Quality vs Value

[NikosR]

Secondly, the DxO scores may be fine to compare within brands - use it to look at the various Nikon cams, for example, but I think one can not rely on DxO scores to tell you much about how different makes of cameras compare.  And here is one reason why: DxO measures noise, among other things, and these noise stats go into their final rankings. But Nikon sensors process out chrominance noise on-chip before the RAW image is outputted - other makers do not do this. This is an inherent bias, and there are most likely others.  DxO rewards Nikon's strategy in their rankings, but this does not tell you what we need to know, which leads to...

I'm not sure I can follow this train of thought. Regardless if the DxO results are accurate or not, or can be supported by or correlated to subjective evidence or not, what does what any manufacturer do with its sensor output before comiting to a raw file have anything to do with it? DxO purport to measure the camera raw output not the output of an individual element in the camera processing chain. All camera makers try to improve the camera's output at many points in the processing chain. What's wrong about that and why should we care (unless we are camera engineers)?

Am I missing something here?

(And BTW how do YOU know what exactly Nikon do and at what level in their processing chain? Do you have any insider info you can share with us? Can you explain exactly the difference between chroma and luma noise before the demosaicing process takes place?)

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, because I don't buy into your premise that the D3x's IQ is that much better than that of the A900, except at higher ISOs.

I'll be writing more on this in the days ahead, so I'll keep my powder dry for the moment.

We must be seeing different things then.

Interestingly, I find the D3x's image quality most remarkable at ISO100. At ISO 200-640, the D3x and A900 are much closer than at ISO100 or above 800.

For what it is worth my premise is backed up by several other sources including DxO tests.

Cheers,
Bernard

[michael]

But have you tried the A900 at ISO 100?  

Michael

[BernardLanguillier]

But have you tried the A900 at ISO 100?  

Michael

Good point.  On the other hand, what matters to me is the best possible achievable quality. Whether it is at ISO100 or 200 is not that relevant.

Everybody is obviously different, but I personnally rarelly shoot serious stuff without a tripod, and ISO 100 is rarely a problem. I never had a problem shooting my ZD at ISO50, except when that took me to exposure times that the ZD was not comfortable with. Since the D3x is also excellent with long exposures, ISO 100 is perfectly fine. ISO200 on the D3x is still very good, but I would not call it outstanding compared to the competition.

As a side note, I am very happy about my new Gitzo GT5531s, that is what I call a robust tripod!

Cheers,
Bernard

[ziocan]

Referring to one example Michael mentioned in his essay, based on my own comparison of several tens of raw files, I feel that the D3x is more than 10% better than the A900. The difference in base ISO DR alone is good enough for me although better micro-detail would probably be emphasized by others also. This being said, I am not sure that my usage of the A900 files is optimal (I converted them with C1 4.6).

In fact, my personal feeling is that there is as much difference between the D3x and the A900 as there was between a ZD/P25+ and 1ds2 for instance. So where you draw the line and start to decide that there is enough value to justify the gap of price really depends on everyone's priorities at a given moment in time.


Bernard

Capture1 4.6 is very good for the a900.
Anyway it all depends by what kind of files from the a900 you plaid with.
I would be very surprised to see any 1% advantage on the d3x ( at lower ISOs), even less a 10% advantage, considering that the nikon lenses cannot deliver anything of that magnitude compared to lenses by Sony, Zeiss and some Minolta as well.
Not mentioning the classic "35mm Nikon look", that will never go away even with a million megapixels sensor. Unless nikon will redesign their lenses and improve coating and aperture blades.

[ziocan]

For what it is worth my premise is backed up by several other sources including DxO tests.

Cheers,
Bernard

Exactly.

[NashvilleMike]

Capture1 4.6 is very good for the a900.
Anyway it all depends by what kind of files from the a900 you plaid with.
I would be very surprised to see any 1% advantage on the d3x ( at lower ISOs), even less a 10% advantage, considering that the nikon lenses cannot deliver anything of that magnitude compared to lenses by Sony, Zeiss and some Minolta as well.
Not mentioning the classic "35mm Nikon look", that will never go away even with a million megapixels sensor. Unless nikon will redesign their lenses and improve coating and aperture blades.

