Nikon D3X - errr..mm

[read the manual]

if you press the "info" button on a D3/D3x you get top plate info in very large scale on the 3" rear LCD. This replicates the top plate info. This also give you much more information such as colour space, ability to change focus points, type of focus mode, Continuous/Single/Manual focus, plus much more than is displayed on the top LCD.

Please read the manual.

If you have any other questions about the function of this camera i would be happy to talk you through it.

[Javelin]

is that maybe light from the VF getting in there for the macro shot?

[InTheSky]

I will add that human movement can be freeze even at 1/15 sec ... you have to wait for the good moment. By movement, I'm taking about shooting someone that is not in place and don't move. I concert show, a lot of time i cannot afford speed higher than 1/30 or 1/60 in some condition where I'm already at F/2.0 and ISO5000-6400. But i have realized that in some case, there is a kind of stopping action in the body that can be freeze .

Even a march, if you are moving with the group, the background will be blur, but the subject can be relatively clear.

This is an example of one of the horrible day of my life with no light to make a good shot ... , almost all the picture a blur, but some are acceptable : http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/petitbig (the bar was dark, like you was not able to see where you are putting you feet on the floor, version 2.0 of A700 firmware by the way ... the noise it better now...)

Regards,

Frank

[InTheSky]

On military march, if they are really Sync in there legs movement, you can be lucky and get the moment when the leg will start to goes down, there is a small break at this moment that can result in a fraction of a freezing movement. I cannot evaluate this time, but i will try when i will have time. (sorry I'm a little bit crazy). The body is usually straight, and they are fixing straight in front of the group reading the partition on the small paper attached (if there is partition).

But you are right, let's focus on the real problem .

Regards,

Frank

[David Kilpatrick]

Talked to Nikon, and looks as if the 24-120mm (despite being the only lens they have similar in range to the 24-105mm Canon) really should not be advised on the D3X. They are seeing if a 24-70mm can be found (again, this would be the fourth time round using the 24-70mm for test purposes if they do send one).

Here's another article written in the course of current investigations:

http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2008/12/16/ ... ed-planes/

I decided this was better kept on dPhotoexpert and not here!

David

[David Kilpatrick]

if you press the "info" button on a D3/D3x you get top plate info in very large scale on the 3" rear LCD. This replicates the top plate info. This also give you much more information such as colour space, ability to change focus points, type of focus mode, Continuous/Single/Manual focus, plus much more than is displayed on the top LCD.

Please read the manual.

If you have any other questions about the function of this camera i would be happy to talk you through it.

I am quite aware of the functions of the D3X and have used the D3 and D700 before, and read the manuals (cover to cover, every page, followed by extensive back reference later). With the Alpha 900 you don't have to press any buttons. You just touch the shutter release, or any other control to make your next adjustment, and the rear screen comes to life (as long as you do not have your eye next to the finder). This is not unique to the 900, or to Sony. Each design has merits (Nikon's two-button card formatting shortcut is far superior to Sony's tedious menu-diving, which may or may not start with the right menu depending on what you did last etc). The Alpha 900 is, overall, faster and surer to use with gloves; if you are long-sighted or wearing distance specs as I prefer to when shooting; in the dark; and in certain studio situations where the camera is at a height or angle making viewing difficult. I know the Nikon top LCD can be illuminated all the time, but its information is difficult to read when the camera is set up for vertical shots. Even the rear screen reads sideways, the Sony automatically rotates the info.

These points are not made to criticise Nikon's design, as you get used to any camera quickly enough. They are made here mainly because the Sony camera is subjected to many dismissive, skeptical or jeering remarks in the world out there and our own users sometimes are not aware that it may even have advantages, or better aspects of design, compared to a camera from a more established professional brand name costing much more.

The other issues are real - I should not have posted an image with moving Santas, plenty with static Santas were equally poorly focused and not efficiently VR stabilised (by my standards). I've done a lot of shooting with the Canon 24-105 IS and its stabilisation has proved spot on - keepers from unpromising situations. The bellows/flare issue I had not realised was specific to the Nikon bodies. I have been struggling with it for two or three years, because all I had was Nikon bellows equipment, and I thought it was a problem with these lenses and ALL digital sensors. I bought myself an adaptor to get the bellows on to the 900 about three weeks ago, and this was the first trial use. So - I was hoping the D3X would not have the problem; it did, and fairly strong; the A900 did not, which was unexpected and proves that the reflection patch is not inevitable.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

"Should have come back with valuable, saleable pix from Edinburgh today"
From a new, untested, unfamiliar camera?

- comment made on dPreview

Answer - well, I did from the same event last years using the D3 and the Oly E-3 together Worse light, in terms of level, but better light in terms of quality I think with rain and snow. But a high proportion of completely useful, stock friendly, pass-QC type images and several have sold, apart from uses with articles (which do not count really, as the editors have no choice!).

I use new, untested, unfamiliar cameras every month and quite often I will take one or more on a trip abroad without any of my regular gear. I have to test the kit, that means real life situations. I do take a laptop and I do check as I go that nothing is seriously wrong. The D3X arrives at a time when I can not afford a week in Morocco or something like that to actually get decent subject-matter. The D3 arrived at exactly the same time last year, but with its superb high ISO ability, it was perfectly timed for winter night shots. The D3X really needs long days with plenty of light and great landscape or architectural subjects, and the best lenses.

But, I am asked to compare like with like. The Canon 5DMkII came as a KIT with 24-105mm. You might as well know I complained to Canon after the first day's shoot, which covered some fantastic conditions for winter views. I sent them files - the 24-105mm was hopelessly unsharp at the right hand end. They questioned my technique and asked for the raw files. I sent them raw files, and they agreed - the lens was at fault. They then immediately sent a 16-35mm and 100mm macro. The 16-35mm proved to be unsharp at the left hand end. I have several pictures which should be 'stock file' material which are marginal rejects as a result. If Nikon want to see files from the 24-120mm they will get them.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Here are some references: First - the sharpest of the 24-120mm snaps of the massed Santas:


http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/107117659" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Secondly, a 24mm shot at ISO 800 (which I chose to work at, having tested the D3X and decided that 1600 was - with Capture NX2 or in-camera JPEG - not an option) note the level and quality of midtone and shadow detail:


http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/107121143" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally, a D3 shot from last year at 3200 enlarged to even bigger than a D3X native shot - to over 25 megapixels:


http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/107119028" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, the D3X shot used -1 exposure to get the best lights/sky balance, while the D3 shot was straight. But looking at all my shots from the D3 last year, they have a very open shadow tone and the D3X really seems to be crushing the shadows down by default. However, ACR 5.x when it appears with D3X compatibility may change that - so far ACR has always proved to yield lighter shadows (and more noise, naturally) than other processes or in-camera JPEGs.

But there is something in the D3 image I'm not so far seeing in the D3X, when trying to use it in similar difficult conditions. The D3 had me amazed. The D3X either leaves me no more impressed than the A900, or slightly less so where colour and tone are the most important factors. But then, I don't have any lens on the A900 as modest in performance as the 24-120mm proves to be. The closest would be the 16-105mm on the A700, but that is really good by comparison - and Nikon's own 16-85mm is even better. Howcome the 24-120mm is not every bit as good as the 16-85mm? It's almost exactly the same relative range.

David

[peterottaway]

Even considering the poor light, how well in comparison does the Nikon D3x reproduce reds ? I'm assuming that Scotland does not have it's own specification for Santa Red. Because to get decent landscapes around here good red-brown, red-gold, ochre and reds in both tone and texture are important.

Now is not the time in Scotland to be checking high intensity natural light colours. But after your studio shots I was interested if you had developed a feel for the reproduction of red shades or if they required more work with the Nikon in comparison to the Sony A900.

[PhotoTraveler]

David,

I like the comments on TS lenses. Now If I can only get folks in the other forum to believe me they are needed. I don't know what contact you have with Sony. Is there even a squirrel or 2 waking up and talking about anything on this front?

Leaves me very disappointed to see this body and no Sony TS lenses. Especially when there is a few things Sony could one up Canon or Nikon. Like letting the user push a button and rotate to put rise/tilt in the same direction, or have extra travel and marking for use on APS sensors. I'm willing to buy a nikon body and lens just for that capability, lost sale for Sony.

[InTheSky]

I'm in the High complex electronic industry, and this D3X and even the Canon 5D MarkII look really like product that have not been able to reach the quality control, but the sell department and revenue decision was to push the camera on the market.

I have seen that before with Nortel Network product, nightmare and unsleep week to work to be able to throw out a maximum of product at the end or 2001 ( now you know the rest of the story ... ). Since that time, i have lost faith in some company to really focus on quality. Quality is actually my job now: to learn and understand the product to build and after that put in place mechanism, process, software control, etc, to insure the quality asked by my customer (and most of the time to make them realized that what they are asking is not covering them to ship something suitable for buyer).

I know we now have a lot of new technology in camera (coating, new glass technology), but we are clearly seeing that this is slightly put on the side to SHIP SHIP SHIP . We will have strange find in the future of next camera launch.

I was talking with my boss today about your finding on the Nikon lens, and he was really surprise. As an old photo equipment seller 15 years ago when he was at University, he told me that for him there was nothing better than Nikon. Do you think Nikon has over estimate this time the customer loyalty on the last release of camera ? Or they are saying to customer, we have new technology and you need to change all your gear to reflect this ?

