What picture controls were used for these? Color and Contrast looks better on the d3x detail looks better but the noise is better on the d600. In my experience 1600 was usable on the d3x 3200 in good light. I rarely took it over 800.

d3x has more chroma noise, but does look to be sharper/more micro-contrast/more vivid. to the OP, you dont need validation from us!! take tons of shots, look at your awesome photos, and the smile on your's and the viewers' faces will be all the validation you need...

D3x was never designed to be shot at 6400. I believe 1600 pushes its ISO range.

The D600 is probably better at high ISO, which is to expected since it is the newer sensor. However, neither is really a high ISO monster, and I would take the D3x for build, fit in my hands, and overall low ISO quality. My D3 has got to be my favourite camera ever, and the D3x is the logical successor. I would have bought a D3x if I didn't want the video and other improvements in the D800.

static808 wrote:
to the OP, you dont need validation from us!! take tons of shots, look at your awesome photos, and the smile on your's and the viewers' faces will be all the validation you need...

Thanks, but I'm not asking for validation at all (I was just playing along with the silly implication). I know what I see in my own photos unlike 99% who never has or will use the d3x, and I knew what to expect (and I never expected to be able to take it over 800 so all of this is a bonus). I posted this because I was genuinely surprised not only from my own photos, but from the clinical test (well, only dpr know how clinical). But really, thanks, I will and am smiling like crazy.

On a second note, is it possible that the d3x has a weaker AA filter than, say, the D600? The price they were asking for it when it was new seems silly now (and was partially silly even back then), so the thing that did set it apart (more pixels) must have been utilized to the max, i.e. weak AA-filter. Their own pseudo-information/marketing say they amplified the signal from the sensors to enhance colour fidelity compared to the D3. I'm no technician so this can just as well be pure bs, but much like interpreting the things the chief of the Fed says there's mostly some truth beneath it all. Maybe

James R wrote:
D3x was never designed to be shot at 6400. I believe 1600 pushes its ISO range.

Hence my surprise and this thread.

Rodluvan wrote:
Hence my surprise and this thread.
I don't have currently the D600 image on my webserver, but I'll use the D800 as a proxy (The D600 is a tad better than the D800 in this category).

D3x, ISO 6400, f8, 1/8 sec, 2560x1440
D800, ISO 6400, f8, 1/8 sec, 2560x1440

I did show this D600 image in my D600 thread here, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll repost. The D600 is especially good in night photography at base ISO.

The original image at 10pm and moonlight (exposure on the dark side, to avoid blown highlights in the mountain village)
Exposure: 30 sec, f8, ISO 100

If I had to choose it would be a hard choice.

The D600 has the newer technology with better image quality, but the D3X is built like a tank.....

Rodluvan wrote:
Todd Warnke wrote:
I'd say the D600 is the clear winner, though I do agree that the D3X has higher contrast, is sharper and has more vivid colors. So why the D600? Because these are RAW files and so I can take that cleaner D600 image and sharpen it, increase the contrast and pump the colors and not have to first scrub the noise (which reduces contrast, smooths out details and drops saturation). In other words, the D600 gives me a better starting point for PP work.

Peace,

Todd

So you take the cleaner image, sharpen it, increase contrast and pump colours to end up with..what you got with the D3x from the get go? Bumping colours and contrast in post isn't really the same thing as getting them out of the RAW file is it? Neither is sharpening (to gain resolution).
I was at first thinking the exact same thing but in reverse, the D600 file looks like the d3x file with an aggressive noise-reduction filter applied.
ISO 6400 is outside of native ISO (so is 3200) for d3x so it should perform relatively horrible.

What I rather poorly said is that given a choice between those two files I'd take the cleaner D600 file and PP it to where I want, rather than to take the D3X file and have to clean it up and then PP it. I think the final D600 version would have more flexibility and thus would, in the end, make for a cleaner, sharper, more contrasty file. Another way to say it is that in my experience noise reduction is more damaging than sharpening and adding contrast. So, give a choice, I'd take the cleaner starting point.

Peace,

Todd

Rodluvan wrote:
James R wrote:
D3x was never designed to be shot at 6400. I believe 1600 pushes its ISO range.

Hence my surprise and this thread.

The ISO range of the D3x has been well documented, just as the D600 is being documented right now. Your surprise is a good lesson for all photographers buying gear--research, research, research. You have a fine camera. Like all cameras, you need to learn its strengths and weaknesses. Enjoy and post a few low ISO shots with the WOW factor.

GL

jr