Nikon D3x (NOT trolling!)

[fotografz]

Follow up to today's wedding.

As is often the case, the weather man is dead wrong and it turns out to be a hot, muggy, but sunny day.

So I take along the sony kit which all fits into a Think Tank Urban Disguise bag. I figure I can use it outside in nicer light.

I shoot the getting ready stuff with the A900 at the Bride's home and take the Nikon kit to the church (because they shoot to 2 cards). My plan is to mostly shoot the D3X to see how it does. Exactly 2 minutes before the procession starts, the power grid goes down. This church has zero windows. None. Put away the D3X and grab the D3 and jack up the ISO.

Afterwards, we go into town where I use the A900 again because it's outside photos.

I did some stuff with the D3x later at the reception ... which is downloading now. I'll look at the files in the AM. It was a non-stop 10.5 hour shoot and I'm beat.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

...the power grid goes down. This church has zero windows. None.

My worst nightmare... both as a photographer and an architect!

:ROTFL:

 

[edwardkaraa]

One remark regarding the AF hunting of the A900 in low light, there is a setting in the menu to switch from fast to slow AF that Sony claims improves AF lock in difficult lighting conditions. It might be worth a try.

 

[fotografz]

My worst nightmare... both as a photographer and an architect!

:ROTFL:

Funny thing was that I had talked to the Priest 15 minutes before the ceremony about the unusual architectural design ... and he the lamented the lack of windows ... I didn't think anything about it until the lights went out.

The only light we had came from 6 candles and the emergency flood lights pointed down over the entrances.

 

[fotografz]

One remark regarding the AF hunting of the A900 in low light, there is a setting in the menu to switch from fast to slow AF that Sony claims improves AF lock in difficult lighting conditions. It might be worth a try.

That is a good tip and certainly worth a try. Maybe assign it to a low light group of settings for the selector dial so it's easy to toggle back and forth. Not sure it's going to help with things like wedding reception dancing where you need low light lock on .. and fast lock on moving subjects. But in other situations it may be very valuable.

I also tried the manual focus Zeiss 110/2FE on the D3X and will not do that again until I can get a split diagonal microprism screen for the D3X AND/OR a view magnifier. Too many slightly miss focused shots with it.

Another "interesting" thing that happened during this wedding was that ALL of the flashes we were using locked out due to heat. Both my partner's Canon 580EXs went down for the count, my Sony gave up, and so did the SB900 even with the new firmware. The SB900 conked out right as the reception speeches started and the SB800 was in another room. Trust me, I WILL now pay more attention to the little thermometer in the SB900s LCD window.

The only piece of gear that worked with a hitch was my M8 ... which produced the best images of all the cameras we had with us including the A900. Never, ever thought I'd be saying that.

Toodles ... back to processing.

 

[fotografz]

Okay, now I can talk about this in a bit more informed manner having used the D3X on the job shooting a wedding.

Here's my take on it Shelby. I skip all the handling and Pro features of the D3X which are the reason I got the camera in the first place. I need what it does, some stuff that the A900 can't do. So the following is about IQ:

This is not a slam-bam camera. It's different, and requires retooling your thinking a bit. Now I admit that I had to do the same thing with the A900 before the images began to sparkle in the manner we are getting accustomed to. But the learning curve was short because the A900 files are there from the get-go. However, you can't apply what you did for one camera to another and get the same results. That may sound obvious, but when you first start off using a camera like this D3X you don't know what to do right away, and tend to fall into familiar post processing habits.

So one wedding hasn't revealed all the secrets of the D3X ... but it has given me where to go as I move forward with it.

The D3X RAW files are more neutral in almost all respects compared to the A900. Its left up to you to go where you want creatively. It reminds me of comments made about the Sinar digital backs compared to others. This is probably the source of comments made about us A900 users having more fun while D3X users are working the files. In reality, it's just a different approach to what get delivered initially. Once I figured that out, the processing got a lot quicker.

