they do have an article admitting and explaning the noise reduction that takes place when an image is downsampled. I have no doubt that DXOmark graphs will show the D3 being better in terms of S/N and DR (than the D3X) at the pixel level.

Only carefully executed comparison shots with the two cameras, and appropriate noise reduction and downsampling (or upsampling) will tell the true story.

[jani]

Unfortunately DXOmark does not show results at equal image size.

Select the view for "print", and you do get that.

[Ray]

Select the view for "print", and you do get that.

Well, I'll be damned! Has that box always been there? Looks like I've been doing so much pixel-peeping I can't see the forest for the trees   .

[Tony Beach]

Get into Lloyd's DAP to see with your own eyes if the resolution at ISO 1600 is the same.  Of course there are tons of ways to make them the same (handhold, not top notch optics, out of focus, motion, etc.) where only one way, called the right methodology, to demonstrate the big differences.  If someone tells you D3x does not record any more details than the D3 at 1600 ISO, what it tells is only that you were listening to an incompetent tester, even he or she actually has the means to own the equipment.

Whatever, I've read your nonsense and it doesn't carry any weight with me.  Lots of "scientists" also dispute evolution or the role of people in global warming and just about any other quackery you can imagine.

In the real world you turn up ISO when you have to cope with no tripod, bad light, using the camera's AF, and subject motion.  What you, Lloyd Chambers, and others are saying is that in a studio where you eliminate all these considerations that you can get better results with the D3x than the D3 -- that makes sense since the D3x was designed as a studio camera.  Try putting a D3x in the real world and see how it does under poor artificial lighting; that's when things start breaking in favor of the D3.



My client asks for this shot, taken with my D300 at 14mm, f/6.3, 1/250s, and ISO 1000.  Now I could buy a D3x (I will buy a "D700x" instead when it is available) and take this image two ways:  DX mode at 10 MP with all the same settings I used; or FX mode at 24 MP, 21mm, f/9, f/250s and ISO 2000.  Now I go to Imaging Resource which is a site I don't care for, but I download their D3x ISO 1600 studio shot with NR turned off, and everywhere I look my D300 shot above has far less noise even after resizing the D3x images.  Looks like the client who has more than enough resolution at 10 MP would rather I shot at ISO 1000 than ISO 2000 with 2.4 times as many pixels -- that's because in the real world where format, DOF, shutter speed, and ISO matter you will trade noise for resolution and at some point that noise will eat up the resolution (especially when you prepare images for final output which raises the thorny issues of conversion, post processing, and what the print is capable of showing).

Show me the images. Describe the methodology.

Thom will be publishing a review of the D3x, which he is working on now.  He has been using both the D3x and the D3 in a basketball gym (just like a "real" photographer would) and that's what he has based his preliminary evaluations on.  As for Thom and Iliah showing you their methodology; why don't you show us yours?  Only problem is that you have none to offer because you don't have either camera.

Really looking forward to see the analysis of the D3X sensor on the DxO-mark site, BTW.

As if that were the last word.

[douglasf13]

FWIW, the D3 sensor's read noise makes it ideal for mid to high ISO ranges, whereas the Sony sensor's column ADCs produce very low read noise at and around base ISO, but it doesn't fair as well at mid to high ISO.  Essentially, the argument that the D3x can do the work of the D3 when downsized would hold more water if they were the same sensor design with different megapixel counts, but the sensor designs are so different and tailored for different things that such a comparison is more difficult. Iliah's brief comparison of the two at higher ISO were for very large prints where both files needed to be substantially upsized, and he's found that the D3 does a better job in this case at ISO 800+

[OldScotch]

Canon D30 (3 mp) - less resolution than low-iso 35mm film, but noise less than grain on 35mm film (overall IQ fairly similar to good 35mm film) - prints 6x9 inches very comfortably, 8x12 in a stretch. Dynamic range of low-DR slide film at 5-6 stops (nail exposures and be careful with subjects).

Sony 6 mp CCD (was in a ton of DSLRs for a while, still in Nikon D40) - resolution more or less equivalent to 35mm, prints a little bigger than I've ever been comfortable with from 35mm due to noise advantage, especially in its newer incarnations (8x12 easily, 11x17 possible). Dynamic range better than most slide films, not close to print film (in the range of 7 good stops).

Nikon D200 (10 mp) - resolution significantly better than 35mm (between 35mm and 645). Overall image quality approaching 645 (which I'd say still has the edge). Prints 11x17 easily, but 16x24 is a big stretch (I've done it, am not terribly happy with the results). Dynamic range similar to 6 mp sensor.

Canon EOS 1Ds mkII (16.7 mp) - resolution nearly equivalent to 645 film, with overall image quality probably slightly to somewhat ahead of 645. The first digital camera I have used that really plays in medium format (film) territory. Dynamic range improved over any previous digital camera I had used by at least a stop (8 or more really good stops in a raw file). Prints 16x24 fairly easily, but gives up before 24x36.

Nikon D3x (24.4 mp) - resolution well into medium-format territory, close to 6x9 cm scanned film (much sharper per pixel than 1Ds mkII due to improvements in sensor/AA technology). Overall image quality significantly better than scanned 6x9 cm Velvia! Dynamic range appears to be over 9 stops, maybe 10, while remaining completely noiseless. The only files I've seen that are definitively better are scans from large-format film. Prints 24x36 inches (a 25x enlargement) very comfortably, even examining the print from a few inches away. Files appear sharp and detailed on screen at 100%

I'm sorry, but what is this based on? 10mp resolution "significantly" better than 35mm film? 24mp close to 6x9?

Look how well Velvia and Ektar 35mm hold up to 24mp digital: http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm

[Slough]

Sony 6 mp CCD (was in a ton of DSLRs for a while, still in Nikon D40) - resolution more or less equivalent to 35mm, prints a little bigger than I've ever been comfortable with from 35mm due to noise advantage, especially in its newer incarnations (8x12 easily, 11x17 possible). Dynamic range better than most slide films, not close to print film (in the range of 7 good stops).

Nikon D200 (10 mp) - resolution significantly better than 35mm (between 35mm and 645). Overall image quality approaching 645 (which I'd say still has the edge). Prints 11x17 easily, but 16x24 is a big stretch (I've done it, am not terribly happy with the results). Dynamic range similar to 6 mp sensor.

Sorry but that is incorrect. I am currently performing some tests to compare a D200 with Fuji Velvia 100 F colour slide film. I am using a laboratory microscope to enlarge portions of the slide film, and my results indicate that in terms of resolution the two are pretty much on a par. In terms of IQ though the DSLR image is noticeably superior due to smoother gradations of tones. Basically the slide image is rather grainy and 'soft'. Of course what I am recording is an upper limit for film, since in practice we do not use a high quality microscope to view the slide, but an enlarger to create a print, or a film scanner to create a digital file. So your statements might be correct when taken in the context of using a typical desktop scanner. I hope to check to see if that is true using a Minolta 5400 slide scanner.

One interesting result found by someone else is that a 6 MP DSLR has much higher resolution than a 200 ASA print film. It looks as if print film is optimised for dynamic range and not resolution.

[Slough]

I'm sorry, but what is this based on? 10mp resolution "significantly" better than 35mm film? 24mp close to 6x9?

Look how well Velvia and Ektar 35mm hold up to 24mp digital: http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm

To my eyes the A900 knocks the spots off the 'horrible' film images. What the author takes as extra detail in the Velvia image is in fact noise. Add speckle noise to the A900 image, and it will 'improve' it to the level of the Velvia one.

[Leping]

It got so rude and personal, this will be my last post in the thread since it does not worth my time to say anything more.  Just as I said, there are hundreds of situations in which the D3 makes a better camera in the world, such as handhold, and the rude party is admitting he is talking about handhold.  Oranges to apples, to say the least.  I never found a tripod setup less than 20lb in weight is adequate, and I drill holes through the center column to hang my 35+ pound backpack before I even consider a shot.  Apparently some handhold people don't understand how capable landscape photographers work, and simply categorize anything not relevant to their style "nonsesnss", as their corner is the whole world.  More than enough said.

There happens some landscapers also understand handhold, and the attached is one of mine.

Whatever, I've read your nonsense and it doesn't carry any weight with me.  Lots of "scientists" also dispute evolution or the role of people in global warming and just about any other quackery you can imagine.

In the real world you turn up ISO when you have to cope with no tripod, bad light, using the camera's AF, and subject motion.  What you, Lloyd Chambers, and others are saying is that in a studio where you eliminate all these considerations that you can get better results with the D3x than the D3 -- that makes sense since the D3x was designed as a studio camera.  Try putting a D3x in the real world and see how it does under poor artificial lighting; that's when things start breaking in favor of the D3.

[Ray]

Iliah's brief comparison of the two at higher ISO were for very large prints where both files needed to be substantially upsized, and he's found that the D3 does a better job in this case at ISO 800+

I find that to be a very strange result indeed. Results like that which are counterintuitive deserve more attention and scrutiny. It's difficult to grasp how an image with half the pixel count of another could look better when both are interpolated for very large prints, unless the larger image initially was substantially more noisy and degraded.

However, I could believe such results if the D3 was compared with the A900 at ISO and above, because we already know that A900 resolution begins to suffer above ISO 400, and some reports claim even above ISO 200.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My impression is that nowdays the frequency at which MTF of 50 percent is achieved is regarded a better measure of image quality than pure resolution. This does not contradict your findings in any way, but can explain if we perceive digital images to be sharper than film even if digital does not resolve higher.

Another aspect is that sharpening is always a part of the digital workflow. So we need to compare optimally sharpened images fro each medium. What is optimal sharpening is also a matter of perception.

Best regards
Erik

Sorry but that is incorrect. I am currently performing some tests to compare a D200 with Fuji Velvia 100 F colour slide film. I am using a laboratory microscope to enlarge portions of the slide film, and my results indicate that in terms of resolution the two are pretty much on a par. In terms of IQ though the DSLR image is noticeably superior due to smoother gradations of tones. Basically the slide image is rather grainy and 'soft'. Of course what I am recording is an upper limit for film, since in practice we do not use a high quality microscope to view the slide, but an enlarger to create a print, or a film scanner to create a digital file. So your statements might be correct when taken in the context of using a typical desktop scanner. I hope to check to see if that is true using a Minolta 5400 slide scanner.

One interesting result found by someone else is that a 6 MP DSLR has much higher resolution than a 200 ASA print film. It looks as if print film is optimised for dynamic range and not resolution.

[douglasf13]

However, I could believe such results if the D3 was compared with the A900 at ISO and above, because we already know that A900 resolution begins to suffer above ISO 400, and some reports claim even above ISO 200.

  This depends on a lot of things. RAW converters, exposure technique, etc.  With your average workflow, the A900 is competitive until ISO 800, and starts to loose lots of ground at ISO 1600+.  However, bypassing the camera's ISO boosting results in much better low light shots.  For example, if you meter a scene at ISO 1600, F8, 1/100 in manual mode, and then drop the ISO to base ISO, shoot the scene, and then boost the exposure in a good RAW program like RPP, the noise of the A900 improves dramatically.  Iliah has helped a lot of A900 users with this info.  He owns the D3, D3x, and A900, and here is a quick blurb from him about his opinions:

"I compared prints from D3, 1D MkIII, 1Ds MkIII, D3X, and A900 in this regards [24"x26".] To my humble opinion, in complex natural light D3X gives me more opportunity to pull the shadows out. Canons and D3 were second best. For normal landscapes with rather flat light (scene range was slightly more than 8.5 eV) separation in greens was better with A900, followed by D3X. Same, for portraits of dark-skinned persons and persons with dark hair; as well as for an imitated wedding shots D3X is easier for me, followed by A900. Lenses were all Zeiss, though different between Sony and others. All shots were carefully focused manually, 5 times, best were compared. To eliminate the lens factor I will reshoot with Zeiss 2/110 as soon as I will have an adaptor for Sony."

  All of the fullframe cameras are nuanced, and each has it's own strengths/weaknesses.