Nikon D3x (NOT trolling!)

[fotografz]

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?

Despite many of the images I've shown here, especially on this Sony forum, my approach is much more Leica M than DSLR. Meaning more candid and unobtrusive and usually B&W ... but most importantly it's capturing the decisive moments that everyone touts but few deliver. The M is conducive to that type of work ... at least it is for me.

The way I do weddings is the client hires me and I shoot AND pick the pictures. They don't have a say in it. If I can't do that, I won't shoot weddings. I'm not a portrait photographer and don't want to be one ... even though I appreciate portrait work like that of Arnold Newman, whom I know and have some of his work.

Many of my clients are art directors, designers, painters, other photographers (including wedding photographers) writers and musicians ... or someone that they know. Only recently have I branched out toward the country club set ... not sure I'm happy where that is going. Life's short, do what you love and jettison the rest.:thumbup:

 

[carstenw]

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.

Marc, I am curious about something. I noticed that you put your H3D 39 up for sale. Does this mean that you will use the D3/D3x/A900 exclusively for your pro work now, and your CFV for private MFDB use?

I am just coming in the other direction, waiting for a Sinar eMotion 54 LV to arrive, so I am interested to hear your thoughts leading up to this decision.

Edit: I see now that you also have an H3DII-31, so I guess there was no thought process there at all, other than the 31 is enough for you, and probably has the better high ISO performance.

 

[fotografz]

Marc, I am curious about something. I noticed that you put your H3D 39 up for sale. Does this mean that you will use the D3/D3x/A900 exclusively for your pro work now, and your CFV for private MFDB use?

I am just coming in the other direction, waiting for a Sinar eMotion 54 LV to arrive, so I am interested to hear your thoughts leading up to this decision.

Edit: I see now that you also have an H3DII-31, so I guess there was no thought process there at all, other than the 31 is enough for you, and probably has the better high ISO performance.

Oh, no,no,no,no ... nope ... big fat noper.

I put it up for sale exploring the possible move to a 50 meg H3D-II. But I haven't tried all that hard to sell the H3D-II/39. I use the 39 meg back on a view camera with digitar optics in my studio ... good as they are, none of these DSLRs are in the same league.

 

[carstenw]

Ah, I see I was totally off. Oh well, I should get used to it.

 

[woodyspedden]

Oh, no,no,no,no ... nope ... big fat noper.

I put it up for sale exploring the possible move to a 50 meg H3D-II. But I haven't tried all that hard to sell the H3D-II/39. I use the 39 meg back on a view camera with digitar optics in my studio ... good as they are, none of these DSLRs are in the same league.

Oh ye king of camera porn, you prove each day with your images how true this is.

I am sure that one of these first days a tech camera is in my future

Woody

 

[ptomsu]

Seems I need to put my oil in the fire here

As a Nikon owner up till D3 and having tested the D3X, this test was for me the significant outcome to go away from Nikon and move to Sony A900 with Zeiss glass.

I was on a workshop last week where I compared a lot of the A900 shots to real MF from Phase, and I must say that the A900 is for me the camera coming closest to MF IQ if you use it under the right light, ISO and with Zeiss glass.

And I find the build quality of the A900 superior to the D3, D3X, especially if it comes to the great viewfinder of the A900 and all the controls - for me no comparison to the Nikons, which are easily seen to be inferior.

But maybe I am Sony biased now.

At least I was so pleased with Sony, that I finally sold all my Nikon gear and will probably not return for several years. But I know - never say never again

 

[fotografz]

Seems I need to put my oil in the fire here

As a Nikon owner up till D3 and having tested the D3X, this test was for me the significant outcome to go away from Nikon and move to Sony A900 with Zeiss glass.

I was on a workshop last week where I compared a lot of the A900 shots to real MF from Phase, and I must say that the A900 is for me the camera coming closest to MF IQ if you use it under the right light, ISO and with Zeiss glass.

And I find the build quality of the A900 superior to the D3, D3X, especially if it comes to the great viewfinder of the A900 and all the controls - for me no comparison to the Nikons, which are easily seen to be inferior.

But maybe I am Sony biased now.

At least I was so pleased with Sony, that I finally sold all my Nikon gear and will probably not return for several years. But I know - never say never again

Inferior? Non-sense. Nothing else to say.

The D3X is more camera than a A900. As it should be it.

I say this as an owner/user of both cameras.

I love them both, but I'd sell the Sony before the Nikons.

No use arguing the point, you do your thing and I'll do mine.

 

[docrjay]

The D3X is more camera than a A900. As it should be it. I say this as an owner/user of both cameras.

An argument that appeals to authority is fallacious.

Show some pics. Destroy the images that Shelby and APY jr. posted.

And let the forum members be the judge.

Peace.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I'm not sure where to go with this

I do think the build of the Nikon is quite a bit nicer and more solid - brick-like. BUT, I like the ergos of the sony, but that's totally a personal preference. I've got small hands and the chunkiness of the nikon bodies was always a bit uncomfortable to me.

I wish the sony had the nikon's exterior cover material, though.

Another anecdote... as if it means anything... shot a family session yesterday. Got some of my best shots to date, but MAN there were a lot of AF mistakes. What is so damned irritating about the a900 (for ME) is that the files are soooooo nice when you get the shot, it's just getting the shot that's tough with kids, weddings, et al.

If they could figure out how to make the af work like nikon's, I'd throw a party for us all

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Oh... and Marc and I are "virtual" friends... so this ain't no Sony/Nikon pissing match as far as I'm concerned. There's not enough time in my life for that stuff.

Marc's work is fantastic. Different than mine, but fantastic.

 

[douglasf13]

Yeah, I think we've pretty well determined that, as far as IQ, the A900 and D3x are different beasts with different strengths. I believe Marc was referring to the camera body, in which the D3x is surely top of the charts. The A900 is quite a match in build to the D700, IMO, but the D3x is a different matter. I'm in agreement with Shelby that the A900 ergonomics are perfect for me.

Shelby, I'd be curious to learn more about your AF problems. Is it an outside AF point issue?

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Shelby, I'd be curious to learn more about your AF problems. Is it an outside AF point issue?

No... it's just a bit too slow in certain situations. It might be the lenses that I have, but my general impression is that most people on this forum have not shot a lot of 1) objects moving directly at/away from you in lower light and 2) shot kids who cannot sit still. I'm not talking about kids that are hyper, I'm talking about how even when a kid is sitting "still" they are actually swaying and twitching minutely. If you're like me and shoot with very narrow DoF, then the sony just doesn't react quickly enough in those particular situations (IMO). Even my old 5D's had better af-servo performance (i don't even use it on the sony).

I do find the outer points really usable in many lighting situations... as long as there isn't quick motion.

Let's not confuse "panning" action with movement towards the camera. Many of the "swing" shots I've done with kids actually work because the af is not really having to predict distance-to-subject. Once it locks, there's a decent chance of getting a shot in focus. Even if they are swinging towards me there is a decisive moment when they "stop" at the top of the swing arc. I can usually predict that and get a few shots. If I tried to shoot in mid-swing. No go.

So, I'm probably being harsh on the a900 af because it can't track, effectively, objects moving directly at/away from the camera. Outside of that situation, the af is great IMO. Quite accurate. I bet even birds in flight are entirely possible if they are moving across the frame and not towards it.

Even if I "feather" the AF button during, let's say, a processional... there's still a large enough (but almost imperceptible) lag between focus acquire and shutter actuation to render a frame OoF if you're shooting wide open or close to it.

 

[docrjay]

I know the initial contention was the camera body. But to what extent this quote meant was a different thing all together.

I love them both, but I'd sell the Sony before the Nikons.

This is a declarative statement. Its presumes the the better camera overall.

All I am trying to say is, at least support it (ie., pictures).


P.S.

I know this is pointless, because of the wide subjectivity of the topic, but yeah...its my last post.

 

[Bill_Green]

So, I'm probably being harsh on the a900 af because it can't track, effectively, objects moving directly at/away from the camera.

Do you think you can focus faster than it can? My sum total A900 experience is now up to about 15 min., but I kind of got the feeling that unless what I was trying to focus on was directly in the center sensor, I probably could do better. To focus on something that was stationary, it seemed to be ok. I think if it can lock on something that is moving at a predictable speed and stays on one sensor it should be ok, but I would have to test it. I was playing with an 80/1.4.

@docrjay there is a lot more to a camera than just image quality. If you want to play the image quality card, a 4x5 will destroy an A900, but that really is a meaningless comparison. I think what everyone is getting at is the A900 is a very capable machine, particularly at low ISO, reasonably bright light conditions, but it is not fast. Mark and Shelby both rely on a camera that can be fast and deliver high quality images (properly focused, white balanced, exposed) in very demanding conditions. That has, in many ways, little to do with the sensor and "best conditions" image quality.

 

[douglasf13]

Bill is right. While the A900's center AF is probably the fastest, most accurate single sensor in the business, AF tracking with the camera using outside points is rather pedestrian. I have seen a couple of bird shooters on different forums that have managed to get things more dialed in for tracking, but I can't find the links.

