Reading mode: Light Dark

D3X versus D300?

Go to last post
B

Bmark

Senior Member
Messages
2,609
Reaction score
784
Location
St Louis, US
I currently shoot a D300 and I like the crop factor of this camera. I'm thinking about a full frame camera and I'm wondering if the D3X cropped to 12 megapixels will produce the same or better quality and noise handling of the uncropped D300 image. I believe that cropping the D3X to 12 megapixels would effectively give me a 2X magnification factor, but I'm not quite sure, so please correct me if I am wrong.

--
Thanks,
Mark
http://markburgess.zenfolio.com/
 
Bmark said:
I currently shoot a D300 and I like the crop factor of this camera. I'm thinking about a full frame camera and I'm wondering if the D3X cropped to 12 megapixels will produce the same or better quality and noise handling of the uncropped D300 image.
Click to expand...
Yes, close anyway. I think the D3X its about 10 mp cropped to DX. I made a similar experiment by comparing a 24 mp Sony 850 cropped to APS-C vs a D300 image. They were pretty close.
Bmark said:
--
Thanks,
Mark
http://markburgess.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
The noise performance and dynamic range of D3X is way better than D300. Cropped D3X images will be better than (requiring much less pp) D300 for sure. But handling the RAW images from D3X requires a quad core with at least 16GB RAM etc. etc. specially if you're batch processing series of shots with photoshop and using plugins like topaz or nik software. !!

If you prefer working with RAW you'll also be dissappointed with the speed of D3X even with 600X CF cards.
I would wait for the photokina and decide later ...
Regards, Rasit..
 
D3X in DX mode has 10.5mp. It seems to me that unless you have DX lenses for which you would need to switch to DX mode you would be off better using FX lenses of half the focal length or longer and cropping in pp.
 
That is exactly what I am thinking. As I mentioned, I like DX because of the 1.5 magnification factor. But, I realize that the D300 with an FX lens is automatically cropping the photo for me and that is where the 1.5 magnification factor comes in. So therefore I could just shoot the D3X and crop to a 1.5x magnification factor assuming the D3X is capable of delivering that kind of quality and based on the reponse thus far it seems like it is capable.

I have some DX only lenses, the Toking 12-24 and the Nikon 18-200 but I believe the remainder of my lenses are FX (Tamron 28-75, Sigma 150 macro, Nikon 70-200 VR, Nikon 300 f/4, Nikon 80-400, and Nikon 400 VR.

--
Thanks,
Mark
http://markburgess.zenfolio.com/
 
Bmark said:
I currently shoot a D300 and I like the crop factor of this camera. I'm thinking about a full frame camera and I'm wondering if the D3X cropped to 12 megapixels will produce the same or better quality and noise handling of the uncropped D300 image.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, the D3x in DX mode is marginally better than the D300. The only comparisons between those two camera that I've looked at though were at ISO 1600; from what I've seen comparing my A850 to my D300 the advantage of the A850 is about a stop of DR and generally better high ISO performance at a one to one pixel level, presumably the D3x would do even better.
Bmark said:
I believe that cropping the D3X to 12 megapixels would effectively give me a 2X magnification factor, but I'm not quite sure, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Cropping to 12 MP will give you 1.4x the resolution, and a magnification of slightly less than that because the pixel density is lower (the resulting crop would have a larger than DX AOV).

Going from a D300 to a D3x when shooting in DX mode would amount to a significant loss of viewfinder magnification. Still, if I had the money I would have gone for the D3x, but I feel it's too expensive (and too big and heavy for my tastes) and that's why I'm increasingly migrating over to the Sony system.
 
In DX mode, only the center portion of the viewfinder can be used. The area is too small and uncomfortable for shooting. I tried the DX mode of my D700, while the output 5MP pics are good, the viewfinder size is way too small, won't use it again.
 
