D3x medium vs D3 large

<p>I usually stick with my D3 for events and shoot jpeg fine most of the time. I have one coming up this weekend and would like to use the D3x instead. However, I don't want to deal with overly large files so I am considering using "medium" size files on the D3x instead of the usual large size I use with a D3.<br /> <strong>Q</strong> <strong>uestion:</strong> Would a medium size image (4544 x 3022) from the D3x look better than a large size image (4256 x 2832) on a D3?</p>

<p>Question back - why on earth would you operate such fine camera models but then not shoot in RAW so as to get the best out of them?</p>

<p>i am also confused why you would want to lug the d3x if you dont want big files. seems like you want your d3 then, right. explain your situation a little more clearly. as to a comparison of large d3 vs med d3x, take some photos and show your comparison here. not too many others will have bith of these cameras</p>

<p>Obviously you have both camera's, so click, click upload files, look at the monitor and you have the answer.</p>

<p>Hi, I would check out a guy called Johnricard on f l i c k r. If not mistaken he has a d3 and d3x. I know there are also a few formus dedicated just to d3/d3x owners<br>

good luck</p>

<p>I checked this thread earlier this afternoon and I was puzzuled about it. Now I see it is not only me. My 2 questions are<br>

1- Why would buy such a camera to shoot JPG?<br>

2- I am not a pro but to me the only reason to buy a D3x is just because of the large files..... if you don't want those large files, what was your reason to buy it?<br>

Please don't take it personal, I am just really curious! good luck!</p>

<p>If you have both cameras then you can do a test and see what you prefer. I don't know why everyone always feels a need to question why someone would shoot JPG. A D3 is still a D3 handles like a D3 and performs like a D3 and has the viewfinder of a D3 even if a person chooses to shoot JPG. Lots of people managed to shoot slide film in the past when they could have shot print film instead and many bought F5s and F6s when they could shoot the exact same film with an F50 or F60.</p>

<p>Nikon picture controls give the photographer a lot of flexibility to get superb JPGs. If a photographer has the picture controls set exactly where he/she is happy with them, does he/she really need to shoot RAW?</p>

<p><em>"Would a medium size image (4544 x 3022) from the D3x look better than a large size image (4256 x 2832) on a D3?"</em> It depends on what you are shooting. The increased color and dynamic range of D3X will give you better results in some or perhaps most shooting situations, especially those with difficult lighting.</p>

<p>René, I believe the main reason to invest in a D3X is because you want larger dynamic and color range, not necessarily huge files. If someone is printing 8 x 10s or smaller, 6mp is more than adequate. All things being equal (except for MP), a 100mp camera will produce an identical 8 x 10 as compared to a 6mp camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For event photography jpeg shooting is just fine, as long as your happy with your technique. imho</p>

<p>I have not seen that the D3x offers better dynamic range than the D3, actually the D3 should have a slight advantage.</p>

<p>I suspect that in camera downsampling of D3x images to jpg images similar to the file size of D3 files can only result in equal or inverior images than obtained by the D3. The only (theoretical) advantage I could see is perhaps better moire suppression. It would be a good test of the D3x image processor ^^.</p>

<p>Larry you may be the first to demonstate this. Please post in case you do.</p>

<p>Walter, the dynamic range of the D3X has been documented and is higher than that of the D3 and most other DSLR cameras for that matter. </p>

<p>According to dxomark.com, dynamic range (DR) of D3X is wider at ISO100 than D3 at ISO200. At ISO200, both has the same DR and at ISO400 and higher, D3 has wider DR.</p>

<p>According to dpreview.com, D3 has slightly more DR than D3X.</p>

<p>D3 is less noisier than D3X in any situation, which is of no surprise.</p>

<p>OR... you could shoot the really big files on the D3X (if you're shooting tons of big files, I definitely can see an advantage to shooting JPEG, if you have everything just right in-camera... I do it all the time), then batch process them to the res you need, edit THOSE files, and then you can go back to the bigger files if you want to re-crop or something...</p>

