Nikon D3x (NOT trolling!)

[Shelby Lewis]

Hey everyone...

Knowing that everyone here loves their a900's (including ME!)... i wanted to get some informal opinions about some things I'm seeing with the d3x. I'm only asking due to the fact that I'm thinking about picking one up in a month or so for better performance during situations where I need similar IQ to the a900 but far better AF and lowlight performance.

I know the IQ of the d3x is nice, but I've yet to see any samples that have the look of the a900/zeiss combination. The review posted on DpReview of the new 50/1.4 reveals a total lack of 3d-mess (imo) that I've begun to enjoy from the a900. This could be the lens, though. The a900 is the only cam I've ever owned that actually like how it looks at 100%. Even the nice stuff deepdiver has posted in the Nikon forum doesn't have the bite (but detailed smoothness) I've come to see in the a900.

So... I guess I'm asking... where I can find d3x samples that have the zeiss look, or something close. Nikon's samples don't do it... Marcus Bell's don't do it... I just can't find any. It's not a deal breaker for me at all, as having a usable high ISO and AF (in fast action) is going to trump the "look"...

... but I'm just curious.

Thanks,
Shelby

(please... no flame wars... this is a request for meaningful info)

 

[wayne_s]

Shelby,

The 3d-ness is from the zeiss drawing style so you can get the 3d-ness you want on a Nikon or Canon if you use some of the Zeiss ZF primes. Just won't have AF.

 

[wayne_s]

Check out these shots from Peter using D700 and ZF100 Makro Planar:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/780167/1#lastmessage

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Wow... fantastic... but alas, manual focus isn't going to help me very much in fast action, lowlight situations.

Thanks for the samples though... the look of the zeiss glass is just killer!

Thanks Wayne.

 

[fotografz]

Well Shelby, I am shooting tomorrow's wedding with the D3X/D3 combo. First one with the D3X. It's an important gig with the country club set here, and could lead to more high-end work. I absolutely must use a dual card camera ... if I had a catastrophic card failure it'd be curtains for me. Plus, it's supposed to be crapo dark and rainy weather, and the church is an uninspired 1970's "cave". Thus the Nikons.

I will be very interested myself in the results. The A900 has produced very nice wedding images so far, yet for certain styles of images I like the D3 look better. And I've seen some commercial work with the D3X that I liked a lot. Very realistic, and sort of film like in feel. In many ways it all fits my style a bit better.

I guess if I had to characterize it, the Nikon images have a bit more "urban" look to them which is pretty hot right now in wedding photography. And I like the B&W conversions which is 75% of my wedding work and why most clients hire me.

Now, the question I would have for you is why the D3X? For speed and low light work to compliment the A900 why not the D3? (or D700 if dual cards is less important to you).

Here are a few D3/D700 shots that the Sony would struggle with in more ways than one:

Bride hugs the groom during the first dance done at ISO 10,000; Guests at table/guy lights cigarette @ ISO 5000 ; color ambient shot of bride with flowers bokeh background @ ISO 2000 ... (I added the corner vignetting).

Then that sort of "urban look of the Bride sneaking away for a slice at a pizza joint, and the B&W look I like of the B&G exiting the church.

 

[ryc]

i can send you some raw files from my d3x and zeiss glass. really nice set up but I prefer the auto focus zeiss

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Now, the question I would have for you is why the D3X? For speed and low light work to compliment the A900 why not the D3? (or D700 if dual cards is less important to you).

Here are a few D3/D700 shots that the Sony would struggle with in more ways than one:

Bride hugs the groom during the first dance done at ISO 10,000; Guests at table/guy lights cigarette @ ISO 5000 ; color ambient shot of bride with flowers bokeh background @ ISO 2000 ... (I added the corner vignetting).

Then that sort of "urban look of the Bride sneaking away for a slice at a pizza joint, and the B&W look I like of the B&G exiting the church.

Nice work Marc (as always)... lovely images.

TBH, a few factors are at play here. First... resolution. As nice as the d3 files are (and I think they are very nice), my cameras play double duty too much with commercial work to be shooting 12mp anymore. Much of this is due to money, in that I don't have enough to carry multiple systems right now so I'd rather have a single high-end system that could pull double duty (and a sensible backup) than two high-end systems for different purposes. I'm also the type of shooter who likes minimal kit and maximal duty. Wedding days are often an 85mm and a 35mm. My quandary right now is whether to stay in the Sony system. Even though I like the files much better than essentially all of the d3x files I've seen... I'm still going to continue shooting weddings for another studio for the next year or so... so I have someone else's reputation relying on my solid work. The a900 makes me a bit nervous on wedding days.

