Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaf Aptus 75 versus Nikon D3x  (Read 27194 times)
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« on: March 29, 2009, 10:42:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Gidday,

Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.

I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks

I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8182



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2009, 11:27:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HarperPhotos
Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.

I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks

I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.

Things will be even better with the D3x if you process your raw files with C1 4.6.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2009, 11:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Simon

Thanks for the comparison.  The only thing is Nikon always produces skin tones with more magenta whereas your Leaf back has more pleasant skin colour.
Logged
shelby_lewis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2009, 12:03:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Henry Goh
Simon

Thanks for the comparison.  The only thing is Nikon always produces skin tones with more magenta whereas your Leaf back has more pleasant skin colour.

I'm glad someone else said it first  

I've never liked skin-tones from nikon, but I bet it can be profiled to look more natural. I just know when I shot Nikon (for a brief period of time), skin was the hardest to get right. Other than that, a great system. I'll be really interested to see where the d3x goes in the next year. I'm on the verge of going MF Digital... and I'll admit that I'm seriously looking at the d3x as well. Currently a canon shooter... but the focus inaccuracies are killing me (and I don't shoot mark III's).

Thanks for the comparison!


Logged
Brady
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2009, 12:26:08 AM »
ReplyReply

lotta noise/artifacts in the black shirt on the nikon?  aptus blacks are a lot cleaner aside from the moire.  pretty nice though.

Quote from: HarperPhotos
Gidday,

Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.

I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks

I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.

Cheers

Simon
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2009, 12:43:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Brady
lotta noise/artifacts in the black shirt on the nikon?  aptus blacks are a lot cleaner aside from the moire.  pretty nice though.
Really? I think I see more noise and artifacts on the Leaf file. Go figure.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2009, 01:35:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Why compare the files at such low resolution?
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
yaya
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2009, 02:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Simon any chance you can try to process the two files at the same output size? Both jpegs here are downscaled but the Aptus one is smaller? Best is if you can post the raw files, of course...

BR

Yair
« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 02:59:58 AM by yaya » Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2009, 03:06:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm coming from a Sinar e-75LV(Sold) and now a D3x.
No regrets so far.
Yes the Sinar files are larger,but for me that's where it stops.

The D3x is the current king of the DSLR's

Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
Roskav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2009, 03:36:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I did a quick test outside my local supplier with a D3x, and while it has great resolution to a point, the lens system for the nikon just can't get anywhere near the detail and file quality that my A75-digitars produce.  Don't get me wrong, 24-70 and 14-24 are just fantastic for the work I would produce with a D3 and are the best zoom lenses I have ever used, but they just can't hack digitars for wide angle architectural work.  (And leaf does have a selective moire reduction tool which works nicely)


Ros


Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4112



« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2009, 04:03:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Gidday Simon,

Could you email Raws for these files to yourself via www.yousendit.com and post the links ?


Edmund
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2009, 04:10:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

Did you compare the P45 with D3X before?  Any RAW files available?

Thanks.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8182



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2009, 04:52:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Roskav
I did a quick test outside my local supplier with a D3x, and while it has great resolution to a point, the lens system for the nikon just can't get anywhere near the detail and file quality that my A75-digitars produce.  Don't get me wrong, 24-70 and 14-24 are just fantastic for the work I would produce with a D3 and are the best zoom lenses I have ever used, but they just can't hack digitars for wide angle architectural work.  (And leaf does have a selective moire reduction tool which works nicely)

Probably, but then again why use zoom lenses? If you try out a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 ZF on the D3x with a robust tripod, convert your files with C1 4.6, apply the right amount of sharpening and you won't be disapointed by the sharpness.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
yaya
Guest
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2009, 05:30:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Probably, but then again why use zoom lenses? If you try out a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 ZF on the D3x with a robust tripod, convert your files with C1 4.6, apply the right amount of sharpening and you won't be disapointed by the sharpness.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard how good is the 100mm f2.0 ZF for wide angle architecture application? I would think that the zooms are better for that kind of work.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4112



« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2009, 06:19:09 AM »
ReplyReply

This whole business is degenerating; I have a D3x and a P45+, the P45+ is better at ISO 50 on architecture. But in practice, the MF solutions are not *flexible*.

One example is focus, the MF solutions don't have the liveview which allows you to adjust focus via the camera screen. Resolution doesn't help much if one cannot achieve focus. Using a Digitar on a back means moving to a non-reflex solution, with the attendant costs, it's not just a lens swap.

Rather than waste time explaining to photographers how dumb they are, you should get the design people to incorporate the features the customers request. Of course, the fact that just about every piece of MF equipment is made by a different subcontractor doesn't exactly help, when N and C and even L can just go and design the whole thing in one go.

I have a very pessimistic view of the whole MF business model. It's time for the Japanese to get here and ratiionalize production and sales a bit. As for Panoramas etc, I guess you all know about Gigapan


Edmund



Quote from: yaya
Bernard how good is the 100mm f2.0 ZF for wide angle architecture application? I would think that the zooms are better for that kind of work.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 06:22:31 AM by eronald » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2009, 08:08:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shelby_lewis
I'm glad someone else said it first  

I've never liked skin-tones from nikon, but I bet it can be profiled to look more natural. I just know when I shot Nikon (for a brief period of time), skin was the hardest to get right. Other than that, a great system. I'll be really interested to see where the d3x goes in the next year. I'm on the verge of going MF Digital... and I'll admit that I'm seriously looking at the d3x as well. Currently a canon shooter... but the focus inaccuracies are killing me (and I don't shoot mark III's).

Thanks for the comparison!


Exactly why I don't shoot Nikon anymore. I hate there color but i do like there system. Myself I look at the DSLR's for PR work anymore. But that is just me.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8182



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2009, 09:14:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
Bernard how good is the 100mm f2.0 ZF for wide angle architecture application? I would think that the zooms are better for that kind of work.

Brilliant actually... as long as you practise an ancient art called stitching. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2009, 11:39:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rethmeier
I'm coming from a Sinar e-75LV(Sold) and now a D3x.
No regrets so far.
Yes the Sinar files are larger,but for me that's where it stops.

The D3x is the current king of the DSLR's


The larger file is far from where the only difference is.
I have a D3 and a H3DII-31 and the difference is huge on a big screen
and a little less huge on print :-).

I also was, at one point, skeptical on the difference between a good DSLR and a MFDB.

Not anymore!. It IS a difference and not because of the larger files.

Its the colour, the contrast, the microdetails and the not so easy to explain.  

Some doesnt see it and some does. And that is fine.

The ones that doesnt see the difference - go with the DSLR. It is cheaper and faster.
The one that does see the difference and think it is worth the price difference - go with the MFDB.

The most important thing is that most of us wants to work with the best file we can produce
and if it takes a MFDB to see and feel that - so jump in. If not - save your money.

A lot of us are not satisfied until we think it looks good to our eyes - not only the customers.

Only my 50 cents on this topic

Willow
Logged

Willow Photography
AlexM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2009, 11:41:51 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a whole lot more sharpening in the Nikon picture...
Interesting. Can we see them at 100% without sharpening?
Nikon's dynamic range seems to be slightly shorter.
Logged

Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2009, 12:04:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Willow Photography
The larger file is far from where the only difference is.

Very true. There is DR, colour, larger viewfinders, leaf shutters, lack of AA filter, lenses, and ability to use back on view camera to consider (and I probably forgot something  ):
« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 12:13:02 PM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad