D3 and D3x side by side...

[DrDusslierR]

I made a couple of shots to compare D3 with D3X about resolution, detail rendering and noise @ different iso settings.
Based on these pictures Stany made a short review on the main website about this with many samples.
http://www.fotografie.fr/n3-test4-e.htm

Hope you like it.
Greetings,
Rudy

[DavidLake]

I don't agree that the D3x is better than the D3 in terms of high ISO noise (look at anything at 3200 or 6400 and you see heavy blotchiness). But from 200-1600 it is hard to see any real advantage of the D3 in 'these' conditions. In previous studio shots I have seen at low light levels (1/8 sec, iso1600-iso6400, etc.) the D3x is quite noisy at even iso800. But in decent light conditions it does very well.

Making a heavy assumption on the D3x noise characteristics at iso1600+ in outside bright conditions is quite invalid really. Who is going to shoot at anything but iso100-iso400 when outside in bright daylight really?

The resolution is stunning in the first series with the duck - wow!!!

[BrianSmith]

Not that I am in the market for a D3X, I don't expect to (or be able to) replace my D3 for some years, but I would be interested in a comparison of fine detail between the D3 shots (maybe just the crop) and the D3X shots having uprezzed the D3 shots to the same size. Also with every attempt made to wring as much sharpness as is achievable without artifacts from both shots. In other words I'd like to see what the scale of ultimate improvement really is in going to the D3X to justify the cost and processing power needed for the upgrade.
Looking at the samples as presented the D3X looks very good I must admit but I can't really tell the precise difference when the magnification is different, at least not on the browser screen.
Maybe if I could play with the NEFs...

[James]

Making a heavy assumption on the D3x noise characteristics at iso1600+ in outside bright conditions is quite invalid really. Who is going to shoot at anything but iso100-iso400 when outside in bright daylight really?

I often shoot 1000-1600 in relatively bright light to get decent dpeth of field and shutterspeed when shooting enduros (off road motorbiking) - but I would rather a D3 than a D3x for that anyway...

[StanyB]

Making a heavy assumption on the D3x noise characteristics at iso1600+ in outside bright conditions is quite invalid really. Who is going to shoot at anything but iso100-iso400 when outside in bright daylight really?

I often shoot 1000-1600 in relatively bright light to get decent dpeth of field and shutterspeed when shooting enduros (off road motorbiking) - but I would rather a D3 than a D3x for that anyway...

Hi James,
Of course... but the reason would rather be camera speed and fps than IQ. D3X is great @ high iso, rent one and try it for yourself. D3 is designed for speed and action, D3X is basically designed for other purposes, but... isn't a 10Mp crop, with 7fps, very appealing for sport shooters as well ?

[pam.meier]

Stany, could you tell me more about your Capture NX settings?
I was looking at the high ISO images and they look like noise reduction was applied.

Greetings,
Pam

[StanyB]

Stany, could you tell me more about your Capture NX settings?
I was looking at the high ISO images and they look like noise reduction was applied. Greetings,Pam

Hi Pamela,
I guess you understand Dutch, German is close... Underneath the exif of the D3Xiso1600 file, as you see the D3X exif does not show noise reduction setting as the D3 exif does. Not in View NX, not in Capture NX2... You also see noise reduction long exposure "off"...

In the Capture NX2 PProcessing I only resized, I did not apply any noise reduction whatsoever... Rudy took the images in "neutral" setting. For the landscapes I changed the setting from "neutral" to "landscape" in CaptureNX2. The "duck" pictures are straight OOC, converted to jpeg and resized for the web.

[pam.meier]

Thanks Stany, for the screen shot. I especially like Flits ;) But the reason I asked is that everytime I used NX it automatically checked noise reduction as default setting. I think that paricular setting is on the right hand side.

[James]

Hi James,
Of course... but the reason would rather be camera speed and fps than IQ. D3X is great @ high iso, rent one and try it for yourself. D3 is designed for speed and action, D3X is basically designed for other purposes, but... isn't a 10Mp crop, with 7fps, very appealing for sport shooters as well ?

I would love to but it comes down to cost, there's no way I could justify that much on a body so there is no point in trying it! I was just trying to make the point that high ISO in good light can be worthwhile.

The whole D3x would be appealing in general, and yes having a 7fps 10mp crop brings it to D300 levels, and you would only have to carry one camera around.... BUT it's just way off the price scale for me and not that appealing I would then also want all the PC-E lenses and the 14-24 and probably 24-70 and then all of a sudden it will have cost me £10,000 and the divorce won't be free either :) For that kind of money I could get a very nice analogue view camera set up with great lenses and also have a great big deposit towards a medium format back to attach to it. The movements would all be independent of each other and it would be better for landscapes - I doon't do any studio photography at all at the moment os that's not a big loss.

I have just been trying to convince a Sony user of the same kind of thing as he thinks that by buying an A900 his photography will be pro-level BECAUSE the camera is and I actually think that he will get worse results than he does with his A350 and I think for me shooting hand held with the same lenses as I do now that I would have the same issue.

I'm not saying that the D3x is a bad camera - just not the one for me and definitely not at it's current price point.

Anyway, sorry for hi-jacking the thread!

[Lil Judd]

OK I don't get this...