Just shot a catalog this last week, and some of the images are also going to be used as huge enlargements... I also run into clients consistently cropping verticals out of horizontals... and there's just a smoothness of tonal transition that only seems to come with higher resolution.

On wedding days, I'm happiest with a single body and a few primes that I switch out throughout the day (with a zoom or two for good measure)... and with a less expensive b-up (maybe a d700).

As it stands right now... I LOVE my a900, but it continues to be a hard camera to use in action sequences... so I'm keeping my options open as far as considering the other systems available. Canon is out... I've had enough troubles with them to feel burnt. Nikon is a consideration, but I've never liked the nikon "look", especially now that I've had the a900 and zeiss. But, in the end, getting the shot counts more than the look... so I'm doing some pretty tough deliberating right now.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

i can send you some raw files from my d3x and zeiss glass. really nice set up but I prefer the auto focus zeiss

I'd love a few... and I'll definitely not rule out ZF glass if I make a switch.

And so I'm clear... I'm not switching right now. I'm going to try not to as I love the a900's files more than any camera I've owned. But... man, it's a finicky beast in tough conditions.

 

[fotografz]

Understood Shelby. It's a bitch when reality rears its head.

The "look" is definitely a more subtile aspect that we can see more than the clients may. All these brands of recent digital cameras deliver stunning images to their eyes. With clients its content and capturing that content that matters most ... weddings or otherwise.

I do think the Nikon look has evolved some. The jury is still out on the D3X for me as I need to shoot with it for a while and work with the files. A few of the lenses have gotten better, particularly the AFS 14-24 & 24-70 workhorse zooms, and my huge 200/2 is a killer optic. But there is no AF equivalent to the ZA 135/1.8.

However, not all shots have to be AF at a wedding ... specifically manual focus ceremony shots on a tripod using focus confirmation in the viewfinder ... today I am taking an adapted Zeiss 110/2 FE and Zeiss 1.4X with me to fill that 135/1.8 gap. (There isn't a ZF mid-range long lens available). The extra reach and close focusing ability of this Zeiss lens provides beautiful OOF Bokeh and edge definition that's unique, and all Zeiss. We'll see if I get a chance to use it, and how it performs on the D3X. Its plus advantage is that it stands upright in my little Airport Think-Tank roller :thumbup:

The tiny Leica M8 system and it's incomparable optics will be with me also. The Sony sits this one out since it is really a gloomy day for a wedding shoot.

-Marc

 

[ryc]

Having owned the d3x I would say that if you are contemplating a switch, wait for the next version of the d700. more features, probably same sensor and iso performance better price and better size. it's just a matter of time before it is announced.

 

[fotografz]

Having owned the d3x I would say that if you are contemplating a switch, wait for the next version of the d700. more features, probably same sensor and iso performance better price and better size. it's just a matter of time before it is announced.

Dual card?

 

[ddk]

Having owned the d3x I would say that if you are contemplating a switch, wait for the next version of the d700. more features, probably same sensor and iso performance better price and better size. it's just a matter of time before it is announced.

Jorge,

I've seen your other posts regarding the D3x and you seem somewhat cold towards it, please tell us more about your about your experience and the reason for not liking it.

 

[wayne_s]

Wow... fantastic... but alas, manual focus isn't going to help me very much in fast action, lowlight situations.

Thanks for the samples though... the look of the zeiss glass is just killer!

Thanks Wayne.

Well if you want AF Zeiss lenses then the only options are Sony ZA and
Conurus converted Zeiss Contax N lenses for Canon.

I think you are going to need another camera for low-light gigs like Marc is doing and you only have D3x and 5D2 to choose from right now until Sony comes out with a new full frame with high iso capabilities.

Like you say, getting the shot and having a cleaner file are most important to the client and not the subtle stuff like color response. Even the drawing style of the lenses like Zeiss's 3-d look are more noticeable than the IQ differences between these three cameras, high iso performance aside.
Nikon and Canon also have TS-E/PC-E lenses which I feel you need to use for those wide angle inside the church shots or shots of the bride and groom coming out of the church instead of trying to fix it in PS.

 

[ryc]

ddk,

I thought the D3x was a phenomenal camera as far as build and feel. It is built like a tank and when the shutter fires it feels and sounds like a solid shutter. I did not like the size and weight although the weight contributed to its solid build and feel. But as with all other Nikons I have owned, the files needed a lot of post processing to get a look I was happy with. Noise was controlled well with the D3x but it certainly was no where near the performance of the D700. The autofocus on the D3x and D700 where top notch wich even focused on faces. Although the A900 lacks a lot of the D3x features, what I like about the A900 compared to the D3x is the rendering of the files. They are much more pleasing for me to look at without having to doctor them up in LR or PS. I shoot a lot of film and the ONLY reason I like digital is due to the instant results. Having said that, I try to make my digital images look as much like film as I can and the A900 gets darn close.

JT

 

[ddk]

Jorge,

I always felt that way towards both Nikons and Canons so I went to Fuji & Kodak. I also prefer the look of film and that's where I made my peace with digital. Unfortunately, at this point neither company is active in the dslr market, so I'm stuck with older bodies, the resolution is a none issue for me.

The Sony is very tempting but I held off due to lack of primes in the 14mm to 50mm range which is most of my photography. I guess my other reason is that I'm very heavily invested in F mount glass and the thought of selling everything at a loss to just buy again isn't that appealing either.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Compelling thoughts from everyone... and I do appreciate them.

So... I've not been shooting a lot this week, which leads to much "introspection" (ie... thoughts about more and better gear) :ROTFL: ... but I went out and shot two sessions today (all in good light) and DAMN if the files aren't sssoooooooo nice. Which is now leading me towards an expanded a900 kit and a small (but lethal) low-light kit from (probably) nikon.

I'll be waiting for marc's report on the d3x today, but come to think of it, my low-light files are never my own (I shoot weddings for another studio), so my thoughts about a single "all-everything" system is IMO a bit misguided. The idea of a small d3/d700 low-light kit seems more workable now.

And after seeing the results of the a900 today doing my bread-and-butter work (portraits)... it leads me to rethink how much I love this camera. I shot for 6 hours today and most of the files are just fabulous. AF occasionally "does it's own thing", but when I don't try to push it, it's incredibly accurate. Color... fantastic. Sharpness... like no other camera I've owned. I'm still very interested in the d3x, if anything just to see if I can find examples of it matching the a900 IQ, but I feel better after getting out and shooting today.

As an architect, the lack of t/s lenses is killing me though.

Every time I get fed up with the af and all and convince myself to go elsewhere, the Sony files keep me coming back, lol. I guess more than one system is probably the way to go if you're really picky about these things! This one, from today, is just killing me... NO localized work on this file. Only WB and global contrast/sharpening.

and a couple more:

 

[Shelby Lewis]

BTW, the "green-ness" of the second file is not sony's fault, lol... i have a mild "vintage" color curve I apply to some images that subtracts blue from the highlights and adds blue to the shadows... only in the second shot, it added (perceptually) to the green-ness, lol.

Gotta go back and rework that one.

 

[ryc]

Shelby, These are awesome. There is no way in hell I would be considering a switch to another system when you are getting these results!

I have a couple of questions for you if you dont mind. After moving to the A900 I am now using AF lenses which is something I never did before. When you autofocus, do you use wide spot or local. On the portrait of the child did yo focus on eyes and recompose or do you just let the a900 pick where to focus. I guess I should do some reading up on this but I have no idea what is the best method for auto focusing.

Thanks

 

[wayne_s]

Shelby,
Wow! First shot is outstanding! Love the light and reflections in his eyes.
Which lens, the CZ 24-70?

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Thanks Jorge... Yeah... a switch, as far as portrait work goes, would be ridiculous. And my original request was to see if I could find d3x files that look like that first shot. I get many shots just like this one, day in and day out, during portrait work. Simply fantastic.

It's only weddings in low-light (which is often) where i have ANY problems. The shots are still sharp IF the af keeps up with the moving subjects (which it won't). I use local AF and I manually select the af point closest to the eye with the joystick on the back of the camera which keeps focus/recompose to an absolute minimum. In good light, all of the points work fine and are accurate. Focus/recompose with those fast lenses is a sharpness destroyer. I never noticed this with my older canon equipment (5D) because of lower resolution and because I always foc/recomp. and therefore never had the opportunity to see what consistently VERY sharp images were like, lol.

I never let my camera pick anything... I actually am shooting in manual exposure mode almost 100% of the time now as well, since (in portrait sessions) intelligent preview lets me meter so accurately.

Thanks Wayne... the first shot was with the sigma 50/1.4 at f/4. That lens doesn't focus as accurately as the zeiss, but dude is it sharp when stopped down a tad (even at f/2). Don't own the 24-70 yet...only the sigma 50mm, the zeiss 135/1.8, and the lowly sony 28/2.8.

The 85/1.4 and 24-70mm are next on the list.

BTW... I just shot a summer catalog for a local designer that's going to be distributed nationally... the first commercial shoot I've done with the a900. The files are just fanatstic... of course, we shot it in great light.