Nikon D3x review from a landscape shooter's perspective

[Dan Wells]

I agree with Douglas that the differences between the D3x and A900 in image quality appear to be small enough that a photographer who uses either one (and knows it well) will get better images with their own camera (with known workflow and quirks) than with the other camera - I don't think I could quickly pick up an A900 and do it justice (in a couple of months, I'd be getting really nice stuff, but not the first time out). I wish Sony (and, frankly, Nikon) would just bundle C1 with their camera for RAW conversion - Phase is open to bundling deals with everybody from Leica to SanDisk to Microsoft! ACR doesn't tend to do a great job on most Nikon files any more than it does on Sony files - because it historically hasn't been great, I'm not excited enough about it to bother fooling with the beta. When Aperture (which has been superb with many Nikons) is out for the D3x, I will give that a try. I'm lucky enough to have owned C1 Pro for years, always keeping it around for certain conversion tasks, even when using something more convenient as my primary converter. 4.6 is much easier to use than 3.x, so I'm likely to stick with C1 as my primary converter, at least until and unless something much better comes along.  Even the newest C1 is still not as good an integrated image management system as Aperture or Lightroom, although the cataloging aspects of the program are certainly MUCH improved from C1 3.x. One thing that C1 (at least C1 Pro) does VERY well is produce multiple conversion types from the same image at the same time - I have it set to make a jpeg I can e-mail in addition every time I create a print-ready file.
       I'm intrigued by the observations on Sony's build quality (I hope you can tell from my review that I respect the A900 and welcome a third player in the market - I hope Sony stays around, because three high-end makers will drive innovation) - I thought that the 900 was known to be basically a 700 body except for the pentaprism (and, of course, the sensor), but it seems like it's not, despite the nearly identical control layout.

                                                                               -Dan

[douglasf13]

It sure would be nice if C1 was bundled with Sony.  I'm curious about the difference in the way ACR treats D3x vs. A900. I saw a comparison of ACR with the A900 and 5dii, and while ACR wasn't the absolute best for the Canon, I was amazed at how much better it did with the 5dii files.

 As far as A900 build goes, it is a bit surprising to me as well, because I was expecting an A700 type build. Don't get me wrong, the A700 build is competetive in it's class, but when you work with a camera for a while, little niggles like body and card door creaks become noticeable (I've heard about these in the 5dii already.) The A900 uses some new labyrinth seals in the doors, and it just feels more solid, albeit it's no D3x.  

  The only issue Ive had with either the A700 and A900 in lots of use is that, once or twice a year, a little compressed air or contact spray is needed to clean the control dials, because they get a little wonky.

[Dan Wells]

In my experience, ACR (and Lightroom) likes Canon files better than any other (common) camera - it could have a real affinity for Leica files and I'd never know it, because I don't have any to play with. With most varieties of Canon files (ranging from 20D to 1Ds mkII), ACR does better than Aperture and at least comparably to Capture One (and is preferable to C1 overall because of Lightroom's file management capabilities). With Nikon files ranging from D70 to D3x, ACR is the worst of ACR/Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One by a pretty fair margin. It sounds like the Sonys respond more like Nikons to the various converters, which is not terribly surprising when you consider that Sony and Nikon sensor technology is much more closely related than either one is to Canon - Nikon sometimes buys Sony sensors, and even when they don't there seems to be a fair bit of cross-licensing and related development going on.

                                            -Dan

[lattiboy]

I thought that the 900 was known to be basically a 700 body except for the pentaprism (and, of course, the sensor), but it seems like it's not, despite the nearly identical control layout.

I had the same impression before using it, but it's a very different class of camera. It feels like a Minolta 7D on steroids (which is saying something if you ever used a 7D). The sheer force/volume of the shutter only reinforces this impression.

The biggest difference I've noticed is how it feels in my (huge) hands. The driving force behind me getting a Sony was the ergonomics. I felt the Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Oly were all too small and cramped for me layout wise. I'm not alone in this experience, dyxum.com is filled with people who shared the same experience. It was odd to me that a consumer electronics company like Sony would cater to us big-handed freaks

[eronald]

If you want to check out the features of the D3/D3x, I've linked through to the Nikon site via my Nikon blog. It's amazing how much web design and graphics work goes into selling a camera these days.

http://pronikond.blogspot.com/

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

In my experience, ACR (and Lightroom) likes Canon files better than any other (common) camera -

It would be interesting to hear from people close to ACR developement why they are not investing more in a top notch support of non Canon cameras.

