Nikon D3X on the way

[Dr. Harout]

I agree with Don, this is a superb shot.
But why are those lovers jumping?

[David Kilpatrick]

The corners seem a bit soft to me. Is this a question of focus, or are they soft on the A900 even at f/10?

Partly depth of field and the blowing movement of the grass. If you look in the distance it's a bit sharper. The point of focus was the couple. Even so, the corners are softer on the A900 with all lenses, including the 70-300mm SSM G - and it is already known that even the 24-70mm f2.8 (which I do not have) is slightly softer in the corners on full frame. But this example is mainly depth of field, especially the bottom left corner. I would have had slightly sharper results by taking the 28-75mm f2.8 on this trip, but the extra range of the 28-105mm was useful. The 28-105mm is softer overall.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

I agree with Don, this is a superb shot.
But why are those lovers jumping?

They had just asked me to take a shot of them with their own camera. They were Scandinavian. Just luck that they linked arms as they walked over the crest of the pathway.

David

[aster]

A nice composition and a spectacular coastline!
Takes on different meaning depending on being with or without the couple. 100% full-size is very clean with uniform colour qualities also.

Yildiz

[NealS]

Actually, I arrived at Thom Hogan's remarks via links on one of the Nikon sites. Not that it matters.

Have a look at this link:

http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems even Nikon loyalists are concerned about the price and specs.

If you read Henry's LL link then you have alread seen the Thom Hogan page.

-Sonolta

[bakubo]

David, that image is very appealing. Nice work! When I saw it I was reminded of this 1987 photo I made of my brother at Pt. Lobos, California:

[rush2112]

Canon or Nikons, thats when things will get even more interesting. The A700, is really close now. Overall, always have been good enough for me because im willing to compromise to a degree, but I'm in the minority there.

Another note...

The D3x was a perfect camera at the right place and right time.. for Sony. I know for a fact that Sony isn't "going after" either Nikon or Canon per se, their philosophy is to do what they want to do- for thier customers. A quote " we built the A900 for Minolta users" that is straight from a conversation I had with Sony designers (translated of course .... "We are doing what we want to do, we aren't thinking of the market in terms of a battle with Canon or Nikon".

Yet, im sure that Sony at the same time wouldn't mind more market share based on a good product, and the A900 is helping matters greatly (or the D3x however you look at it).

09' is a big mystery really, and that is how Sony wants it. Lots of guessing going on and only one promise, an announcement of another DSLR in Sept.

They've come a long way very quickly.

Carl

[David Kilpatrick]

Tell you what, Carl, I have just taken some tests shots by tungsten light at ISO 1600 on the A900 and D3X both with High ISO NR turned off, both using whatever normal or best large JPEG is given alongside a raw file. I can not show the Nikon results because the camera needs micro focus adjustment - everything looks fine through the finder but all my careful studio tests are back focused. I plan to reshoot in a few minutes but I would take the Sony JPEG any day over the Nikon. It's got a bigger, softer grain structure and more chroma noise - but fine detail is far better rendered (the grain disappears like magic whenever really fine textures are present), the colours are better, the dynamic range is better, the bokeh is better (my old 28-105mm Minolta would appear to much better than the Nikon 24-120mm VR in almost every aspect).

I've only shot a small number of studio tests so far, at ISO 100 (also ISO 50 on the Nikon) and based on what I am seeing, anyone owning an Alpha 900 can rest assured that within the normal operating ISO range recommended by Nikon for the D3X (100-1600) there is either absolutely nothing to choose between the results - even with Sony's modest quality JPEGs - or differences are entirely down to things like lens choice and micro focus adjustment.

The Nikon is a superb camera but it only has two or three tricks which the 900 can't do.

And, I've just been experimenting with the micro AF adjust. It makes no difference. The normal setting is sharpest on the targets I'm trying - but in real shots, the focus is all over. And I am locked to the centre sensor, none of this 51-point stuff.

David

[bakubo]

Tell you what, Carl, I have just taken some tests shots by tungsten light at ISO 1600 on the A900 and D3X both with High ISO NR turned off, both using whatever normal or best large JPEG is given alongside a raw file. I can not show the Nikon results because the camera needs micro focus adjustment - everything looks fine through the finder but all my careful studio tests are back focused. I plan to reshoot in a few minutes but I would take the Sony JPEG any day over the Nikon. It's got a bigger, softer grain structure and more chroma noise - but fine detail is far better rendered (the grain disappears like magic whenever really fine textures are present), the colours are better, the dynamic range is better, the bokeh is better (my old 28-105mm Minolta would appear to much better than the Nikon 24-120mm VR in almost every aspect).

I read this a couple of times and it is not clear which camera you are referring to above when you write "It's". I made it bold and underlined it above in your quote to make it clear. Probably it is the A900, but please clarify. Thanks!

[David Kilpatrick]

See my new thread - the Sony A900 has the larger grain pattern but softer.

New thread points to two sample: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =32&t=1479

David

[bakubo]

Thanks, I will take a look.