D3x User Experience

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I'd be really interested in comparing a landscape scene shot at ISO 100 on the D3x, with a film camera shooting the same scene on say Velvia 100, using the same lens.<br>

I use my D300 for candids and street photography, and keep my landscapes to my F4s and film. I use the same lens for both...the 28/2.8 AIs.<br>

I rarely print anything bigger than A3.<br>

I have $700 invested in the F4s and lens. What would you have invested in your D3x lens and computer? I'm not injecting anything controversial, but I can go three ways with landscapes to get truly magnificent images: 1) Stay with film and buy a $4000 Fuji 612/617 and get the slides scanned. 2) Go the D700 or D3x way. 3) Buy the about to be released Nikon MX with its 32mb sensor and 6x6 format, but the pricing would have to be less than the Leica S2.</p>

 

[hawkman]

<p>Hi Kuryan,<br>

You are right, it is not possible to compare two things having only one at hand, however I just wanted to see how the per-pixel crispness compares with the other bodies (Nikon D700 and Canon 5D MKII) that I have. I have found that the AA filter on my D700 is a bit too strong and softens very fine detail, I just want to see how D3X does. So I'd appriciate if you could post a NEF.<br>

You are also right that it has not been established if the sensors are exactly the same or not, but one fact is known at this time and that is the readout and ADCs are most likely the same, since D3X is also a native 12Bit sensor which can output 5fps, the 14Bit mode is achieved by oversampling of the 12Bit ADCs and thus frame rate drops to 1.8 fps just like the D300 which has a Sony sensor. There was one picture of the camera's main PCB posted somewhere and it was shown that it did not have the discrete ADC chips that the D3/D700 have (thus the body is actually 20g lighter than D3!), we know that Sony uses integrated ADCs so they are similar in this regard at least...That said sharpness in these cameras is mostly a factor of pixel size and the optical low pass filter on the sensor and IMHO Nikon still hasn't got the filter quite right.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Thank-you for a thoughtful review. I am one of those that hopes that many of these cameras are sold so that I can pick up a used one in a few years. I currently use a D2X, bought used a year ago, and a used full frame Kodak SLRn, again bought about a year ago. Like you, I enjoy the size and build of the D2X, really the first pro level body that I have owned in 25 years of photography.</p>

<p>The SLRn does not have an AA filter. The lack of an AA filter was the focus of the original hatred by reviewers of this camera. I primarily shoot landscapes and architecture and have rarely seen the artefacts (moire patterns) created by the lack of an AA filter. I am sure Nikon and Canon are wary of Kodaks experience in this area and will never eliminate the AA filter. However your idea of making it removable is excellent, if dust could be controlled. For most landscapes it would be very beneficial to remove it. The SLRn is significantly sharper than the D2X even though it only has 2 more MP for a much larger sensor and from website samples that I have seen the 14 MP of the SLRn can compete with 16 MP+ cameras. I attribute the high resolution of the SLRn to the lack of an AA filter.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For those who are interested in NEF files from the D3X, do a search and it looks like there are some available on the web. Those are huge files, and I haven't tried to download them myself. Since those files are so demanding on bandwidth, I wouldn't expect Kuryan to make those available.<br>

<P>

Additionally, each NEF file also contains the serial number for the camera used. I can see that some people don't like to make that public (or go through the trouble to strip off the serial number from an NEF file).</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>Thank you for the review Kuryan, although this camera is likely something that I'll never buy, it's still nice to read about it!</p>

<p>I was hoping that you could share some examples of your work, or point me to your website? I can't find anything under your profile.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kuryan "Obi" Thomas has created a D3X portfolio to show some images: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=895247">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=895247</a><br>

Some of the images there are details of shadow area and that is why they look almost completely dark.</p>

<p>But we'll probably have to wait until spring arrives before Obi has better landscape images from the D3X.</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>I just meant any kind of images whatsoever, even from the D2x, it interests me to see what kind of shots people are taking with these kinds of cameras, especially as a fellow landscaper.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>I do not typically publish my photos on the web for a general audience, preferring instead to print for my home and office and a few friends. I do have a small private site with limited bandwidth allowance. Dave, if you are interested, drop me an email (use my member page) and I'll send you the URL.</p>

[john_chee]

<p>I like reading photographers' reviews that are similar to Kuryan's more than a technical ones for some reason. More personable, maybe. I use my D3x in studio and the result is just as good as Kuryan's on landscapes. With 24MP, I have more flexibility on cropping for larger prints. Just like Kuryan, I went down this D3x route rather than keep saving for a MF back. For what I do now with mostly my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 and 18x22 prints, D3x works just fine. I am very comfortable to go bigger too. </p>

<p>After a little more than a thousand shots that I have, there is only one limitation: the noise in the shadow using harsh strobe light through honeycomb -- dark space between the subject and backdrop with almost no light there. I checked back to similar composition that I had using D3 with the same ISO 100, the problem was not there. It is an easy fix with Noise Ninja especially my output for the current project is in B&W. Other than this and the missing dust reduction mechanism as in D700, I am totally happy with the D3x so far. </p>

<p>A note to Kuryan, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is not that big of a deal anymore with in camera Vignette Control, even at wide open in my opinion (simple task in LR anyway on post processing). I would have felt missing out if I don't have the 70-200mm in my bag when I take the D3x outside of my studio.</p>

<p>The D3x is for sure a keeper, at least 5 years in my case. I just can't wait to try out with some serious macro work with a Kiron 105mm f/2.8.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Looks like the AA filter on D3X is indeed different compared to Sony<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page29.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page29.asp</a></p>

<p> </p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p><a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32284">Here is another landscape shooter's user experience</a>, in a Luminous Landscape forum.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Thanks Kuryan. I think this sentence sums up that review: <em>Finally, we have reached a point where resolution, dynamic range and tonal scale are so good that, even for large, highly detailed prints, we can focus on the art instead of the equipment.</em><br>

<br /> I actually feel this way about the Nikon D700. I finally have a camera I can be satisfied with for a long time. Not needing medium format resolution for my work, I can always rent a D3x if I do.</p>

[libby_ross3]

<p>I wish I had 10k to blow on a body.. My car doesn't even cost that much.</p>