Raw Developper and C1 seems to be doing pretty well with most brands.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

hope you don't take offense at what I've been saying and I really wouldn't mind a D3x myself, but given the choice between using my MFDB and a D3x for a landscape on a tripod, I would take the MFDB anyday.

I guess that it depends:

- in what conditions you are shooting landscape, how wet/cold it gets, what kind of autonomy you need,
- how important DoF is for you
- whether you like spending time getting rids of artifacts like moire or not
- whether stitching is part of your equation
- ...

There are many combinations of factors where the very slight image quality advantage of the higher end backs is very far from compensating for the tremendous overall value the D3x has for landscape shooters.

A recent 8 images stitch from the D3x:



Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

It would be interesting to hear from people close to ACR developement why they are not investing more in a top notch support of non Canon cameras.

Raw Developper and C1 seems to be doing pretty well with most brands.

Cheers,
Bernard

Raw Developer is not doing well with the D3x, in my opinion.

The Gimp also opens D3x files; it's pretty convenient actually if all you want to do is develop the Raw, apply a curve and crop. As it's still 8 bits it doesn't do well for in depth retouch, obviously.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

Raw Developer is not doing well with the D3x, in my opinion.

It for sure isn't as good as C1, but it is still better than ACR in my view.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwdallam]

Maybe Canon's next camera, after getting its ass kicked by the D3X will allow for you to attach a MFB to it? Imagine that? I canon 25MP camera that allows you to attache a 22-32MP MFDB. All for the low price of 8, 000 US--damn economical oddity that 8K mark. Could something like that even occur? That would be the best of all worlds, no?

[BernardLanguillier]

Maybe Canon's next camera, after getting its ass kicked by the D3X will allow for you to attach a MFB to it? Imagine that? I canon 25MP camera that allows you to attache a 22-32MP MFDB. All for the low price of 8, 000 US--damn economical oddity that 8K mark. Could something like that even occur? That would be the best of all worlds, no?

There have been rumors of... Nikon... doing just that for about 2 years now...

Cheers,
Bernard

[jing q]

I think that personally, for me, a big joy of photography is the translation of the groundglass to the final image.
I played with the whole stitching thing and it just never gave me the joy of taking a photo
When it comes to work, however, whatever it takes to get the shot is fine with me. I can't remember the number of times clients wanted a background composited in anyway.
Yes weather conditions is a huge thing, but I've never had a moire issue with any landscapes. I'm fortunate in that I never need to trek to hard places for what I want to photograph so I have the benefit of a tripod locked down with a slow shutter speed.

I guess that it depends:

- in what conditions you are shooting landscape, how wet/cold it gets, what kind of autonomy you need,
- how important DoF is for you
- whether you like spending time getting rids of artifacts like moire or not
- whether stitching is part of your equation
- ...

There are many combinations of factors where the very slight image quality advantage of the higher end backs is very far from compensating for the tremendous overall value the D3x has for landscape shooters.

A recent 8 images stitch from the D3x:



Cheers,
Bernard

[KenS]

...snip snip...
     That said, the D3x's strengths are quite dissimilar from traditional 35mm strengths, and make it appealing for landscape photography that would have traditionally been the preserve of medium (and even large) format. The first thing you notice about a D3x image at low ISO is stunning per-pixel detail. Handled carefully (ISO 100 or below, tripod mounted), the amount of detail in a D3x image is even higher than you'd expect from 24.5 mp. Most DSLRs don't look good at 100% on screen, because the blurring from the anti-aliasing filter is apparent at 100% magnification, even if it is not noticeable in a print. Properly focused D3x images look very good at 100%, indicating that the AA filter is either very weak, or alternatively, a new design. Thankfully, the autofocus is very precise, because, in common with all DSLRs, the D3x has a very bright focusing screen that it is not really meant for manual focus. 51 focusing points allow for a great deal of compositional freedom. The best way to focus this camera manually is probably through Live View, which I haven't learned to use yet, having never had it before.
 
