Steve Perry wrote:
[I've been thinking about that too. I expected the D3x to really be significantly better given it has slightly larger pixels and another year+ of development. I am really curious if the D400 @ 15MP or so is just going to be too noisy at higher ISOs. To say nothing of the generation after that, the D500.
It'll be fun to watch.
Steve
I agree. The next gen will be telling. If the tech has hit the wall, I hope that nikon is smart enough to leave the MPs alone and not treat us like we're the digicam crowd. I have very little faith in that though. Canon did it, so the marketing morons will likely be pushing hard for more MPs, whether or not they're worth anything.... I'll be on the fence, waiting for tests on the next iteration. If it's just fluff, I'll be picking up one or 2 more d300s at the fire sale.
Steve Perry wrote:
Ahh, I must have moved the zoom when I changed cameras, that's probably why the image size is the same. I don't know if 4mm would make any diff though.
I wouldn't think so either, but then there the issue of focus too. I couldn't make out a focus point on the D3x shot and none is displayed in Nikon View, unlike the D300 shot.
If I get a chance later today, I'll look at the NR settings and see if I can turn those off. I didn't think of doing it yesterday because this is how I normally shoot. Having it turned off wouldn't mean much to me.
Right and perfectly valid. I shoot with High ISO NR turned off and Long Exposure NR turned on, but that's just me. After seeing this test of yours, as far as I'm concerned, if the "D700x" can keep up with the D300 in fps, then I would probably just use the D3x for DX applications. Of course, I will do the testing myself when I have both cameras side by side as you have done here.
i've done the shooting of both without formally shooting a test. the D3X is less noisy than the D300 at the same ISO settings. it's not a lot but it is repeatable.
I downloaded the NEFs and played a bit with them without NR. I prefer D3x output, espcially at 1600 ISO, which is quite surprising indeed.
I'm convinced once more that the D3x has most of other Nikons quality in one body.
Saved for the fps speed you can get equal if not better DX quality than DX bodies, equally clean high ISOs compared to D3/D700 (even if not quite the D3s quality) for a given print size, unmatched DR at lower ISOs and some 24.4 millions of pixels for outstanding big prints.
Sadly also its price is quite a bit more than the price of a D3s + D300s...
Thank you Steve!
Feb 02, 2010 at 08:06 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I've not downloaded the NEF files yet, but based on the small web images you posted in the thread, I'm not seeing the difference. There's going to be a natural bias towards the D3x ... but, I'll wait to pass judgement once I have a chance to see the full blown NEF files.
I will say this. If you can afford it, the D3x, D3s is the best combo out there ... I'm stating the obvious, but it is an amazing 1-2 punch.
On the other hand, if you can't afford FX, the D300(s) is one nice piece of hardware and has the best performance to cost ratio for its pixel density of any camera.
if I didn't see the NEFs I would have concluded that they were indeed equal, maybe I even prefer D300 rendition in the crops posted.
After looking at the original Raw I'm sure you'll change your mind
On the other hand, if you can't afford FX, the D300(s) is one nice piece of hardware and has the best performance to cost ratio for its pixel density of any camera.
+1 on that
Feb 02, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
if I didn't see the NEFs I would have concluded that they were indeed equal, maybe I even prefer D300 rendition in the crops posted.
After looking at the original Raw I'm sure you'll change your mind
+1 on that
Thanks Marco ... now you have me currious to download the NEF files tonight once I get home. It makes sense, as the D3x is newer and is also 10MP as opposed to 12 (slightly larger pixels, not by much, but it helps since the two cams are near the same tech node) Throw in the likelyhood of better electronics and firmware for the $8K camera vs. the $1.8K camera ... and thus the natural bias. The NEFs will tell the story.
I'll be on the fence, waiting for tests on the next iteration. If it's just fluff, I'll be picking up one or 2 more d300s at the fire sale. 
