Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera. D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome) YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5 My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery
Mon 01-Dec-08 03:48 PM | edited Mon 01-Dec-08 03:50 PM by Noel Holland
Hmm... I'd already posted that I wouldn't post again on the subject of the D3 but this article raises an interesting issue:
"The new 16bit expeed processor gives added dynamic range over the Nikon D3"
Now as I remember it the D3's Expeed system has always been 16 bit. The files are then output as a 14 bit NEFS. The specs sheets I've seen on the D3X all shown the output NEFs as being 14 bit. Ergo, on the face of it there hasn't been any improvement to the Expeed processor for the D3X.
So the question is: Is there really a better performance in dynamic range for the D3X or is the poster getting confused by the higher pixel resolution and reading results from the image that are not really there?
Gut feel is that if the D3X had a marked improvement on dynamic range compared to the D3 then Nikon would be singing it from the rooftops. It would be at the top of every piece of marketing material as higher dynamic range is one of the main selling points of MF digital cameras. But I've not seen any mention of this improved performance so far from Nikon.
I'm not saying that there isn't an improvement in dynamic range for the D3X it's just that I'd like to see more technical analysis rather than what appears to be qualative judgement. However this is one aspect of the D3X that I'll be interested in hearing the outcome of.
Thanks a bunch for the images!! I'll agree with TA on the ISO 6400 shot (still beats the pants off my D2X ). I'll reserve judgement for ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 as they are a little soft, makes it difficult to judge the noise.
Although I doubt any lanscape or studio photographer will be shooting very often at/above ISO 1600, I'm still anxious to see bclaff's analysis. Again, thanks for taking the time to post the images for us!!
For a 24.5 mp camera i think the ISO noise levels are very good. You can't compare the D3 to the D3x when talking noise because they are two different machines. For a camera that is designed and intended for maximum detail that will most likely be used at low ISO's it still has very good capability of shooting at 1600 with low noise.
To expect noise levels of the D3 in the D3x is just ludicrous. It's like buying a luxury sedan and expecting it to perform like a race car because it was exspensive. It's not going to happen.
What should be compared is the jump from the D2x to the D3x and in just about every way the D3x is light years ahead of the D2x.
Rick, What we're seeing on our screens is JPEG compressed sRGB at about 72 to 100 ppi. You can compare, but the comparison isn't going to mean much. What it takes for serious comparison is prints -- 11 x 14 at least. Larger if possible.
By the way, checking noise on the basis of ISO without knowing shutter speed doesn't mean much.
Thanks again for providing these images. I'm sorry that some of the responses have focused too much on the quality of the images, which may have been taken hastily, rather than on the fact that you have made something available at all.
With all due respects Silver, isn't it inevitable that some of the first publicly available images produced by this much anticipated and very expensive camera are going to be scrutinized - especially when the premium price tag is being justified on the basis of image quality?
>Mark, > >Thanks again for providing these images. >I'm sorry that some of the responses have focused too much on >the quality of the images, which may have been taken hastily, >rather than on the fact that you have made something available >at all. > >Cheers, >Bill
he's just attracting a record number of website traffic, nothing really useful for our community there. check the comments.
I would like to add my two penny worth, for what my comments are worth.
First a huge thank you for taking the time and trouble to share your photos for all to look at. They are very very useful and tell a very interesting story.
Secondly for what my view is worth:
The 100 to 400 look very good to me. The 800 looks very acceptable. The 1600 is hard to tell as sadly it is too blurred due to the low shutter speed to really be able to tell, but the Hi 1 (3200 is much better than I expected. However the Hi 2 (6400) is pretty ugly, but then the Hi 2 (25600) on the D3 is pretty ugly as well. Fine art photos they are not, but difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot at least the feature is there, user beware.
I must say I am very pleasantly surprised. Final acid test might be seeing some unmodified 14 bit raw shots as well. Judging by the comments in the UK in the current issue of the Professional Photographer comparing 400 ISO shots from the D700 versus the Sony A900 the D700 beat the pants off the A900 even at 400 ISO. These also beat the pants of the Sony though of course a real back to back test will be needed to be sure and I am sure will come soon. On this evidence I am pleasantly surprised, so can say to myself already "Oh ye of little faith"