The D3x specs say 1.8fps in 14 bit FX mode, 2.6fps in 14 bit DX mode, which is pretty poor - its not pushing that much more data than 1Ds III/5D II in 14 bit mode. I'm sure for its intended use though most wont care and you can drop back to 12 bit mode if you need the full speed.
The real question IMO is why the 1Ds Mark III does not have a faster 12-bit mode, if the difference is really that great in processing speed achievable. However, I really think the main problem here is a sloppy Nikon implementation. An extra 16% of data size shouldn't result in a loss of 60% of the frame rate.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
maybe thats why canon use 2 digic4 in the ds3. Cant see anything about the processor in the d3x. (5d2 has 1 and can manage 3.9 fps)
I don't know if this was ever confirmed, but there was some speculation when the D300 came out as the first camera with a huge speed penalty for using 14bit mode that Nikon wasn't really using 14bit ADCs, but rather using 12bit ones, reading them twice and averaging the results to reduce the noise of the ADCs (or even if they were using 14bit ADCs, they found that they needed to do the double reads to get useful data out of the last two bits). This could also be the reason why files that come out of MFDB have smoother transitions (in my experience, especially in the shadow areas) than the 14bit Nikon files.
Kagetsu wrote:
Nikon most likely use two imaging processors as they already do in the D3 (from memory, though I may be wrong).
RG updated his specs for those who haven't seen it btw.
In any case, it doesn't bode well for Nikon without clearly stating the facts, instead hiding them.
And lets say for comparison, the 1DsIII, which does capture 14bit data at 5fps... This isn't the be all and end all we hoped for from Nikon.
The 12- to 14-bit "advance" is a gimmick. Nikon likely only implemented 14 bit out of competitiveness. Nikon didn't hide the fact that the frame rate is higher at 12 bit, but only failed to state exactly what the 14-bit frame rate is.
I'm still wondering why the 1Ds Mark III doesn't have a 12-bit mode! Or a 1.3x crop mode-- etc. etc. etc. They could have upped the frame rate considerably, and really had an all-in-one cam.
Not that it would suck for action anyway. I just can never understand it when makers refuse to put these costless features in their cameras... well, actually, Nikon doesn't refuse, and that IMHO is one of their biggest strengths vs. Canon: they primarily focus on adding as much value as possible to their models, while Canon focuses on making as much money as possible.
Here's summary of Nikon's D3X burst depth specifications:
FX Format, Lossless Compressed 14 bit NEF (1.8 fps): 28 frames
FX Format, Lossless Compressed 12 bit NEF (5 fps): 24 frames
FX Format, JPEG Fine (5 fps): 44 frames
DX Format, Lossless Compressed 14 bit NEF (2.6 fps): 52 frames
DX Format, Lossless Compressed 12 bit NEF (7 fps): 32 frames
DX Format, JPEG Fine (7 fps): 76 frames
Sanlameer wrote:
Would the fact that the Nikon D3X only shoots at 1.8-2FPS in 14 bit mode and that shutter lag increases from 40 to 60 msec in 14 bit mode be of importance in your dicision to buy one or the other. Price difference obviously not taken in consideration.
Why would this even matter to a Canon shooter? People looking at the 5D2 are hardly going to say... oh wait a moment, for an extra $5K I could buy a Nikon instead....! People looking at the D3x are also likely to have an investment in Nikon glass already, and probably a D3 which shoots a lot faster. Any one buying a 21MP/25MP body worried about fps is probably not trying to use it as intended. Neither of these bodies are sports cameras.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
For any body other than real entry level, anything like this is a bit of a deal breaker.
For a Pro grade camera to get so hamstrung that you can only shoot at less than 2fps because you want to shoot in the full 14bits offered and use all of the sensor is pretty dam poor.
Try looking closely at the high resolution medium format backs, and then tell me again that this is a deal breaker. Even look at some of the older 16MP backs that were a couple of frames per MINUTE (not per second).
Clearly, people looking for high frame rates should be looking for a different camera instead, unless of course this is part of the tribal game of let's criticize it because it's not Canon.
Most people buying these bodies are looking for something other than frames per second. For example:
1) How many frames per second do you need for landscape?
2) How many frames per second do you need for macro?
3) How many frames per second do you need for architecture?
4) How many frames per second do you need in the studio when the strobes take a second or more to recharge?
It's not all about frames-per-second for all shooters, and clearly neither the D3x or 5D2 are intended for spray and pray operation.
sorry to reply in a bit older thread but here's my thought:
1 - according to dxo review (if you trust it) d3x is the first camera to need 14bit raw files, as it goes over 12 f-stops of DR. so shooting 1ds or 5d in 14bit still has a lower DR than a nikon at 12 bit
2 - digic is a 14 bit cpu in a 14 bit image pipeline (14 bit sensor, 14 bit cpu, 14 bit raw). expeed is a 16bit cpu so the pipline is 14bit sensor -> 16bit cpu -> 14bit raw.
considering all this you can't say 1.8fps is slow since there is no other camera on the market with the same DR and a 16bit cpu. and for "normal" usage you can use 12bit without any problems, if you need the speed.
I don't think anybody here has good info on whether there is a significant difference between 12 and 14 bit nef files, and in particular, how each copes with (radical) exposure/colour balance adjustment. As such, we don't know if this matters to final image quality.
One possible reason why the camera is so slow at 14 bit files might be that Nikon's tried and tested method is to do some kind of chroma noise reduction _before_ saving the raw file. Clever noise reduction on a 24 Mpixel 14 bit file takes time, and juice.
I love my 1Ds3. It's for sale in B&S, but it's breaking my heart.
so this is written before d3x and confirms dxo's test conclusion that d3x is the only dslr which requires 14bit raw if you want the full monty of DR:
"Curiously, all the 14-bit cameras on the market (as of this writing) do not merit 14-bit recording. The noise is more than four levels in 14-bit units on all of these cameras (Nikon D3/D300, Canon 1D3/1Ds3 and 40D); the additional two bits are randomly fluctuating, since the levels are randomly fluctuating by +/- four levels or more. Twelve bits are perfectly adequate to record the image data without any loss of image quality, for any of these cameras (though the D3 comes quite close to warranting a 13th bit).
A qualification is in order here -- the Nikon D3 and D300 are both capable of recording in both 12-bit and 14-bit modes. The method of recording 14-bit files on the D300 is substantively different from that for recording 12-bit files; in particular, the frame rate slows by a factor 3-4. Reading out the sensor more slowly allows it to be read more accurately, and so there may indeed by a perceptible improvement in D300 14-bit files over D300 12-bit files (specifically, less read noise, including pattern noise). That does not, however, mean that the data need be recorded at 14-bit tonal depth -- the improvement in image quality comes from the slower readout, and because the noise is still more than four 14-bit levels, the image could still be recorded in 12-bit tonal depth and be indistinguishable from the 14-bit data it was derived from."
so from this and from DR tests like dxo and imaging-resource i understand that you only need to shoot d3x at 14 bit only for special tasks like difficult landscapes or stuff like that. with canon since digic works in the same 14bit space and it doesn't read slower the cmos it makes sense to use 14bit when you do heavy shadows recovery, it's more a matter of taste.
i'm not pro nor against a particular camera, just discussing technical details and "why" stuff.
I just can never understand it when makers refuse to put these costless features in their cameras... well, actually, Nikon doesn't refuse, and that IMHO is one of their biggest strengths vs. Canon: they primarily focus on adding as much value as possible to their models, while Canon focuses on making as much money as possible.