    The second quality noticeable in D3x images is enormous dynamic range - quite simply, this camera offers more range than any other I have used, and by a significant y other camera I have used. While I have not used medium-format digital systems extensively myself, I have seen quite a bit of MF digital output (I came close to buying into the H3D system before choosing the D3x), and the D3x files really do look like MF files to me, coming strikingly close to the detail, tonality and dynamic range that so impressed me in H3D sample files.
... snip snip ...
                                                           -Dan

Dan,

Thanks for your write-up.  While reading this thread a few minutes ago I was also printing two 24 x 30 inch images on an Epson 7800.  Same SouthWest landscape scene, one shot with a Pentax 67 on Velvia 100, the other shot at the same time with a Sony A900 and Zeiss 24-70/2.8 lens.  The Velvia transparency was scanned with a Minolta MultiPro, glass plates and Scanhancer diffuser. I worked pretty hard to get the tones and contrast to agree and spent a good deal of time on the Capture and Output sharpening (Photokit Sharpener).  Result... both are very similar, almost equally sharp.  From 18 inches away I can't tell the difference.  However,  not too surprisingly, the deep shadows are much better in the A900 image.  While the Photoshop Shadow/Highlight layer did help to pull out shadows the only way to get the needed dynamic range would have been to combine two Velvia transparency exposures.

I am considering purchasing an A900, especially after seeing these results (D3x is too much $ for me).  But, one of my main concerns is focusing and depth of field which you mentioned above.   With my Pentax system, fixed focal length lenses, and a DOF chart with a CoC of 0.045 mm (vs Pentax lens barrel marking) it is pretty foolproof to get near optimum focus. With the zoom lenses on digital cameras - very short throw, sparse distance scale markings, no DOF scale, and no readout in the LCD monitor of the actual focused distance I am perplexed as too how one can feel confident all is in critical focus?

I've posted this question before and received lots of conflicting responses.
The positive, 'I've got the focus/DOF nailed' feeling I get with my Pentax/folding focusing hood/ground glass magnifier seems like something I might really miss.

Could you tell me what focusing method works, or doesn't work for you?  What percentage of your shots are rejected because of bad focus/DOF?

Thanks,
Ken

[Dan Wells]

I don't lose many images to focus, but the AF is better than I could do with the focusing screen it comes with (give me a "toothier" screen, and I just might beat the AF system). I use the 51 AF points to place the active point VERY carefully on the subject I want, and let the camera handle the focus (almost always quite well). The best way of focusing a D3x manually is a technique I haven't learned yet - Live View. One worry with the Alpha that the D3x doesn't have is that it has neither the 51 points offering a huge choice of AF area nor the Live View. One of the Alpha folks on here could answer better than I could about its focusing screen choices, and its center focus point is reputed to be amazing (so focus and recompose becomes a good way to focus it).


                                                                    -Dan

[douglasf13]

The outside AF points of the A900 are quite useable. They just don't hold up to the pro Nikons when it comes to tracking fast action. Also, like Dan mentioned, there are only a fraction of the number of AF points when compared to the D3x.  

 Sony has taken an interesting position in regards to live view. They've drawn a line in the sand and said, "Our Live View is superior," and left out the more conventional type of live view. While it's true that the live view in the A300/350 is superior for moving subjects and many of the original uses LV was intended for, the Sony live view is not able to provide the fine tune focusing that has become a nice by-product of the main sensor based live view. It seems that Sony now doesn't want to muddy the waters by bringing sensor based lv for high end shooters. I'm hoping that they backtrack and bring it to future models...even if they have to call it something different like "live focusing. " LOL.  On a side note, I find myself using Intelligent Preview more than I thought, and you can use it with flash, which is handy for nailing exposure.

There are a few user changeable focusing screens for a900, and the matte is supposedly good for manual focus, but I haven't tried them.