I'm to young in photography for that, and i have started with Digital (some film before, but on point and shoot ). Correct me if him wrong, but in the past on film ... the body was a good tool ... but probably with a very cheap body like a Minolta 3xi, with same exposure setup has a 9xi with the same lens, there was no difference on the result ?

My other question is, does anybody in the past have found that this Minolta lens was so good compare to other brand ? Because everybody was shooting with same grade of film (talking about professional working together). If I'm able to convert an old 58mm F/1.2 and shoot at full aperture F/16 and feel the the 24mp of my Sony is not even able to challenge the lens ... I'm just surprise that not too much people are realizing the big deal to get with a Sony body now.

OK... i will stop to write... I'm loosing my focus .

Hope you will send us new shot of the D3X soon with the very good lens.

Thanks for all your tests you are doing for use David,

Regards,

Frank

[David Kilpatrick]

Even considering the poor light, how well in comparison does the Nikon D3x reproduce reds ? I'm assuming that Scotland does not have it's own specification for Santa Red. Because to get decent landscapes around here good red-brown, red-gold, ochre and reds in both tone and texture are important.

Now is not the time in Scotland to be checking high intensity natural light colours. But after your studio shots I was interested if you had developed a feel for the reproduction of red shades or if they required more work with the Nikon in comparison to the Sony A900.

See some from a photographer last year: http://www.murphysedinburgh.co.uk/01FOL ... UN2007.htm - of course, lighting conditions may vary. They hold this run, rather persversely, just when it is getting dark.

The red channel test - yet to come - is important. Sony's colour rendering is partly achieved by extremely high A to D gain applied to the red channel/raw pixels (this does not improve the rendering of reds, but it enables the blue and green channels to improve reds). But - the noise in Sony's red channel is very high. The D3X 'Standard JPEG' sRGB colours are not all that appealing compared to the D3/D700. It is possible Nikon's entire cut in sensitivity has been achieved by not over amplifying the red pixels during readout.

David

[markowp7]

david,
without knowing the reason for your issues with the D3x let me just reiterate that it makes absolutely no sense
to use these junky lenses on the D3x. they are close to the worst of all possible nikon lens performers. i have
tried the D3x (with 14-24, 24-70 and 100 VR micro) and the performance (IQ and focus) was OUTSTANDING.
much less moise in dark areas than the sony a900 (which in my view is a great camera for the money it costs).
but neither handlingwise nor IQ wise near the D3x (as i dare to conclude from my very limited tests).
peter

[David Kilpatrick]

Mark, the 24-70mm won't be available this time - in fairness, I found my last copy (with the D700) much softer than the one I had with the D3, and reports indicate there's a bit more variability with the 24-70mm than the 14-24mm, which so far is unassailed as the best wide angle zoom ever made.

James Banfield at Nikon UK has taken a look at the offending santa shots and thinks the 24-120mm, which has been out three times for review purposes but looks perfect, may not be in perfect order. He agrees that the camera should not produce the results I got for focusing, we had a further look at the settings on the camera and no-one had left any unexpected 'bombs' in there by changing parameters to something unusual. Every setting I have used is what would be expected to produce a correctly focused shot.

Let me reiterate - I was effectively required to test the D3X with the 24-120mm Nikkor, in order to have a valid comparison with the Canon 5D MkII, as requested by the commissioning magazine. It would hardly be fair to put the D3X with 24-70mm f2.8 up against that combination. I appreciate that Canon will be selling the 5D MkII with the 24-105mm IS L as a kit, Nikon will NOT be selling the D3X with 24-120 as a kit!

The handling is a matter of taste - I would go for a D700X over a D3X any day for a whole range of reasons, and the 5D MkII or A900 suit me better. I know a lot of US photographer buy weird grips and L-brackets and stuff just to make bulky cameras with built-in grips handle better on tripods, but I avoid that sort of thing. I like a camera which can be held securely and firmly by a ball head in vertical position - which fits my copy stand without moving the lens off the copyboard centre - which fits various macro rigs - which fits my travel camera bags 2 bodies at a time with lenses and gets through airport size regs - etc etc. I am someone who abandoned 35mm film SLRs around 1994 and switched to using Leica rangefinder 35mm plus pocketable Fuji 645 rollfilm - I found even the very sleekly designed Minolta 9xi too big!

So for me the sub-900g A900 while a large camera is ideal (the 5D is slightly smaller, and I liked that aspect of it). I have never bought the vertical grip and don't plan to.

The IQ - wait and see. I think it's possible to drill down into D3X shadow tones in a way which the A900 would not take, but so far, it's producing less default shadow tone lift. Nikon seem to be assuming that D-Lighting will be used by default.

David

[david antony]

And pictures of urban foxes are two a penny,

My nephew had a fox come sit with his cat in the garden! he was encouraged by friends to take a photo before he moved, but never did.
This was at his house behind Ally Pally in N. London!!