Rasit Serdengecti said:
But handling the RAW images from D3X requires a quad core with at least 16GB RAM etc. etc. specially if you're batch processing series of shots with photoshop and using plugins like topaz or nik software. !!
Click to expand...
"Requires"? Maybe not. Even just one gigabyte is pretty huge compared to even a D3X 14 bit lossless raw file.

Just the other night: 12 D700 files, merged into a 50MP panorama (serious overlapping)... in Photoshop, with Topaz, with only 3GB present (just a 32-bit OS, my hands are tied) on a dual core system. I've also assembled 80GB time lapse movies on the same system.

Perhaps the phrase "may occasionally benefit from" could be more appropriate.

"I've told you a million times, stop exaggerating!" ;-)
 
I am a technician by trade, and find your 16Gigs of memory reccomendation WAY off the mark.

You could get by with 4, 6 would put you in a nice place. 8 would be awesome. (where I am right now) 16gigs while quite nice is not even close to manditory for working with D3X files.

Care to explain (give technical details) on your reccomendation?
--

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Assume batch processing 6500 raw d3x files to build up a time lapse sequence, and each shot requires 5 steps of post processing. How long it would take with an 32 bit system with 3GB of ram ? Compiling them is another story, several layers in After Effects and real time editing the downscaled 1080i stream.

Sorry guys, i think either you have unlimited time or patience or you're shooting for pleasure, the last time lapse advertorial we shot was made with 6400 raw files from d70s, work processed in professional pp studio with 64-bit 2xquad core xeon machines and 64GB ram & raid configured 4 SAS drives as well as the SSD for system and software on each, final rendering was done in render farm and the whole job finished in 3 full days.. No need to remind that Time is money in pp industry !!!

Rendering some images for panoramas or processing few raw files of course can be done with 32bit 3GB ram systems and D300 is a better choice for that. Since D3x is a high end professional camera and when used in most professional applications it directly implies too many shots, too many pp, too many processing power and too many ram.

Buying a D3X and using it in the crooped mode may be the starting point of the user but sooner or later he might switch to professional way or upgrade the d3x with some 1080i avchd model and will definitely suffer from 3GB ram or 32bit systems ..

I was just thinking professionally but definitely not exaggerating, anyone who intends to use a D3x as a hobbyist then you're right, but if go out for work with two 64GB 600x CF installed on your camera and you're carrying 2 more 64GB CF's to use if needed then you definitely need a system with 64-bit system and a minimum of 16GB ram installed ...
 
I have 8gb, and when working D3x files my overclocked quad bogs down pretty often. I would love to try 16GB, and I can't believe it's so hard to find a setup for it. In fact I would love 16GB and a fast ssd for a quick swap file. Don't forget that when working with raw pics they are essentially tiffs, and if you do some serious processing each history state creates essentially a new tiff. All I know is Photoshop hogs up over 5GB of ram pretty quickly, especially if you do any stitching. And if you use (for example) the blur tool on a large part of a D3x image you can expect to wait a while (over 15sec). So I agree 16GB is not a must, but I'm not sure it's WAY off either.
RomanJohnston said:
I am a technician by trade, and find your 16Gigs of memory reccomendation WAY off the mark.

You could get by with 4, 6 would put you in a nice place. 8 would be awesome. (where I am right now) 16gigs while quite nice is not even close to manditory for working with D3X files.

Care to explain (give technical details) on your reccomendation?
--

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Click to expand...
--

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that believe there are two kinds of people and those that don't.
 
1. The context of the OP's question DOES take into account a non professional work environment. So not sure why you cant jump outside your own situation and answer the question like it was asked.

2. Why do you keep talking about a 32bit system with 3gb of ram....I spoke about 4, 6 8 and 16....giving that all are good in increasing manners for the work intended...and I would hope ANYONE readign would realize that anything above 3 to 3.5GB of ram would imply a 64bit OS that could actually see and leverage that.

3. Now on to point 3....which I truly dont understand...but your answer actually comes off snotty as if your the only person who could understand professonal shooting.

I would question why on earth you have to process 6500 D3X files in a row? The shutter is rated for 300,000 cycles. Guess every 46 shoots you intend on replacing your D3X?

Even if you have a logical reason...I would argue that your situation would be very A-typical. And in that light...my advice would still apply. And to imply that your professional and anyone else out there is not...or even that I am not, well, thats just arrogant. Not everyone uses a camera the exact same way you do. And to imply that your way is the only professional way well....just weird if you ask me.

Now...for us normal people...professional (to your level of professional) or not, wouldnt need 16gb of RAM for normal D3X processing....batch or not. (unless maybe your machine is not configured very well)

And to imply that EVERYONE with a D3X neds 16gb of ram is silly if you ask me...even if that is your a-typical finding.

I stand behind my origonal comments.

Roman
Rasit Serdengecti said:
Assume batch processing 6500 raw d3x files to build up a time lapse sequence, and each shot requires 5 steps of post processing. How long it would take with an 32 bit system with 3GB of ram ? Compiling them is another story, several layers in After Effects and real time editing the downscaled 1080i stream.

Sorry guys, i think either you have unlimited time or patience or you're shooting for pleasure, the last time lapse advertorial we shot was made with 6400 raw files from d70s, work processed in professional pp studio with 64-bit 2xquad core xeon machines and 64GB ram & raid configured 4 SAS drives as well as the SSD for system and software on each, final rendering was done in render farm and the whole job finished in 3 full days.. No need to remind that Time is money in pp industry !!!

Rendering some images for panoramas or processing few raw files of course can be done with 32bit 3GB ram systems and D300 is a better choice for that. Since D3x is a high end professional camera and when used in most professional applications it directly implies too many shots, too many pp, too many processing power and too many ram.

Buying a D3X and using it in the crooped mode may be the starting point of the user but sooner or later he might switch to professional way or upgrade the d3x with some 1080i avchd model and will definitely suffer from 3GB ram or 32bit systems ..

I was just thinking professionally but definitely not exaggerating, anyone who intends to use a D3x as a hobbyist then you're right, but if go out for work with two 64GB 600x CF installed on your camera and you're carrying 2 more 64GB CF's to use if needed then you definitely need a system with 64-bit system and a minimum of 16GB ram installed ...
Click to expand...
--

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
I have an AMD quad core (energy efficient model) so it isnt stupendously fast. 8GB of ram, a 10,000RPM scratch disk drive and CS5 set up properly. I have even processed Medium format files (40MP) as well as multipul panoramic stiches with ease.

Now the other person I responded to says they batch process 6,400 D3X files at a time. (sounds kinda crazy...but will take them with their word on that) and I could probably see a need...especially if their machine is not dialed in very well, or they havent tried to figure out where their bottle neck is. (maybe memory leaks etc) But for the average user, 8gb should be fine.

But then the OP did not talk about stressing out any systems or overloading in PP...so not sure why all this 16gb talk.

If they would hhave brought it up...I would actually have backed out of the conversation.

I would say that if your having problems with single files or mild batch processing (IE: under a few hundred) with a normal batch. You should work on your system.

As a computer technician I am part of the standards exception team that torture tests new gear in regular benchmarking as well as some pretty crazy 3D cad modeling. I do this for a living and have some very crazy photoshop torture tests I use to benchmark machines we get in our environment. I have more than a little experience with photoshop and its performance on even normal PC's.

Roman

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Bmark said:
I currently shoot a D300 and I like the crop factor of this camera. I'm thinking about a full frame camera and I'm wondering if the D3X cropped to 12 megapixels will produce the same or better quality and noise handling of the uncropped D300 image. I believe that cropping the D3X to 12 megapixels would effectively give me a 2X magnification factor, but I'm not quite sure, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
The short answer is "Yes."

The DX crop mode on the D3x is 10.5 MP, and when I compare it to my D2x, I really don't see that the D2x has any significant advantage, and the D3x's dynamic range shows up, though I have yet to profile both cameras and do comprehensive testing.