My over-all impression is that the files are some of the most negative film looking I gotten from a 35mm DSLR yet. I know others have commented that the A900 does that, but I've never personally agreed with their observations. I love the A900 files for what they are, but I do not see them as film like ... unless the people are referring to low ISO transparency films ... which may well be the case given that there are so many landscape shooters. I don't shoot transparencies, I use color and B&W neg film scanned on a Imacon 949. That's my personal experience that I use for the "film like" observation.

I don't know how this was accomplished ... maybe a weaker AA filter and 14 bit or something. Taking a file up to 200 or 300% shows enormous amounts of detail using the newer zooms (14-24 & 24-70).

What counts is the prints, so I did a 17 X 22 print that was shot with the D3X and 24-70. This proved out my suspecion that this camera is better than what's on a computer screen ... very natural looking feel which reminds me a lot of film prints from the same printer. Not the same as the A900 images, not better, just different. Beautifully different.

Gotta run, here's just one from the D3X ...

 

[douglasf13]

Thanks for the nice initial observations, Marc. You may be on to something in regards to slide vs. negative "look," although I too am unsure as to why this is. I believe the A900 has a weaker AA filter, so maybe it's that extra DR? None of these companies write a true "raw" file, so Id be interested in the special sauces that are applied. Maybe Andrey knows??

 

[Tex]

Marc, what astute observation/revelation about Nikon digital files you have made. For years I shot F5’s teamed with 600mm & 300mm lenses for wildlife shooting. Astia and Velvia were my “go to” films. The images always “popped” on the light table. When I switched to D2X bodies, I never could get that transparency vibrancy “look and feel” - consequently I quit shooting digital wildlife AND landscapes and switched to MF film bodies (with Astia and Velvia).
I think all will agree that Shelby’s outstanding images have a vibrancy and pop lacking in the Nikon files. However, historically speaking, the film purists have always looked upon many of the transparency images with disdain.
What do customers say (if anything)?
(PS: I do notice that Shelby’s images are primarily of the “young and beautiful” members of society – which is always refreshing but perhaps not representative of the general populace).

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Marc... thanks for the observations, and I appreciate the non-technical review. I do know how quickly and accurately the nikon cameras perform as I made a brief switch last year. Ultimately I didn't like the interface or the colors... but I will admit to not spending the time to really dig into Nikon file processing. NX was useless at the time... slow and clunky (but great files)

Maybe it's the lenses (and the AA/CFA combination). The family/baby portraits I posted had very little done to them other than global contrast (curves) and sharpening, and a bit of vintage color tratment on one of them... yet they sing right out of the camera.

No offense, but the bridal shot you've posted (and it is beautiful!) just doesn't sing for me. However... I will agree it has a wonderful tonality and "smooth cripsness" that I think is very fitting for people shooting. I also bet the d3x would be a fantastic architectural camera where color is important, but detail and a somewhat broad tonal range is fitting. ie, not too contrasty, but still pops... with detail.

Thanks also for making a comment on the amount of detail that the d3x captures. This is something I've not seen from the number of 100% crops I've been exposed to. Don't get me wrong, the resolution has been there... but again, 100% is just not that pretty compared to the Sony files.

I guess, in the end, it is the print that counts... and I'll take your word that it is a lovely camera. As primarily a portrait photographer, I regularly print to 20x30 and beyond (cha-ching!)... so detail is important.

Ah... decisions, decisions

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I think all will agree that Shelby’s outstanding images have a vibrancy and pop lacking in the Nikon files. However, historically speaking, the film purists have always looked upon many of the transparency images with disdain.
What do customers say (if anything)?
(PS: I do notice that Shelby’s images are primarily of the “young and beautiful” members of society – which is always refreshing but perhaps not representative of the general populace).

Thanks Tex... funny stuff... "young and beautful", lol. they're also mostly under-age , so I have to keep my thoughts on the job at hand

What's wild is that it takes VERY little for me to get the vibrancy and pop (which isn't as heavy handed as many high-school senior photographers). Customers love my images and generally really like the pop, vibrancy, and slightly vintage tones look. I do try for a "film look" by not compressing the tonal range much (via use of curves instead of normal compressed levels)... but maybe marc is right... film look means such differnt things to different photographers. Velvia? Portra 160? Neopan 1600 (love it!).

One thing I will say... the detail and drawing of the Zeiss lenses, as nice as it is, can be brutally honest. I do have to retouch skin a bit more with the Sony as it captures, warts and all, most of the details in the scene.

It's one step shy of MF IMO, but tones it down just enough for nice usage as a portrait cam.

Lastly... I do lament the unavailability of things like RadioPoppers and exotic lenses, but that was something I knew coming into the system. I'm still not sure which way I'm leaning. Part of me wants to stay Sony and pick up a d3/d700. Part of me wants to upgrade to MF, and also pick up a d700 for wedding work. Again... decisions, decisions.

For now, though, I love the a900 as a portrait cam :thumbup:

 

[fotografz]

You see things differently than I do Shelby, which is what makes the world go around, right?

Where you see something "singing," I see a somewhat superficial addition to reality. I am absolutely sure this is an observation born from my advertising career where souping up reality is a daily requirement ... I personally rebel against it ... which I haven't been very successful at doing lately. I probably need to load up the film cameras and take a vacation from digital.

I think in the end you have to be true to what you like and don't like of the images themselves and use the gear that gets you closest even if it isn't perfect. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks good or bad, it's what you think.

Since you asked, I'd say steer clear of the D3X ... I doubt it is your cup of tea. I also doubt any amount of cooking the files will make them look like the A900 files. And I doubt I'll ever get the A900 stuff to look like the D3X stuff ... which is fine with me.

Like the D3, it will probably take a month or two to zero in on what I want from the D3X and how to get it. To do that I may have to detox myself of all these flamboyant contaminants and get back to what's important to me.

BTW, if you really do print a lot @ 20 X30 or more ... I wonder why you are in 35mm format at all? MFD is a whole other world.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

You see things differently than I do Shelby, which is what makes the world go around, right?

TOTALLY agree! :thumbup:

(snip)... which I haven't been very successful at doing lately. I probably need to load up the film cameras and take a vacation from digital.

I've thought about the same... in that I'm never truly happy with the images I get. Always feel like they're "almost there". I actually, get this, almost bought a 4x5 and was thinking about marketing old-school magazine quality film shooting to my seniors who would be interested, lol!

Since you asked, I'd say steer clear of the D3X ... I doubt it is your cup of tea. I also doubt any amount of cooking the files will make them look like the A900 files. And I doubt I'll ever get the A900 stuff to look like the D3X stuff ... which is fine with me.

Like the D3, it will probably take a month or two to zero in on what I want from the D3X and how to get it. To do that I may have to detox myself of all these flamboyant contaminants and get back to what's important to me.

BTW, if you really do print a lot @ 20 X30 or more ... I wonder why you are in 35mm format at all? MFD is a whole other world.

Good points... well taken on this end. If you've followed me on the other forums, you'll know that I've been waffling on the MF question for a few years. If you ask me to be totally truthful, I REALLY want to go MF. But... for the kind of work I do (and my limited newby budget"), it's a real stretch justifying the cost without selling everything I have. Plus, I'd still have to pick up a d700 and backup, plus lenses and flashes to cover my wedding work. Ouch. I have actually thought about getting a refurb p25 or a demo aptus 22 (now mid $6k from leaf) or even one of the remaining h3dII-22 kits... but the whole transiion to MF, given the utility nature of my business would be a real drain on my $$$.

I guess there's no free lunch when you're critical about what you want from your gear.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I agree with Marc about the "film-like" thing. This quality was the first thing that drew me to the A900, but this of course from someone who has shot chrome film almost exclusively in my pre-digital time (as well as the inevitable start in BW and home printing). I love the chrome look, and consequently the A900 files, but there must be a reason why no one uses it for weddings and usually use iso 160 negative film.

 

[woodyspedden]

Let me say at the outset that I am a D3X owner and thus somewhat biased. I recently was on a workshop where both the D3X and the A900 were represented. From a technical standpoint the shadow noise in the A900 was much worse than the D3X. I really like the color palette of the A900 but as Marc pointed out, that is a personal choice as both cameras do a more than credible job at capturing rather accurate images. The build quality of the D3X is light years ahead of the A900 but for the difference in price you might expect that. Biggest difference between the two is size and weight. The D3X is a brick and it feels like it when you tote it around all day. So for those that this is an issue I would say wait a little while as surely there is a D700X somewhere in the works.

