Tempted to get D3x over D610

phoman · Feb 9, 2014

Granted the IQ is about the same but to a pro for anything else D3x simply rules and the price for a gently used copy really came down.
--

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Yuriy’s Photography

archrich · Feb 9, 2014

I don't think this is a bad idea if you like what the D3x can offer. I don't know anything about a D3x, but a friend of mine let my use his D3s for an hour and I'm most impressed by it. The "feel" of the camera is excellent and the IQ is stellar especially the lack of noise. I mainly photograph wildlife so this camera for me would be ideal.

I shoot with a trouble-free D600 and its an excellent camera and was seriously looking at a D800E. Now I'm thinking as seriously about the D3s even though its a few years old.

I'd say if your drawn to a D3x and it will meet your needs then go for it.

Archie

lickity split · Feb 9, 2014

My favorite comparing site.. http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D600-vs-Nikon_D3X

Sutto · Feb 9, 2014

You certainly won't regret it. If you look up some of my old posts on here (there was a new one just within a week ago, from my 3 months trip in Asia), you will see what I have written about this marvelous camera. I only bought it at the end of last year - after hiring and trialing D4/600/800 for a week each and extensive testing. The files from the D3x are stunningly beautiful, and also very useable at ISO 1600. I paid more for mine second-hand, than it was for a new D800, but I certainly don't regret it. Just all around, the feel of the camera, reliability, water proof, everything proof and 4000 images per battery charge (RAW), is truly amazing. It is also the only FX Nikon that I have owned that has truly reliable, always spot on, auto W/B.

Check out some of my latest pic's from this baby.

Sutto

philipsuttonphotography.com

JWReagan · Feb 10, 2014

I think the only thing you would give up with the D3x is high iso capability. In return you get a much better handling camera with fantastic build quality and high reliability. As long as you don't need to work in high iso or have another camera for high iso work, the D3x is a much better made camera.

larrywilson · Feb 10, 2014

+1. I agree 100% that the dx3 is a much better camera operational wise, build wise and image wise if held to reasonable iso speeds. If I had the money I would buy one for a backup camera for my d4. I would use the dx3 for landscape or daylight stuff.

Larry

Hugo First · Feb 10, 2014

if you like the build and weight of the big pro cameras, then you'll probably find a D3x to your liking... but in other respects -- not the least IQ, especially at high ISO -- the D6x0 is probably a better choice, and a gripped D800 is the best choice of all. or so say i, for what that's worth... i do know i'd never have paid the original asking price when the D800 was less than half as expensive, and offers so much more resolution and performance.

Steve Bingham · Feb 10, 2014

Image wise? Take a look at the comparison done by DXOmark. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-D3X___915_485

Make no mistake about it, the D3x is a workhorse for those who need it. Most pros don't and almost all amateurs DON'T NEED it. Keep in mind it is a lot bigger and a lot heavier. (2.65 lb vs 1.67 lb)

Furthermore:

The D610 has better SNR at all ISOs

The D610 has better dynamic range - at all ISOs

The D610 has better tonal range - at all ISOs

The D610 has better color sensitivity at all ISOs

The D610 has faster FPS (6 verses 5)

And lastly, the D610 uese 5+ years younger technology

Your choice, of course.

Great family photos/wedding photo from the OP. He might well be one who benefits - although carrying around a D3x, 70-200, and a SB 910 all day might make him sweat big time!

larrywilson said:
+1. I agree 100% that the dx3 is a much better camera operational wise, build wise and image wise if held to reasonable iso speeds. If I had the money I would buy one for a backup camera for my d4. I would use the dx3 for landscape or daylight stuff.

Larry

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

Steve Bingham · Feb 10, 2014

I really appreciate your wedding and family photos. You have developed a very distinct - and excellent - style!

phoman · Feb 10, 2014

Well, I am not 100% trusting or finding that DXO rating is accurate, in real world the end result is what matters. I had both D800s ( check my postings history ) and found these cameras are not reliable for my professional work, especially when working with fast primes at 1.4. D610 has technical limitations and the built that I can't overlook. I have 2 D4's for low noise high ISO and faster frames and would use the D3x under 800 ISO and when i need a higher resolution for portraiture.

phoman · Feb 10, 2014

Steve Bingham said:
I really appreciate your wedding and family photos. You have developed a very distinct - and excellent - style!

Luke Kaven · Feb 10, 2014

To my eye, the D3x had the best colors of any Nikon DSLR to date, and only the Sony 850/900 matched. Skin tones were superb. I have yet to get that out of my D800.

And 24MP is a good count. It's fine enough to preserve hair and skin details in a portrait well enough for fashion work. It's just enough, where 16MP is almost but not quite enough, and 12MP definitely isn't enough.

marcio_napoli · Feb 10, 2014

Steve, I'd take extra caution on those DXO scores.

The D200 in 2014, is beaten to death on all measurable scores, and yet I still see its ISO 100 images (specially colors) as a beauty to behold.

The original 5D is also garbage from a DXO pov, but scores really high on fan's hearts, outside those DXO charts.

I use those 2 examples to illustrate this argument. No matter what DXO says, take a look at the images and then make your judgement.

IMO, the D3X produces better files at low ISO, and the opposite at High ISO, vs the D610.

And the D3X body is really a no brainer.

ChapelThrill23 · Feb 10, 2014

"Make no mistake about it, the D3x is a workhorse for those who need it. Most pros don't and almost all amateurs DON'T NEED it. Keep in mind it is a lot bigger and a lot heavier. (2.65 lb vs 1.67 lb)"

That is one tendency that I do not like in newer high level SLRS. They are too big and heavy. I like that my Nikon F2 was 730grams. I like that the Olympus OM1 was a little over 500 grams. I like that the Minolta 9 was less than 700 grams. The D3 is more than 1200 grams before you add a battery or card. A D800 is more than 900 grams body only. That is a lot when you are talking about hauling something around all day. It makes a difference. Personally I like the direction that Nikon went with the weight of the new DF (710grams body only) and D610 (760 grams body only). I'm not a person who uses a camera in a studio or off a tripod. I take mine on long multi-day hikes and long trips where it spends a lot of time around my neck. That extra weight makes a real difference.

marcio_napoli · Feb 10, 2014

I understand where you're coming from, but I think just about the opposite.

Pro level cameras should be even bigger, because it is actually that, a camera meant to be used on professional assignments.

I'm serious on that bigger camera talk.

Heavier cameras balance better with heavy lenses, and most of the time, one SB-900 on camera.

Try that with a mirrorless, or DX entry level cam and see how it goes...

Another important thing to consider: pro cameras are often used on assignments where people are all around.

People think big = serious, and the professional market is dying in such a fashion, that you gotta have something to set you apart from uncle Joe.

To illustrate my point, take a look at an Arri Alexa rig ready to shoot, and see how big it gets.

It leaves no doubt how serious it is. At least way more than Bob and his GH2.

The same way an Alexa means business right from its looks, the same should go for pro level DSLRs.

My 2 cents.

Steve Bingham · Feb 10, 2014

Certainly a valid point - and the very reason many pros lug around a Hassy. Impressions count - or not. Nobody ever questioned Cartier-Bresson!

My Crown Graphic was a load!!!! I think I got more pity than respect.

marcio_napoli said:
I understand where you're coming from, but I think just about the opposite.

Pro level cameras should be even bigger, because it is actually that, a camera meant to be used on professional assignments.

I'm serious on that bigger camera talk.

Heavier cameras balance better with heavy lenses, and most of the time, one SB-900 on camera.

Try that with a mirrorless, or DX entry level cam and see how it goes...

Another important thing to consider: pro cameras are often used on assignments where people are all around.

People think big = serious, and the professional market is dying in such a fashion, that you gotta have something to set you apart from uncle Joe.

To illustrate my point, take a look at an Arri Alexa rig ready to shoot, and see how big it gets.

It leaves no doubt how serious it is. At least way more than Bob and his GH2.

The same way an Alexa means business right from its looks, the same should go for pro level DSLRs.

My 2 cents.

larrywilson · Feb 10, 2014

If your use to working with a professional gripped camera and will be using it for professional work the dx3 seems like a good investment. The dx3 also has some of the same exterior operational settings and buttons and should go good with the d4's.

I am always hearing that the professional gripped cameras are just too big and heavy. I am used to using professional gripped cameras and carry them with long lenses on a tripod and also with normal focal length lenses on long hikes. My d4 fits very nicely in my hands and I haul it everywhere, even on travel vacations, leaving my d7100 at home.

Larry

Schroedingers_cat · Feb 10, 2014

marcio_napoli · Feb 10, 2014

hehe Steve, please don't tell anyone, it's a secret

, but I've actually bought an entry level digital back (yes, it's the D3100 of their line, a lowly 22mp back) just for bragging rights among clients

hehe

The most bizarre part is that I'm totally serious! Besides superb IQ, people always ask, "wow, what camera is that? Never seen one before, it's so interesting!"

So impression counts a lot, it really does.

If anyone have the time, please take a look at this "building up the camera" video, for the Panavision Genesis.

If you don't have the time, just skip towards the end and see it built.

If any videomaker appeared on a job of mine using this, I would pay extra attention on this guy.

The same for photographers.

That's why I believe the pro line DSLRs should be even bigger. Impression counts a lot.

On a dying market, where every photographer is killing each other for food, impression is a powerful strategy.

Luke Kaven · Feb 10, 2014

Steve Bingham said:
Certainly a valid point - and the very reason many pros lug around a Hassy. Impressions count - or not. Nobody ever questioned Cartier-Bresson!

I'm not sure H C-B's subjects saw much of him except for a moment, a decisive one of course.

Now if he had been a wedding photographer...

Tempted to get D3x over D610

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Schroedingers_cat

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts