Superiority of the D3x

[BernardLanguillier]

I guess that the following image should prove once for all that nothing short of a MFDB can touch the image quality of the D3x!

 

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

I guess that the following image should prove once for all that nothing short of a MFDB can touch the image quality of the D3x!

"Lensbaby 2, megapixels put to good use"!  

Cheers,
Bernard

So you agree with me, Bernard. The camera doesn't matter   .

[ErikKaffehr]

Yeah,

That's what Ken Rockwell always said:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Erik

So you agree with me, Bernard. The camera doesn't matter   .

[Ray]

Yeah,

That's what Ken Rockwell always said:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Erik

Erik,
This Ken Rockwell article was the subject of much heated debate on this site some time ago. I tend to sympathise with the concept because all this pixel-peeping does get a bit tiresome and doesn't necessarily help one take a more interesting and meaningful photo.

I don't really care if the A900 has 1/3rd of stop better dynamic range at ISO 100, or if the D3X has 1/3rd of a stop better dynamic range at ISO 1600. But a full stop better DR at any ISO gets me interested   .

[BernardLanguillier]

So you agree with me, Bernard. The camera doesn't matter   .

Yes, of course, as long as it takes my lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jdemott]

I'm not convinced, Bernard.  On my giga-photon calibrated monitor, one of the pixels in the lower left looks suspiciously like a damaged pixel I once saw in a second-hand store.  Could you post a 500 percent crop please?  

Cheers.

[JDClements]

That's a stunner, all right. I can see a future for that one in a permanent collection, on permanent display, with at least three paragraphs of gobbledygook.  

[BernardLanguillier]

That's a stunner, all right. I can see a future for that one in a permanent collection, on permanent display, with at least three paragraphs of gobbledygook.  

That was my feeling also, but it is always nice to have backing from a neutral third party!

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

I'm not convinced, Bernard.  On my giga-photon calibrated monitor, one of the pixels in the lower left looks suspiciously like a damaged pixel I once saw in a second-hand store.  Could you post a 500 percent crop please?  

Argh... you are right, should I send the camera back.  

Cheers,
Bernard

[thierrylegros396]

Ké mec ce Bernard      

Tcherry de Liéééch

[David Anderson]

Yeah, sorry dude, but I think I'll stick with my Canons - the corners are sharper..

[dchew]

Bernard,

You should return the camera.  Your reflex mirror has fallen off.  You can see part of it in the bottom left corner of the image.

Dave Chew

[wolfnowl]

Came across this today from Joe McNally's blog: http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2009/01/10/a-monster-of-a-camera/ ://http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2009...r-of-a-camera/ ://http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/2009...r-of-a-camera/

I loved how he put it: "Hadda give the camera back. Probably a good thing, cause lawdy, lawdy, the files positively gave me the vapors, and I don’t wanna like my pictures that much. I never wanna be seduced by all those pixels to the point that I confuse a detailed picture with a good picture. All this technology (which is fantastic, and I love it) is like the Sirens on the rocky shore–come closer, wayfaring photographer, we will drown you in more pixels.

We got pixels aplenty. What we need at the camera is a beating heart and an ability to see. In terms of being a shooter, I’ve always figured I’m like the frikkin’ plumber—when the valves are popping and the waters are rising, sometimes I get the call cause I’m a halfway decent problem solver. But you know, how fancy a wrench do I need? As Magnum shooter Donald McCullin once said, “I only use a camera like I use a toothbrush. It does the job.”

Mike.