I don't see a loser no matter which you choose. So go for it based on what it important to you and how much you like the output files.

Woody

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Thanks Woody for the report... I appreciate hearing from actual owners like you and marc.

Much appreciated

 

[douglasf13]

True about the shadow noise, Woody. That's why I went on a ISO 320 rampage on this forum last month, since it gets things closer for the A900. From a technical standpoint, D3x does have better shadows, and A900 has the better color separation. Maybe this color separation results in the look that many are noticing in A900 files? Regardless, we really are at a point in FF DSLR where one picks their "film," and goes for it....unless your Marc, and you have the luxury of shooting many "films." Lucky :cussing: :ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[fotografz]

TOTALLY agree! :thumbup:



I've thought about the same... in that I'm never truly happy with the images I get. Always feel like they're "almost there". I actually, get this, almost bought a 4x5 and was thinking about marketing old-school magazine quality film shooting to my seniors who would be interested, lol!



Good points... well taken on this end. If you've followed me on the other forums, you'll know that I've been waffling on the MF question for a few years. If you ask me to be totally truthful, I REALLY want to go MF. But... for the kind of work I do (and my limited newby budget"), it's a real stretch justifying the cost without selling everything I have. Plus, I'd still have to pick up a d700 and backup, plus lenses and flashes to cover my wedding work. Ouch. I have actually thought about getting a refurb p25 or a demo aptus 22 (now mid $6k from leaf) or even one of the remaining h3dII-22 kits... but the whole transiion to MF, given the utility nature of my business would be a real drain on my $$$.

I guess there's no free lunch when you're critical about what you want from your gear.

Well, I'll wager that I've been around longer than you ... Lots of time to collect all this stuff, so I can use whatever strikes my fancy.

I've never seen a better time to jump into MF digital capture. The used stuff is less than any of the top DSLRs. With many of them now, you really only need a low light 35 DSLR and a few basic lenses to CYA. In reality, except for maybe a half dozen actions shots I now could shoot an entire wedding with my H3D-II/31 after the last update.

Here's a side observation that continually haunts me ... after blowing through half a dozen + 35mm digital systems and updating with-in those systems, my best wedding work was, and still is done with a Leica M. I do not want to even think about all the money I spent on this stuff only to make that observation. What really irritates me :angry: is when Irakly continuously reminds me of this fact (he exclusively uses a M8 when we shoot weddings together).

 

[fotografz]

True about the shadow noise, Woody. That's why I went on a ISO 320 rampage on this forum last month, since it gets things closer for the A900. From a technical standpoint, D3x does have better shadows, and A900 has the better color separation. Maybe this color separation results in the look that many are noticing in A900 files? Regardless, we really are at a point in FF DSLR where one picks their "film," and goes for it....unless your Marc, and you have the luxury of shooting many "films." Lucky :cussing: :ROTFL::ROTFL:

Not just lucky ... I worked my behind off for all of it.

Here's another thing I just noticed as I'm going through this wedding ... a lot of the first D3X stuff was shot at ISO 160. When it jumps to ISO 500 later, the files get waaaaay better. No noise and the color gets a lot better. I think I may have done some ISO 800 with it later on but I haven't got that far yet. From what I'm seeing here, the D3X doesn't seem to be an ISO 160 camera ... unless maybe in the studio with strobes. I'll have to try that out.

 

[cmb_]

Here's a side observation that continually haunts me ... after blowing through half a dozen + 35mm digital systems and updating with-in those systems, my best wedding work was, and still is done with a Leica M.

Marc - by best do you mean images that you like best - images that resonate with your personal aesthetic - or images that the clients like and are the ones they tend to choose? Hopefully there is overlap. I would think that many of the standard "shots" you must get at a wedding would not be done with the M but you would use the M in more casual situations (or when a second shooter is covering some of the other shots). Is that the case?

 

[douglasf13]

Shelby, that picture of the child is OUTSTANDING. Really, WOW. :clap: