Anyone bought a D3X yet?

[robmac]

Must have been a timing thing. That said, the most 'pro' you'll find at any CM is the 5D/II ;>

 

[fotografz]

Mark would you say that Andree's results in this thread are typical of A900's tonal depth and range?

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4915

I like his shots and it seems he does also ... but I think that he just got the camera ... in fact no one has had this camera for very long.

So, I think with what the A900 has to offer, and the tweaking one can do to the settings, we will see more and more good things in a variety of conditions as time goes on.

Heck, it took me months and months to "adjust" to what my Nikons can do after switching from Canon ... and look how long it took people to get the best out of the M8.

 

[ddk]

I like his shots and it seems he does also ... but I think that he just got the camera ... in fact no one has had this camera for very long.

So, I think with what the A900 has to offer, and the tweaking one can do to the settings, we will see more and more good things in a variety of conditions as time goes on.

Heck, it took me months and months to "adjust" to what my Nikons can do after switching from Canon ... and look how long it took people to get the best out of the M8.

Reason I asked and this has nothing to with liking or disliking his images and it could be the processing but I simply don't see the superior tonal range and depth, in fact I find the skin and hair tones very flat in these pictures, similar to the D3.

 

[marknorton]

I bought a D3x 10 days ago and here's my initial take on it.

First, it's just like using as D3 on go-slow, surprising delay in getting the image onto the display in auto-review. I guess 24MP is a lot of data to get out of the sensor and process to get even a basic JPEG for display.

Heavily glass dependent, don't like the 28.1.4, the newer zooms are good, the AF-S 60mm micro is lovely. I have high hopes the PC-E 24 will be good, not so the 50mm f1.4 AF-S.

Camera shake will destroy the extra IQ; up the shutter speed and you need wider aperture lenses (with IQ implications) and/or higher ISO which is noisier, of course, than a D3. That tripod is going to be in use more - stopped down lenses, lower ISO, no camera shake to get the best IQ.

Bottom line is that the D3x doesn't surprise and delight the way the D3 does with its incredible high ISO performance. It's going to be hard work to get the IQ out of the D3x.

Still, it's early days...

 

[kinok1]

Thanks Mark,

This is exactly the kind of response i was looking for. think im going to hold off a bit longer...maybe start taking a look at the used MF market.

Gary

 

[David K]

Mark... this is exactly what I would have expected based on my reading of the specs. Unlike many here I love my D3, perhaps because my priorities for this body are more in keeping with what it delivers... awesome low light performance, great AF and simply wonderful all around versatility. For subjects that demand more I go with my MF kit. For me the D3x seems to be neither fish nor fowl but that's just for me. If I were a single platform shooter I really think this would be the camera for me. BTW, if you want to unload that 28 1.4 drop me a line

 

[marknorton]

Don't want to appear negative about the D3x, it's simply stretching my abilities as a photographer to (and probably beyond) the limit to get images which appear better than the D3.

As for lenses, there's surprising colour fringing from the 28/1.4 on the D3x which is better controlled on the 28-70/2.8 but of course, f1.4 is a stretch. I'm interested in trying Zeiss or Leica R lenses but I fear that would be the start of a slippery slope and you do get used to the lens/camera integration with Nikon's own lenses. Any suggestions as to which Zeiss or Leica R lens to get started with?

Tell me, I have no experience of MF at all but is hand-held MF an option or is it taken as read that a tripod is essential to get the best out of the camera or back?

 

[fotografz]

Don't want to appear negative about the D3x, it's simply stretching my abilities as a photographer to (and probably beyond) the limit to get images which appear better than the D3.

As for lenses, there's surprising colour fringing from the 28/1.4 on the D3x which is better controlled on the 28-70/2.8 but of course, f1.4 is a stretch. I'm interested in trying Zeiss or Leica R lenses but I fear that would be the start of a slippery slope and you do get used to the lens/camera integration with Nikon's own lenses. Any suggestions as to which Zeiss or Leica R lens to get started with?

Tell me, I have no experience of MF at all but is hand-held MF an option or is it taken as read that a tripod is essential to get the best out of the camera or back?

IMHO, unless you are really into manual focus stick with the Nikon fully integrated AF lenses. While I have a number of Zeiss ZFs, I mostly use them on a F6 with a split micro-prism screen to shoot B&W film. If you do go that route, the ZF28/2, 35/2 and 50/2 Macro are the ones to look at. Wanna spend some cash ? ... get the Nikon 200/2VR. The Leica R lenses worth owning and adapting to a D3 are a real slippery slope.

I use MFD hand held all the time. But with that kind resolution and lower ISO capabilities relative to the D3, hand held is squandering the advantage. Trust me, there is still a considerable IQ advantage, but not to the full potential that's there to be tapped into.

 

[robmac]

On the Leica side (in terms of absolute resolution) look at any of the APOs, the 60 Macro (stellar starting at F4) and the last version of the 90/2.8 - to name but a handful.

The Nikon-mount CV APOs (have owned the 90/3.5, 180/4, 125/2.5) are also exceptional.

I tend to prefer (used) Leica and CV glass for their (IMHO) better CA control and price/performance vs. the ZFs I'ved owned (35, 50/2 and 100/2) on EOS bodes. That said, CA control in NX2 is supposedly stellar and would mitigate the issue a great deal.

Leica glass is indeed a slipperly slope, but with the new (and reversible) leitax (www.leitax.com) R-Nikon conversion mount (under 80 Euros) and the depressed prices on R glass these days, it's a great opportunity to use the lenses (finally) on Nikon. Has me now more seriously considering switch than ever.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Hmmm I paid dearly to have a Olympus 24mm shift lens converted to Leica R mount in around 500 dollars this is certainly opening some doors here. Makes me want a Nikon a little more

 

[innerimager]

Any suggestions as to which Zeiss or Leica R lens to get started with?

Mark- Try and get a hold of the Zeiss 50/2 and 100/2 makros. They are both spectacular with the D3, and I suspect will perform very well on the D3x. That 50/2 has become the lens cap on my D3. Sorry for greasing that slope! best....Peter