[eronald]

I think there was a marketing trick involved - LiveView focus is actually very doable albeit slow, as the videorecorders demonstrate, and several consumer cams, eg G10 have very usable main-sensor focus with the focus are user-selectable. But Sony's bosses didn't want the new still camera range to cannibalize the video recorder range. Canon and Nikon don't sell as many videorecorders, I guess so they felt free to make still cameras that can make videos. I've seen similar things happen quite often in the computer area, a new emerging product is frequently crippled to limit the protests of the managers of the old cash cow  that was milked to finance the research leading to the bright young thing.

Edmund

The outside AF points of the A900 are quite useable. They just don't hold up to the pro Nikons when it comes to tracking fast action. Also, like Dan mentioned, there are only a fraction of the number of AF points when compared to the D3x.  

 Sony has taken an interesting position in regards to live view. They've drawn a line in the sand and said, "Our Live View is superior," and left out the more conventional type of live view. While it's true that the live view in the A300/350 is superior for moving subjects and many of the original uses LV was intended for, the Sony live view is not able to provide the fine tune focusing that has become a nice by-product of the main sensor based live view. It seems that Sony now doesn't want to muddy the waters by bringing sensor based lv for high end shooters. I'm hoping that they backtrack and bring it to future models...even if they have to call it something different like "live focusing. " LOL.  On a side note, I find myself using Intelligent Preview more than I thought, and you can use it with flash, which is handy for nailing exposure.

There are a few user changeable focusing screens for a900, and the matte is supposedly good for manual focus, but I haven't tried them.

[eronald]

Could you tell me what focusing method works, or doesn't work for you?  What percentage of your shots are rejected because of bad focus/DOF?

Thanks,
Ken

I mainly image people. Close up, I never have focus issues. Long range, using single-point selection, one needs be careful using *any* focus point, as it's essential to make sure that no high-contrast background feature area is anyway near the chosen sensor. I wonder whether using C mode or the 51 points mightn't be smarter than single, because it'sll make sure the background doesn't pick up the focus.

As long as the focus is correctly locked on the desired feature, I have never seen any focus inaccuracy with my 85/1.4, even in low light (1/30, F4 @ ISO 1600).

Edmund

[Ronny Nilsen]

It would be interesting to hear from people close to ACR developement why they are not investing more in a top notch support of non Canon cameras.

If I should make a guess it's probably because there are more Canon shooters that use ACR/LR than all the
other brands. I don't think any hobby shooter I know with Nikon shoot anything but jpg. But some Canon (hobby)
shooters use raw. Since Canon bundles raw sw with the camera I would guess that more Canon shooters
try raw as they can easily test raw with the supplied DPP without any risk or hassle, and progress to LR etc.
when they see the advantage of raw.

Ronny

[eronald]

If I should make a guess it's probably because there are more Canon shooters that use ACR/LR than all the
other brands. I don't think any hobby shooter I know with Nikon shoot anything but jpg. But some Canon (hobby)
shooters use raw. Since Canon bundles raw sw with the camera I would guess that more Canon shooters
try raw as they can easily test raw with the supplied DPP without any risk or hassle, and progress to LR etc.
when they see the advantage of raw.

Ronny

After seeing the quality of the Jpeg files coming out of my D3x, I can understand why no Nikon hobby shooter would bother with Raw.The time saving with the Nikon is amazing. Also, exposure and white balance is  good, there's little cause to fix it for snapshots. It's like shooting slide film with a very good SLR used to be: Most shots were just right.

I was just told by an industry analyst here in Paris that a lot of pros (sports, event) are justifying their move to Nikon by the fact that they can stop postprocessing. Of course, for fashion/portrait shooters setting up a look with the Raw processor is not avoidable.


Edmund

[petermarrek]

The sad reality seems to be that all these posters on the internet felt that the D3x was overpriced, 99.9% of them have never even seen or used one. All these comparisons to MFDB's are really meaningless, do any of those offer anything like the 14-24 the 200-400, VR and all the other fine Nikon lenses? Each camera has it's niche, at this point the D3x seems to be the best chamelion out there. It would be nice to have a 50plus MP back to make those BIG prints but most of us will never have one. I really appreciate having a D3x that I can handhold in almost any situation including boats, planes and helicopters as well as being able to attach whatever lens I need to get the shot that I want at the quality that this camera gives me. If I could only have one camera to use, I think I found it.