Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: 645D vs D3x  (Read 148080 times)

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1044
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #160 on: February 23, 2011, 10:39:55 pm »

Having shot the D3x for years, seen files from several backs printed well (although nothing both modern and really high end - my experience is looking at prints from 39 mp class backs, NOT the 60s and I've never even seen an 80 mp back), and played with and seen output from the Sony and Canon 20+ mp DSLRs, here's what it looks like in my (admittedly subjective) view.

1.) The D3x is significantly better than any other "35mm" type DSLR. There is extra sharpness and DR in its images that just isn't there in other FF cameras. This may be the AA filter, the (slow) 14-bit implementation, or something else, but I can reliably pick a D3x print from a 5D II or an Alpha every time (assuming the D3x is handled right - ISO 100, 14 bit, tripod, really good glass). Of course, a D3x handled like this is a 1.5 fps camera, just like a fast MF back (it is a little lighter, weatherproof (perhaps indestructible), and has a broader range of lenses, but it is not really any faster than a P40+).

2.) The D3x is roughly equivalent to well-handled medium-format film, shot at 6x9 cm. I've compared prints extensively between the D3x and Hasselblad V-series gear shooting Velvia, and the D3x has a clear and significant edge. 6x9 becomes very close.

3.) The D3x is edged out in ultimate detail, in a very large print, by a 39 mp back (even one from 2 years ago, when I made this comparison and bought the D3x), and is roughly equivalent in other ways. Dynamic range is very similar, unlike other small-format DSLRs, and color rendition is different, but equally high quality. I actually put the D3x midway between other 20+ MP DSLRs and the backs.

4.) If Phase One's claims and Michael's and Mark Dubovoy's testing are true (I have no reason to believe they aren't), the newest generation of backs should very easily beat the D3x in resolution (not an edge-out situation, but an immediately obvious advantage), and should have slight advantages in most other areas. It seems as if the per-pixel quality of the latest backs is at least at D3x levels, and some of them have more than triple the pixels. The 80mp backs should be roughly equivalent to 5x7 inch film (a bit more than triple the area of 6x9 cm).

5.) The ultimate in image quality is still probably 8x10 sheet film, but an IQ180 beats any film short of 8x10!
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #161 on: February 24, 2011, 12:41:04 am »

Hi,

Interesting observations. I have no D3X but my testing with Velvia 67 vs. Sony Alpha 900 gave similar results to yours. Except that I found the image quality significantly better on the Sony Alpha 900, not just the resolution. In addition there is the convenience factor and fast feedback.

The images that Miles posted seem to agree pretty well with your observations. The Pentax 645D edges out the Nikon D3X in resolution. DR is hard to say, the subject is not demanding enough in my view. Both cameras do a very good job. Color is different (I tried both Iridient Raw developer and Lightroom 3). In my view Pentax is more present but Nikon seems to handle some colors better. Some of the differences between the two depend on white balancing in my humble opinion.

I'd suggest that Miles has done the community a great service by posting raw files from well executed comparison shooting.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Why did I find image quality better on the Sony Alpha than on Pentax 67?

- Resolution may have been similar on the two but Imatest results were much better on the Alpha. Imatest measures resolution for 50% MTF.
- Color was much better on the Alpha, especially detail separation in the reds.
- Significant chromatic aberration in the Pentax lens used in the comparison
- Some of the problems I saw with Velvia in reds may have depended on saturation.
- The film image needed much more effort in postprocessing.

But the major factor may be that with digital and in camera histogram I can nail both exposure and check focus. With slides I need to expose roll, send it to lab, wait for development, scan the images. So it can be a couple of weeks until I can see the images.

As a side note, if I sent the slides to a very good drum scanning service I would have better results with less work. But, that would essentially mean that the initial postprocessing would be done by the drum scanner operator.



2.) The D3x is roughly equivalent to well-handled medium-format film, shot at 6x9 cm. I've compared prints extensively between the D3x and Hasselblad V-series gear shooting Velvia, and the D3x has a clear and significant edge. 6x9 becomes very close.

3.) The D3x is edged out in ultimate detail, in a very large print, by a 39 mp back (even one from 2 years ago, when I made this comparison and bought the D3x), and is roughly equivalent in other ways. Dynamic range is very similar, unlike other small-format DSLRs, and color rendition is different, but equally high quality. I actually put the D3x midway between other 20+ MP DSLRs and the backs.

5.) The ultimate in image quality is still probably 8x10 sheet film, but an IQ180 beats any film short of 8x10!
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 12:55:19 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

kuau

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #162 on: April 10, 2011, 12:02:57 am »

Now what might be an interesting comparison would be the 645D vs a MaxMax converted D3x without the AA filter & either a 24 PC-E, 45 PC-E or Zeiss ZF prime ...  ;) The D3x is brutal on glass & technique and few lenses, including even the 24-70 won't get the best from it.