Dude, to be very frank - commentary such as the above with it's obvious brand bashing isn't really helpful to anyone and isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Take this kind of crap over to dpreview. The forums here used to be about discussion, about differences - sure, but discussion without constant brand bashing and with respect to the various systems out there, but as of late, I've seen far more brand bashing and childish behavior than I've seen over in dpreview in several years. Luckily the other boards here besides the Cameras/Lenses/Shooting board still offer a lot of value. This one really no longer does.

-m

[BernardLanguillier]

I would be very surprised to see any 1% advantage on the d3x ( at lower ISOs), even less a 10% advantage, considering that the nikon lenses cannot deliver anything of that magnitude compared to lenses by Sony, Zeiss and some Minolta as well.

Even if that were true (and it is clearly not), don't forget that many third party lenses can be used on Nikon bodies. I have had excellent results with the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 recently. The funniest part being that that Zeiss 100mm f2.0, one of the best lenses ever produced, is not availble in Sony mount.

Minolta and Zeiss are making excellent lenses for sure, but I see nothing justifying the sweeping statements you are making above. The A900 samples files I got were shot with the supposedely legendary Minolta 50mm macro lens, and they are indeed good, but I am not sure to understand what the excitement is about. The only rigorous test I have seen comparing the Zeiss 24-70f2.8 to its Nikon and Canon competitors reached the conclusion that the Zeiss was behind the Japanese lenses both in performance and usability.

Have you ever shot with any of the recent N coated Nikkors? Most of the lenses I have been using on the D3x belong to that group and they are excellent.

Cheers,
Bernard

[lattiboy]

The only rigorous test I have seen comparing the Zeiss 24-70f2.8 to its Nikon and Canon competitors reached the conclusion that the Zeiss was behind the Japanese lenses both in performance and usability.

Cheers,
Bernard

Okay, so the guy you're responding to is certainly trolling quite a bit, but could you please give me a link to the review? There have been dozens of reviews/tests done on the Zeiss and I can't find one that says it's "behind the Japanese" in either performance or usability.


http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...2470_28?start=2

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/...-za-ssm-af.html

http://www.optyczne.pl/112.11-Test_obiekty...dsumowanie.html

[ziocan]

Okay, so the guy you're responding to is certainly trolling quite a bit, but could you please give me a link to the review? There have been dozens of reviews/tests done on the Zeiss and I can't find one that says it's "behind the Japanese" in either performance or usability.


http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...2470_28?start=2

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/...-za-ssm-af.html

http://www.optyczne.pl/112.11-Test_obiekty...dsumowanie.html

Sure I'm trolling, yet It will be hard to prove me wrong.

[ziocan]

Dude, to be very frank - commentary such as the above with it's obvious brand bashing isn't really helpful to anyone and isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Take this kind of crap over to dpreview. The forums here used to be about discussion, about differences - sure, but discussion without constant brand bashing and with respect to the various systems out there, but as of late, I've seen far more brand bashing and childish behavior than I've seen over in dpreview in several years. Luckily the other boards here besides the Cameras/Lenses/Shooting board still offer a lot of value. This one really no longer does.

-m

You mean the above, or the above, above.
I was definitively harsh on my comments.
Yet, I do not get why it is so well accepted to say that one system is 10% better than another, based on files downloaded from the web, and not having tested extensively both on real photography. Actually, not even touched one of the systems. If you want to talk about crap, there you should go.

At least I say what I say, after having used and grown up with Nikon lenses for 25 years.

[BernardLanguillier]

Okay, so the guy you're responding to is certainly trolling quite a bit, but could you please give me a link to the review? There have been dozens of reviews/tests done on the Zeiss and I can't find one that says it's "behind the Japanese" in either performance or usability.

Actually I am speaking of 2 reviews published in paper magazines Chasseur d'Image and Reponse Photo, widely believed to be 2 of the best 5 publications in Europe.

All their tests are done using DxO tools and their objectivity is unquestioned as far as I know.

- on the quality side: they loved the Zeiss 24-70f2.8 on the A700, but found it to be lacking in the corners on the A900. They write that it is an excellent lens still, but it is not best in class.
- on the usability: they are refering specifically to the fact that on both the Canon and nikon 24-70, zooming out affects the position of the inner barrel relative to the lens hood, which offers much better flare protection on the long end (70 mm). On the Zeiss, the whole lens front moves forward together with the hood that therefore ends up being very short so as to be able to cope with the wide angle position.