<p>Akira, thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected. I had never checked the DR at the various ISOs. I guess my initial response is invalid unless shooting at ISO 100. And I guess René you are correct as well (unless shooting at ISO 100). In fact, according to the DXOMark site, the D3 is superior to the D3X in almost all measured results except at ISO 100. And of course the 24mp file you get. I guess the D3 isn't that bad after all! :-)</p>

<p>I guess unless the OP is shooting at ISO 100, he would be better off with the D3. Go figure!</p>

<p>I just spent three weeks testing a D3X and I did a lot of comparison against my D700 and also a freind's D3. It should surprise no one that the D3X has noiser shadows. And if you want to take full advantage of the D3X's 14 bits, it becomes a slow 1.8 frames/sec, which can be very annoying.</p>

<p>If we are talking about events such as weddings and parties, there is no point to use the D3X. Despite that Nikon gives you their highest build quality and faster AF, the D3X is intended to be a studio and still-subject camera. To take full advantage of its 24MP, you need to set the D3X on a tripod, shoot at its base ISO 100, use the best lenses and in their optimal apertures. For parties and events, the D3 is the better camera, especially at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

Why would someone not want to use the D3X at a wedding or event? We used a large bulky Mamiya RZ67 medium format camera for all portraits, individual and group, which was always used on a tripod with external lights. The D3X is high quality enough (at least it seems to be) to replace a medium format camera shooting color neg film. Some of our clients wanted 24x36 inch prints and the D3X would scale nicely to that size.<br>

If you're talking about candid photos, even the the D3X would be a good one to use with on camera flash. We shot Fuji NPH 400 color neg film (exposed at ISO 250) on F100's with on camera SB-28 flashes, the D3X would be ideal in this situation too.<br>

I was pretty surprised how good the D3X performed at high ISOs. It certainly looked better than the D200 I currently use, which is pretty bad above 800.</p>

<p>Dave, I don't know what type of wedding clients you have. People may want one 24x36 studio type portrait. Otherwise, how much wall space do you have at home for 24x36 prints? Over at the Wedding Forum, most wedding photographers provide no more than 8x10 that go into an album.<br>

<br />As I said, I did a lot of studies between the D3X and D3/D700. Even for 24x36 prints, you need to look at them at an unusually close distance like from a foot or two to see the difference in fine details, such as some landscape shots. The difference is certainly obvious when you look closely. However, from a more typical viewing distance for 24x36, it is very difficult to tell them apart. In particular, for wedding type images, you don't necessarily want all the fine details and sharpness to reveal all the flaws on people's faces.</p>

<p>There has been some misunderstanding of my post and for that I will take full responsibility. Allow me give it another shot.<br>

<br /> I've been shooting jpeg fine on the D3 for most of my events. I experimented early on with shooting raw for events and found that the extra effort and size not worth the time considering hundreds of shots are usually the norm for any significant event. In a word, the D3 performed admirably and my clients did't need any higher resolution than what I provided.</p>

<p>I bought my D3x for studio and landscape work, but lately it's been events, events and more events. So after three events in a row using the D3, I started to wonder if with event photography, the D3x might do just as well of a job if not better than a D3, especially if I can keep the files more manageable. What do I mean by "a better job?" Well IQ for one. What about noise, especially as the evening wanes into semi darkness. Other factors that can affect results might include hand shake and speed.</p>

<p>Hence the original question posted: Would a "medium size" image (4544 x 3022) from the D3x look better than a "large size image" (4256 x 2832) on a D3?"</p>

<p>So far I think Shun has answered with the best understanding of the original question. Thanks!</p>

<p><em>The D3X is high quality enough (at least it seems to be) to replace a medium format camera shooting color neg film. Some of our clients wanted 24x36 inch prints and the D3X would scale nicely to that size.<br /></em></p>

<p>You will need a tripod and good technique to get sharpness approaching medium format out of a D3x, or for that matter, medium format quality from a medium format camera. If I was required to produce a 24x36 inch print for any purpose (other than a theatrical poster), I would use a 4x5 camera, or no less than an Hasselblad (or RZ, if I had one).</p>

<p>Speed of operation, card capacity and low noise at high ISO make the D3 much better suited than the D3x for events and weddings.</p>