I have 8G on my computer, and while 15 image Panos may take a while, they weren't all that quick when I was shooting them on a D2x. I normally have about two dozen applications open too, including dozens of browser windows, which is the main reason I went to 8G.

Paul
http://www.PaulDRobertson.net
 
Muntz said:
I have 8gb, and when working D3x files my overclocked quad bogs down pretty often. I would love to try 16GB, and I can't believe it's so hard to find a setup for it.
Click to expand...
My QC 2.66GHz Mac Pro with 8G doesn't seem to have performance issues when I'm editing- I certainly don't find anything other than stitching panos to take noticeably longer than my D2x files did.
Muntz said:
In fact I would love 16GB and a fast ssd for a quick swap file. Don't forget that when working with raw pics they are essentially tiffs, and if you do some serious processing each history state creates essentially a new tiff. All I know is Photoshop hogs up over 5GB of ram pretty quickly, especially if you do any stitching. And if you use (for example) the blur tool on a large part of a D3x image you can expect to wait a while (over 15sec). So I agree 16GB is not a must, but I'm not sure it's WAY off either.
Click to expand...
I just tried that, with the blur tool set to > 300px, and my unused memory stayed exactly the same (PS CS5) but my load average went up. The image is already in memory, so I can't see where additional RAM would help. More CPUs would certainly help- it makes me wish I'd not talked myself out of a dual-processor system. (I didn't have to wait 15sec either, and I drug the blur tool over most of the NEF.) My system isn't swapping, and I've got probably 40-50 browser windows open (Safari, Chrome and Firefox) as well as Word, Acrobat and a few other applications.

Paul
http://www.PaulDRobertson.net
 
RomanJohnston said:
I have an AMD quad core (energy efficient model) so it isnt stupendously fast. 8GB of ram, a 10,000RPM scratch disk drive and CS5 set up properly. I have even processed Medium format files (40MP) as well as multipul panoramic stiches with ease.

Now the other person I responded to says they batch process 6,400 D3X files at a time. (sounds kinda crazy...
Click to expand...
LOL, it IS 5 full 32GB cards, but I suppose it's not impossible.
RomanJohnston said:
but will take them with their word on that) and I could probably see a need...especially if their machine is not dialed in very well, or they havent tried to figure out where their bottle neck is. (maybe memory leaks etc) But for the average user, 8gb should be fine.

But then the OP did not talk about stressing out any systems or overloading in PP...so not sure why all this 16gb talk.
Click to expand...
Good point. Actually, are you using Windows 7? I'm still on Vista 64 so that could explain why my ram fills up more quickly (or at least doesn't empty out). I've noticed for instance that if I use CS5 (or CS4 or CS3 for that matter) and I do some processing which uses up all the ram, just closing the picture(s) will not recover the ram. You have to get out of Photoshop to recover it. Is it the same Windows 7 (if that's what you're running).

I have Win7 ready to install, but I was gonna wait to get an SSD to avoid the pain it the butt of having to reinstall everything.
RomanJohnston said:
If they would hhave brought it up...I would actually have backed out of the conversation.

I would say that if your having problems with single files or mild batch processing (IE: under a few hundred) with a normal batch. You should work on your system.

As a computer technician I am part of the standards exception team that torture tests new gear in regular benchmarking as well as some pretty crazy 3D cad modeling. I do this for a living and have some very crazy photoshop torture tests I use to benchmark machines we get in our environment. I have more than a little experience with photoshop and its performance on even normal PC's.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't run torture tests all day, but I am an IT specialist and know my way around an operating system, though I admit I haven't spent that much time tweaking CS5. But I can guarantee that, at least on my system, just running the blur tool on a large portion of a D3x file takes much much more than twice as long as on a D700 file (where it's essentialy instantaneous).
RomanJohnston said:
Roman

“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
~ Ernst Haas

New Web Presence Coming Soon:
http://blog.commercialfineart.com/

Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Click to expand...
--

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that believe there are two kinds of people and those that don't.
 
Cropping a 24MP sensor to 12MP would be a 1.4 crop factor [square root of (24/12)].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top