Had to jump in here.
I had a D3x did the maxmax conversion, I owned the 24, 45, and 85mm nikkor pce lenses.
Bottom line with the D3x, only the 85mm pce could produce high IQ, the 24, and 45 were not up to the task. The maxmax conversion IMHO not necessay on the D3x, The aa filter in the D3x is not that strong and can. E dealt with in capture sharpeing. D3x needs zeiss mf glass to ge the most out of the camera.

If i could have only one camera for lanscape shooting and only went up to 20x30 print size, M9 is the way to go, IMHO smokes the nikon D3x

Steven

Now that I have a 645d, and a M9, I think the M9 for a light weight landscape kit is untouchable print size up to 20x30, if I want to go large or doing road kill landscape like tunel view at yosemite, 645d + 45-85mm fa zoom is pretty hard to beat.

Logged
__________________________________________________________________________
Leica S006, Leica SL HP Z3200 PS Printer
http://www.kuau.com

kuau

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #163 on: April 10, 2011, 12:08:38 am »

One more thing I have not read this whole thread but D3x files need to be processed in Capture NX for best quality. Forget about LR3 or ACR, or at least capture one or raw developer.

Steven
Logged
__________________________________________________________________________
Leica S006, Leica SL HP Z3200 PS Printer
http://www.kuau.com

Graham Welland

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 722
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #164 on: April 10, 2011, 02:55:14 am »

One more thing I have not read this whole thread but D3x files need to be processed in Capture NX for best quality. Forget about LR3 or ACR, or at least capture one or raw developer.

Steven

I would definitely agree with this based on my experience also. Capture One Pro does a pretty decent job but doesn't have quite the same exposure latitude as I can get from NX 2. 
Logged
Graham

SeattleDucks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #165 on: June 07, 2011, 04:35:52 pm »

OP, thank you for posting the RAW files.  

I considered the 645D purchase last year but price was an important factor and was able to pick up a demo D3X for $4995 so went that route and have been quite pleased with the files for my landscape photography.  I tested a half dozen converters and found Raw Developer to have the highest detail extraction and most natural film-like results, using its deconvolution sharpening method.  

I assumed the 645D would produce great files and knew it was a better choice for extreme print sizes, but was curious to see how close the D3X would come at the file sizes I am used to working with.  So I ran the Pentax and Nikon RAW files through Raw Developer and gave them equal treatment, deconvolution sharpening set to 0.6 and 20 iterations (no other adjustments), saved out to TIFF and opened in Photoshop, 645D file downsized to match D3X height of 4032 pixels, cropped a 100% pixel view from a section of the background (right side) since distant detail reproduction is a demanding test, and applied USM of 0.5/80/0 to each image:

« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 05:54:05 pm by SeattleDucks »
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #166 on: June 08, 2011, 12:01:41 am »

Which file belongs to which camera?
Thanks
Eduardo

OP, thank you for posting the RAW files.  

I considered the 645D purchase last year but price was an important factor and was able to pick up a demo D3X for $4995 so went that route and have been quite pleased with the files for my landscape photography.  I tested a half dozen converters and found Raw Developer to have the highest detail extraction and most natural film-like results, using its deconvolution sharpening method.  

I assumed the 645D would produce great files and knew it was a better choice for extreme print sizes, but was curious to see how close the D3X would come at the file sizes I am used to working with.  So I ran the Pentax and Nikon RAW files through Raw Developer and gave them equal treatment, deconvolution sharpening set to 0.6 and 20 iterations (no other adjustments), saved out to TIFF and opened in Photoshop, 645D file downsized to match D3X height of 4032 pixels, cropped a 100% pixel view from a section of the background (right side) since distant detail reproduction is a demanding test, and applied USM of 0.5/80/0 to each image:


Logged

SeattleDucks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #167 on: June 08, 2011, 01:57:20 am »

Which file belongs to which camera?
Thanks
Eduardo


Top image is from 645D.
Logged

sanzari

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #168 on: June 08, 2011, 03:35:56 am »

This is clearly the best representation so far Thanks for the great work. I am in a continual battle to move to Medium format as per other posts elsewhere however the D3X and M9 keep coming up as better solutions for an already Nikon D3s shooter.

For landscape however this for me is clear proof that pushed to a pixel peeping 100/200 or 300 % zoom the Pentax files just hold together and look less digital.

My biggest concern with Pentax as with the Leica S2 is do they make enough money for the companies to carry on and will suddenly they just pull development and I am left sitting with a brick and couple of half baked lenses.