<p>What Dave Lee said has some merit. As long as you have a D3x available, why not bring it along to the event as a backup and for when the client might want you to pull a "studio" portrait or two out of your hat. For the walkaround and bulk of the event use the D3 as suggested by Shun, Edward and others.</p>

<p>But again, just thinking IQ, which would yield better quality shots setting aside all real world limitations. (ISO, handshake, speed)</p>

<p>"What do I mean by "a better job?" Well IQ for one. What about noise, especially as the evening wanes into semi darkness. Other factors that can affect results might include hand shake and speed."<br>

i have a d90, so i don't have direct knowledge of this; but from what i understand, the d3 has far better noise control from its larger pixel sites, as i understand it. so if you are worried about declining light, the D3 is the obvious choice, right? In fact, the base ISO of the d3x only goes to 1600, expanded to 6400. The D3 expands up to 25600. Of course the highest aren't usable, but you can pull great monochrome out of high iso shots and the D3 is usable up to 6400 in color, right? </p>

<p>then you say other factors can affect the IQ like hand shake and speed. I have no idea what you are talking about between a d3x and a d3; i understand hand shake but don't see how it might differ between the d3 and d3x. I don't know what you mean by speed; frame rates? then the d3 should be the body you turn to right? But maybe the d3 and d3x shoot at the same frame rate when shooting 8bit jpegs. it just seems that the d3 is the tool for the job, but the d3x may work as well with some compromise. </p>

<p>Spoke about the original question of quality differences between the medium size jpeg on the d3x and the large size on d3. But you seem to be the only person equipped to answer that question. No one has answered this question; Shun spoke about the reasonable question of comparing the larger printed sizes of the results from the D3x, d3 and d700 (at what i'm assuming to be processed raw files and not sized jpegs) and the noiser aspects of the smaller pixel pitch of the d3x. Others spoke about dynamic range, raw purists, etc. But you question remains unanswered. put those cameras on a tripod and take a picture. Switch the bodies and take the same picture. Let us know what you find.</p>

<p><strong>"between a d3x and a d3; i understand hand shake but don't see how it might differ between the d3 and d3x."</strong></p>

<p>The D3x is more prone to motion blur due to its pixel count.</p>

<p><strong>"put those cameras on a tripod and take a picture. Switch the bodies and take the same picture. Let us know what you find."</strong></p>

<p>Whatever I find with that test is somewhat limiting if other considerations are not factored in, like real world event shooting, which does not allow for trekking a tripod along unless doing a formal portrait. I wanted to see if anyone might be able to comment based on their own knowledge or experience.</p>

 

<p>Larry, two months ago you asked whether you should get the D3X or the D3 with the 24-70: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SnwN">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SnwN</a></p>

<p>Now it seems like you have bought both cameras?? I wonder what was your objective for getting the D3X. Since you own both, you should be quite familiar with their pros and cons.</p>

<p>D3 may have better noise control, but it also has less resolution. I loved my D700 but wanted more resolution (I'm a pixel peeper by profession), and would take it in trade for a little more noise. Look at the test results on dpreview for the D3x, you'll be surprised how well it handles higher ISOs, I know it did so a lot better than I expected! I think it's about the same performance as the D300. I can't wait until the day when I can afford a camera like the D3x (but hopefully in a smaller size).</p>

<p>Shun, Prior to the D3 and D3x I owned a D300 and D700. Because of a windfall in the form of selling all my Hasselblad film equipment I was able to consider the ideal situation for my work, which is to have the D3 (for travel, events, action) and the D3x (Studio and landscape,) so I sold both the D700 and D300. Why did I trade in my D700 if the performance is identical to the D3? Well, I really like the dual card slots and the 100% viewfinder of the D3 and I like being able to familiarize myself with essentially the same camera body.</p>

<p>Sure I know the pros and cons of the two cameras, but what does that have to do with my question? Why is it that D3x owners seem to have to justify their purchase? People seem to be a bit hostile with D3x owners. It's like, how dare you own a D3x if you can't fully appreciate it? Why the hostility? Can we just stick to the point of the original question?</p>