Unfortunately, I don't think that they have web versions of their reviews, but you can order past issues from the site www.photim.com.

Regards,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Sure I'm trolling, yet It will be hard to prove me wrong.

You are prefectly entitled to prefer the results delivered by Zeiss/Minolta lenses. Either way, you are happy about the gear you shoot with and it matches your needs, so I guess that everything is fine with you.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Exactly.

Any evidence showing that their findings are not correct? I find it pretty amusing that many a Sony A900 user (I don't know if you were one of them) was referring to DxO results when they were showing one month ago that the A900 had the best DR around, it seems that DxO has lost credibility amongst that circle after the release of the D3x tests.

It reminds me of the DPreview Canon forum reactions when Michael started to use a D3. He was a god when he was shooting primarily Canon, and had become an awful person the day he started to shoot a Nikon body.

In the mean time I'll keep taking pictures with my D3x, I will at least try to maximize the value of my poor investement.  



Cheers,
Bernard

[jjj]

Show me that person who does not admire and wish to possess, simply for its functional beauty, a Leica M3 and I will show you someone who is uninterested in the technology of picture taking.

It may have been an important camera, but I have zero interest in owning one. Weird thing is that I am interested in the technology of picture despite having zero interest in Leicas. I always think of them as pretentious status symbols that are massively overated. But hey, that just my opinion. ;-)

Let's just be honest - we like these gadgets!

On the other hand some of use simply want tools that do a good job.

[pegelli]

When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900  

I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.  

[Ray]

When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900  

I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.  

Or maybe it's enough when you have a Phase P65+   .

[250swb]

It may have been an important camera, but I have zero interest in owning one. Weird thing is that I am interested in the technology of picture despite having zero interest in Leicas. I always think of them as pretentious status symbols that are massively overated. But hey, that just my opinion. ;-)

On the other hand some of use simply want tools that do a good job.

Yet sitting in a fox hole in Vietnam I'm sure many photographers felt the value of their Leica M3 was reliability and compactness, rather than as a pretentious status symbol. And I'm sure the soldiers around him didn't give a cuss about whether it was a Pentax or a Leica either. I doubt Cartier Bresson felt he was using a status symbol, but thought it was the best and most valuable tool to do his job. I could go on with examples. Consigning an M3 as a pretentious status symbol is a severe case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing ;-)

Steve

[Ray]

Yet sitting in a fox hole in Vietnam I'm sure many photographers felt the value of their Leica M3 was reliability and compactness, rather than as a pretentious status symbol. And I'm sure the soldiers around him didn't give a cuss about whether it was a Pentax or a Leica either. I doubt Cartier Bresson felt he was using a status symbol, but thought it was the best and most valuable tool to do his job. I could go on with examples. Consigning an M3 as a pretentious status symbol is a severe case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing ;-)

Steve

I also agree with jjj on this point. The Leica M8 is like a designer shirt. You are paying a premium for the name. There are better and more affordable tools available, better on balance, although the Leica might have one or two features of 'niche' value, such as a lack of an AA filter.

[BernardLanguillier]

When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900  

I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.  

Obviously it is, but the discussion to be relevant has to be related to real world examples doesn't it?

Since nobody really believes that the results of the G10 and P45+ are impossible to distinguish, cameras with closer peformance and different prices need to be compared for this essay to be more than a theoretical write up.

Michael brought up the D3x vs A900 case and the whole essay orbitates around this example. From this standpoint, discussing the accuracy of his assesement of the performance gap is relevant.

What does 10% mean? When the P25+ offered one stop more DR than the 1ds2 (technically less than 10%), did all the photographers who agreed to spend 25.000 US$ on a P25+ agree that that one stop DR was only a 10% increase in performance? Did Michael not seeing such a gap in his tests of the D3x/A900 mean that there is no difference of performance between the bodies, or that the testing ground was not suitable to show the differences?

Discussion on global warming would have a lot less impact without data backing up the claims of the scientists...

The person who speaks here is not the D3x owner trying to convince the world that he bought the right toy, but the remains of the scientist I once was.

Anyway, I'll refrain from posting more on this topic and will enjoy stitching with my over-expensive camera instead.



Cheers,
Bernard