Interestingly the wide angle just launched is serious money in comparison to the body so I am guessing the body is a loss leader in the hope people move to buy new lenses. Pentax need a bigger roadmap deliver faster if that is the case. Tsunami probably not helped the cause sadly.

Would love other peoples views and thoughts on the longer term support and development of Pentax and clearly their ability to survive or get acquired by Samsung.

The Leica S2 is in cuckoo land with its pricing, so leaves us cheap MF boys with the pentax or second hand Phase/ Hassey. But in the UK Pentax is £10k, buy in the US it about £6.5 with exchange rates. Now that seems crazy but suddenly makes you think Nikon might just be pushing the price of the D3X a little high but this has been said before


If you have any further examples of comparisons would appreciate and love to see them. Certainly in green countryside I know where the Pentax will win over the Nikon now :-)

thanks again, lovely articles in this post hence 168 comments i guess

Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #169 on: June 08, 2011, 03:51:48 am »

Pricing for the D3x clearly killed it, when it came out it was peerless, it still is peerless, but everyone gets a 5DII and thinks 35mm digital is mushy and way inferior to MF (I've used both). I guess Nikon wanted to bring out a D800, and overpriced the D3x, then didn't make the cut price version.

By the way, the D3x is quite a bit lighter than the D3s, I guess the body material is different, it is not just a clone of the D3, in spite of the look.

Edmund



The Leica S2 is in cuckoo land with its pricing, so leaves us cheap MF boys with the pentax or second hand Phase/ Hassey. But in the UK Pentax is £10k, buy in the US it about £6.5 with exchange rates. Now that seems crazy but suddenly makes you think Nikon might just be pushing the price of the D3X a little high but this has been said before

Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #170 on: June 08, 2011, 04:22:01 am »

Pricing for the D3x clearly killed it, when it came out it was peerless, it still is peerless, but everyone gets a 5DII and thinks 35mm digital is mushy and way inferior to MF (I've used both). I guess Nikon wanted to bring out a D800, and overpriced the D3x, then didn't make the cut price version.

By the way, the D3x is quite a bit lighter than the D3s, I guess the body material is different, it is not just a clone of the D3, in spite of the look.

Edmund





Edmund, have you tried out the D700? Do you have an opinion on how its files compare with those from the more expensive Nikons? Not a hijack - just looking for a brief repy to whether it's really worth spending more on Nikon FF bodies for A3+ max (so far!) printing.

Rob C

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #171 on: June 08, 2011, 04:34:55 am »

Is anyone actually doing any formal resolution tests of medium format systems? I haven't been able to find any. Dxomark haven't tested a single medium format lens. It seems to me that the resolution edge medium format have is that you can make higher megapixel count with larger (or equally-sized) pixels such that lens resolving power becomes less limiting.

With current lenses it seems like when the pixel size goes below ~5 microns the lens resolving power starts to be rather limiting. If you compare APS-C with fullframe 35mm (where there is a lot of formal mesaurements made), you can see that with a 12-13 megapixel fullframe sensor you get as sharp or sharper images than an 18 megapixel APS-C sensor, due to the fact that pixel sizes are so small that lens resolving power is a limit. In practice you could print the fullframe 13-megapixel picture at say ~300 ppi while you would need ~360 ppi for APS-C to get the same sharpness in the print.

D3x and Pentax 645D have both 5.9 um pixel pitch. P65+ has 6.0 um. IQ180 has 5.2 um.

A guess is that you would not gain much in end result (print sharpness) if going below 5 um, which sets the resolution limit of 35mm to ~34 megapixels. Seems like IQ180 could be close to the useful limit of medium format, unless medium format lenses are sharper than 35mm. New developments in lens manufacturing and deconvolution software could increase resolution further though.

For some focal lengths medium format lenses are surely sharper, say the Rodenstock 23mm is probably a lot better than retrofocus designs on 35mm, although I haven't seen any formal measurements. The 5 um limit suggested above refers to the sharpest lenses which is not wide angle lenses for 35mm, so for wide angle landscape photography D3x may already have reached the useful megapixel limit.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #172 on: June 08, 2011, 05:05:04 am »




Edmund, have you tried out the D700? Do you have an opinion on how its files compare with those from the more expensive Nikons? Not a hijack - just looking for a brief repy to whether it's really worth spending more on Nikon FF bodies for A3+ max (so far!) printing.

Rob C



It depends on shooting style. At D3x resolution you need all tricks to maximize the sensor's resolution, very stable tripod, mirror lockup, sharp lenses etc. If you are a landscape photographer you probably will gain significantly with D3x. D700 is only 12 megapixels, which means ~240 ppi for A3+, but sharp pixels since lens resolving power is not so limiting. 240 ppi is "good enough" for many, especially when framed on the wall behind glass. The D3x will make a distinguishable resolution improvement on A3+ (with a good inkjet printer on good paper), however perhaps only up to 2 - 3 feet viewing distance. Is that worth it? It is up to you to decide.

You may also find it valuable to have the extra resolution for future use. Perhaps you want to print larger in the future. For book printing the extra resolution will surely be worth it, the viewing distance is then so close that 12 megapixel would only do for A4.

The D3x also have a little bit better dynamic range and color etc but those differences are probably harder to detect than resolution increase.
Logged

DaveCurtis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
    • http://www.magiclight.co.nz
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #173 on: June 08, 2011, 06:19:48 am »

I have read diglloyd review on the 645D. Plenty of pixel peeping stuff there!

The biggest issue as I see it, is that the lenses aren't up to scratch. Great camera/sensor, very average glass especially when you start to move away from centre frame.

Dave
Logged

jduncan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 434
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #174 on: June 08, 2011, 07:53:55 am »

I've done some more testing outdoors with my 645D vs Nikon D3x

Daylight  landscape, ISO 100  RAW

D3x,   24-70 zoom lens     @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 45-85mm zoom lens @ f11  autofocus


This was shot near Angels Camp, CA in the Sierra foothills and it really  was very, very green.

Links.

D3x      http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Nikon_D3x_field_test.tif
645D    http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_field_test.tif


Thanks a lot. I have a question: Why the different aperture? to preserve DOF? the problem is that by closing the aperture the 645D becomes even more sharp than the D3x. We know the anti alias filter on the D3x hurt base sharpness.
Again thanks
Logged
english is not my first language, an I k

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #175 on: June 08, 2011, 08:15:26 am »


Thanks a lot. I have a question: Why the different aperture? to preserve DOF? the problem is that by closing the aperture the 645D becomes even more sharp than the D3x. We know the anti alias filter on the D3x hurt base sharpness.
Again thanks

I would disagree, when correctly focused the images will be sharper at f8 than at f11 on most lenses on the D3x.

Regarding the DR difference between the D3x and the D3/D700, it is significant.

Cheers,
Bernard

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #176 on: June 08, 2011, 09:29:14 am »

I have read diglloyd review on the 645D. Plenty of pixel peeping stuff there!

The biggest issue as I see it, is that the lenses aren't up to scratch. Great camera/sensor, very average glass especially when you start to move away from centre frame.

Dave

Having followed Lloyd's tests closely, I'll have to disagree somewhat.  Lenses for the 645D must be chosen carefully, but some are superb, e.g. 120mm macro.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 11:54:24 am by tsjanik »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #177 on: June 08, 2011, 01:16:31 pm »

Hi,

Most good lenses peak about f/8 or at larger apertures, so stopping down to f/11 doesn't necessarily give an advantage. In my view that advantage of the 645D is that ist has more pixels but also that the sensor collects more photons, thus reducing noise. Design choice may benefit either system under different conditions. I'd suggest that the major advantage of the 645D is that it has a physically larger sensor. There is no substitute for square inches.

Best regards
Erik



Thanks a lot. I have a question: Why the different aperture? to preserve DOF? the problem is that by closing the aperture the 645D becomes even more sharp than the D3x. We know the anti alias filter on the D3x hurt base sharpness.
Again thanks
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #178 on: June 08, 2011, 05:38:24 pm »

If i could have only one camera for lanscape shooting and only went up to 20x30 print size, M9 is the way to go, IMHO smokes the nikon D3x

I guess we all have different definitions of "smokes". The M9 might be a few pourcent better than the D3x when everything is done perfect, but the lack of live view alone does IMHO disqualify it for many landscape applications, like those low light early shots where you need perfect infinite focus,...

Besides, landscape work does IMHO require a very wide set of focals, including very wide glas, long glass, T/S,... that the M9 doesn't really offer.

Cheers,
Bernard

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #179 on: June 08, 2011, 09:12:50 pm »

I guess we all have different definitions of "smokes". The M9 might be a few pourcent better than the D3x when everything is done perfect, but the lack of live view alone does IMHO disqualify it for many landscape applications, like those low light early shots where you need perfect infinite focus,...

Besides, landscape work does IMHO require a very wide set of focals, including very wide glas, long glass, T/S,... that the M9 doesn't really offer.

Cheers,
Bernard


Im with Bernard on this. The M9 is an awesome street camera, but 'smokes a d3X' is hardly accurate when it comes to landscape photography.
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13   Go Up