1. Are there any changes done to the colors in the shots? I seem to like the colors better in the D3. The grass to mention one detail, has a far more "normal" green to me than that of the D3x in these shots.

2. In all the test shots I see, the D3 seems sharper than the D3x - which should be sharper.....

Am I the only one seeing this?

Lil :-)

[James]

Just seen the images (they've been down for a while). I'd have to agree with Lil about the sharpness, but in terms of per pixel sharpness I would expect the D3 to be sharper just as it's larger pixels.

[StanyB]

Goodevening everybody,

As a complement of my D3 & D3X side by side comparison on my website I made an additional webpage with samples and crops of pictures taken in low light @ iso200, iso 1600, iso 3200 and iso 6400. Noise reduction was OFF with both cameras.
There are both crops from the bright areas as from the dark areas in these pictures.
On behalf of this test there hasn't been done any postprocessing to these images out of convertion from RAW to TIFF with cropping in TIFF and finally to jpegs
Here the link: http://www.fotografie.fr/n3-test4-ll-e.htm

@ the end of this webpage there is a link to quite big size jpegs(1200 x 835) that I used in this comparison.

Thanks for your attention and kindest regards,

and... see you next year!

Stany

[StanyB]

OK I don't get this... 1. Are there any changes done to the colors in the shots? I seem to like the colors better in the D3. The grass to mention one detail, has a far more "normal" green to me than that of the D3x in these shots.

Hi Lil,
First of all: All the best for 2009!
I agree that colour output of the D3X sensor is totally different than D3. D3 files look more saturated and warmer than D3X files. All this is easily to be ajusted inb PP or in changing the in-camera settings if you want all straight out of the box...

2. In all the test shots I see, the D3 seems sharper than the D3x - which should be sharper.....Am I the only one seeing this?
Lil :-

I respectfully disagree about detail. TMHO D3X files are much more detailed than D3 files. In the lowlight shots which I added last yesterday, you can even see better the resolution advantage D3X has...

[pam.meier]

It will also be interesting to see what the difference in low pass filters between these two cameras are.
This new optical formula for D3X sounds interesting, I hope some of the experts will analyse it and explain how it differs.

[DavidLake]

I have downloaded and printed in all imaginable formats. Uprez/downrez. Large/small. Using Genuine Fractals/Using CS4 multiple techniques.

The D3x has more detail, but also has more noise. And from from iso3200 on up it is easily apparent. The iso3200 images from the D3x look like the iso6400 images from the D3x when printed no matter how you slice it. This is still pretty darn good, and to be expected, as the D300 is about 1.5 stops behind the D3, and the D3x has slightly larger photosites than the D300.

You can't beat the physics of light collection with only a one year of technology advancement people. So please, would everyone quit saying that the D3x is equal (or the really confused folks who have said better) than the D3 at high ISO. You can get close, but that is not equal/better.

Want higher rez, get a D3x. Otherwise you are paying ~$4000 for nothing better, in fact the opposite is true.

[pam.meier]

1.600 ISO was unusable on my D80 only a year ago, so I think the D3X is very impressive.
And then people who buy it will use it at lower ISOs preferably. I wouldn´t want to it use beyond 100-400 ISO. But that´s me.

[Leen Koper]

The conclusion, based on these samples, seems quite simple to me: both cameras target different groups of users. The D3 is primarely meant for sports shooters, wedding photographers, especially for high ISO and a lot of detail and the D3x for studio and landscape photographers, when high ISO is not that important, but even more detail, about the same way as the ones once served by the Kodak 14n camera.

[Lil Judd]

Stany,

are you willing to share a RAW file from both the D3 & the D3x of something silly for me to look at on my computer? Like any shot out of the window of your home..... If I have the RAW file I can see on my computer - it's so had to judge on these shots.... I promise just to look at them & then delete. :-) Also, then I can mess with them in NX2 so I can judge by myself....

I would really appreciate it. But something at ISO 200 - 400, not more. I'm not interested in in-camera noise reduction etc - - I deal with that as I choose.

Lil :-)

[StanyB]

Stany,are you willing to share a RAW file from both the D3 & the D3x of something silly for me to look at on my computer? Like any shot out of the window of your home..... If I have the RAW file I can see on my computer - it's so had to judge on these shots.... I promise just to look at them & then delete. :-) Also, then I can mess with them in NX2 so I can judge by myself....I would really appreciate it. But something at ISO 200 - 400, not more. I'm not interested in in-camera noise reduction etc - - I deal with that as I choose. Lil :-)

Check your mail, they are coming with yousendit.
BTW, you have a nice galley on http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/

[aclphoto]

Making a heavy assumption on the D3x noise characteristics at iso1600+ in outside bright conditions is quite invalid really. Who is going to shoot at anything but iso100-iso400 when outside in bright daylight really?

I often shoot 1000-1600 in relatively bright light to get decent dpeth of field and shutterspeed when shooting enduros (off road motorbiking) - but I would rather a D3 than a D3x for that anyway...

Hi James,
Of course... but the reason would rather be camera speed and fps than IQ. D3X is great @ high iso, rent one and try it for yourself. D3 is designed for speed and action, D3X is basically designed for other purposes, but... isn't a 10Mp crop, with 7fps, very appealing for sport shooters as well ?

I certainly agree with you here.... 10mp 7fps crop would save some Photogs thousands in 2.8 lenses...