I think the bigger point is ( I think this is what Marc is getting at) that the A900 is more or less a "hybrid" ( or "poor man's" ) Medium Format camera, with the advantages of price, some speed, SSS, and portability, although not quite there in IQ. For a shooter like Marc, who has MFDB as well as the better tracking D3x, the A900 may be a little redundant, and it would make sense for him to sell that first. The A900 is geared more towards a shooter like me: who can't quite justify the cost of a new back for the Hassies, doesn't really shoot much action at all, and wants a camera pretty small in size. I love the dang thing. :thumbs:

 

[fotografz]

Do you think you can focus faster than it can? My sum total A900 experience is now up to about 15 min., but I kind of got the feeling that unless what I was trying to focus on was directly in the center sensor, I probably could do better. To focus on something that was stationary, it seemed to be ok. I think if it can lock on something that is moving at a predictable speed and stays on one sensor it should be ok, but I would have to test it. I was playing with an 80/1.4.

@docrjay there is a lot more to a camera than just image quality. If you want to play the image quality card, a 4x5 will destroy an A900, but that really is a meaningless comparison. I think what everyone is getting at is the A900 is a very capable machine, particularly at low ISO, reasonably bright light conditions, but it is not fast. Mark and Shelby both rely on a camera that can be fast and deliver high quality images (properly focused, white balanced, exposed) in very demanding conditions. That has, in many ways, little to do with the sensor and "best conditions" image quality.

Couldn't have said it better myself Bill.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Well, I photographed today my niece's birthday at a Kindergarten, all 3 years old kids jumping around like crazy. Light level was slightly low (used ISO 1600 and 1/60 f/2.8) and continuous AF. Honestly this is the first time in my life I use AF-C since I spent most of my digital experience shooting with manual focus lenses However, I have the impression that AF speed is slow but I can't compare it to other cameras to see how much faster they are. Anyway, I was able to see when the camera acquired focus through the viewfinder and noticed that it was able to track it for 1-2 seconds before it lost it again. I was able to get a fair number of sharp pictures by pressing the shutter when I could see the subject was in focus. Once thing for sure, shooting moving kids is a tough job for both the camera and the photographer.

 

[fotografz]

An argument that appeals to authority is fallacious.

Show some pics. Destroy the images that Shelby and APY jr. posted.

And let the forum members be the judge.

Peace.

Peace? :ROTFL:

My work stands on it's own and dick measuring contests are of no interest, and even less profit.

My work is all about content, not just IQ ... most people wouldn't know the difference in IQ between the A900, 5D or D3/D3X ... but they do grasp content immediately ... and I don't just mean pictures of their squirming kids or bouncing puppy... but life moments that define character, insightful images that see past the surface ... basically things that defined still photography well before these cameras came on the scene.

I know I am good at that and need not prove it to anyone here, most of all you.

My choice of gear is based on delivering what I want people to see. The Leica M helps do that for me, and any other camera that does it gets my vote. Even though I have a lot of different gear, it's about getting the shot more than anything.

For certain things its the A900, for other things, it's the D3X. My experience so far is that over-all the D3X does that better than the A900. It's faster, surer, shoots to 2 cards at once and is built like a tank. I'm finding my cadence for camera settings and post work, and the images are getting better each day I work with it. In short, IQ is not a weak point for this camera by any stretch of the imagination, and it delivers what I want, when I want it, how I want it ... it delivers the content!

Choose you tool to fit your vision and what you want to put on paper as a voice.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

... and I don't just mean pictures of their squirming kids or bouncing puppy...

That wasn't a shot at me was it, Marc? (since I've just shot a bunch of kids stuff and posted here as example)... either way, I think I'm finished with this thread and my quest for substantive information since it seems to be going nowhere other than more discussion about the a900 and how we all feel about it... and generally is becoming combative and a bit vulgar.

Thanks all for your thoughts.

Choose you tool to fit your vision and what you want to put on paper as a voice.

Yep.

 

[wayne_s]

Just like to thank you Edward and Shelby for providing us with your A900 AF experiences as well as other strengths and weaknesses of the A900 camera system. Info like this helps me in my future camera buying decisions in the future.
I like alot of different types of photography including shooting sports and birds in flight which really tax the AF system of a camera. Tracking birds in flight really honed my panning and quick acquring skills which make shooting sports/moving people alot easier.
Sadly AF performance information is sadly lacking in most all camera reviews these days as there is no standard measure or benchmark.
Rob Galbraith is the only one whom I aware of who put together some AF test scenarios when he was proving the 1d3 AF problem.
For fast moving subjects its usually best to only use center AF point as this is the most sensative AF point and faster/more accurate than using any non center AF points or multi AF point tracking method. See if there is some custom control for the AF tracking speed which Canon 1 series have. Setting it faster helps of course acquire faster but will also cause it to lose tracking faster if the AF point falls off of the moving subject.Since I have seen quite a few Sony cameras at sporting events, I can't see it being too bad so maybe you are missing some settings to dial it in like Douglas mentioned.