DXOMark just tested the D3X

Started Jan 15, 2009 | Discussions
Dr Frank Forum Member • Posts: 69
DXOMark just tested the D3X

Wanted to inform the Nikonians also:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3X

Most impressing are 13.7 Bit of real dynamic @ ISO 100.

Nikon obviously spent much more and much better A/D channels, than others. This might explain, why the D3X is so expensive.

Compare to Canon and Sony also!

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 287|0 (appareil2) 279|0 (appareil3) 265|0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Nikon (brand2) Canon (brand3) Sony
--
Frank

sebastian73 Contributing Member • Posts: 598
Re: DXOMark just tested the D3X

Thanks for the lint to the review!
--

Nikon D3, D2x, AFS 24-70/2.8, AFD 85mm/1.4, AFS 105mm/2.8VR, AFS 70-200/2.8VR, TC-1.4E II, SB-800

Gitzo GT2540 tripod, Markins M20, Markins TB-20, Manfrotto Neotech 685B monopod with RRS clamp

my gallery: http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/19199

 sebastian73's gear list:sebastian73's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR +5 more
mesija Contributing Member • Posts: 943
such dynamic range improvement unexpected

Nothing comes close in dynamic range from direct competitors. I was expecting something in the sony alpha 900 range.

Really amazing overall.

Bernard Languillier Veteran Member • Posts: 4,672
Detail

They don't really give information about detail, but that might be where the gap is most significant...

A recent 100% sample shot with a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 (9MB image).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3198276391/

Cheers,
Bernard

Bostjan Pulko
Bostjan Pulko Regular Member • Posts: 424
Re: Detail

The level of detail on that sample is really amazing! Thanks for posting!

Artichoke
Artichoke Forum Pro • Posts: 12,479
DxOMark

is just one metric & generally I do not trust it fully
I am not surprised that the D3X scored so well however
it does everything exceptionally well
Nikon went all out with this camera
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 Artichoke's gear list:Artichoke's gear list
Agfa ePhoto 1680 Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Leica M8 Nikon D3X Leica M9 +13 more
venice Senior Member • Posts: 1,973
Re: DxOMark

Artichoke wrote:

I am not surprised that the D3X scored so well however
it does everything exceptionally well

I've noticed that as well.

This is the camera that finally got me to donate all my DX format gear to a local school.

Best,

Bill

venice Senior Member • Posts: 1,973
Re: DXOMark just tested the D3X

Dr Frank wrote:

Most impressing are 13.7 Bit of real dynamic @ ISO 100.

Even bettering the Fuji S5 Pro.

Best,

Bill

Artichoke
Artichoke Forum Pro • Posts: 12,479
I don't have an S5 (3 pics)

but I have used the Fujifilm S3 for years
the D3X is certainly in that camera's DR league

of the benchmarks used, DR is the most difficult to assess as so much is dependent upon conversion technique, particularly for camera's using unconventional RAW formats like the S3/S5

I much prefer examples from real shooting & I have used this curious house in my neighborhood to test DR ...I did not take this for its aesthetics

the Darth Vader house is very detailed & very dark

I took this in the early afternoon with the sun directly above the house & shooting into it

I did this intentionally (to shoot this place properly you need sweet dusk or dawn light) to act as a torture test for DR

the 24 prime did flare just a bit, but even so I was impressed with the D3X's performance
here is a crop from the center

which demonstrates how well the camera holds shadow details

and one from the left upper corner

demonstrating the relative lack of distortion at the sensor/lens edges

both these crops are reduced for the web, but full resolution unprocessed from the NEF conversion crops can be seen here -------> http://www.pbase.com/artichoke/d3x&page=6 along with shooting information
the D3X is the real deal
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 Artichoke's gear list:Artichoke's gear list
Agfa ePhoto 1680 Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Leica M8 Nikon D3X Leica M9 +13 more
venice Senior Member • Posts: 1,973
Re: I don't have an S5 (3 pics)

Artichoke wrote:

I have used the Fujifilm S3 for years
the D3X is certainly in that camera's DR league
of the benchmarks used, I was impressed with
the D3X's performance
the D3X is the real deal

Great examples. The Fuji S5 Pro was one of the cameras I donated. I just couldn't think of a time I would use it instead of the D3x.

Best,

Bill

ddt332 Contributing Member • Posts: 760
Higher than DR of D3 is almost impossible.

Doesn't make any sense. Against physical law. Thom reported opposite results.

rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,860
Re: Higher than DR of D3 is almost impossible.

ddt332 wrote:

Doesn't make any sense. Against physical law. Thom reported opposite
results.
--

This is the RAw data, before conversion. It means the sensor is capable, under optimal conversion, of getting close to that performance. Outstanding, Nikon did a great job, the D3x is about what Nikon had claimed it to be.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Artichoke
Artichoke Forum Pro • Posts: 12,479
not impossible

ddt332 wrote:

Doesn't make any sense. Against physical law. Thom reported opposite
results.

the ADC technique used for the D3X may be the difference ...Nikon has been doing their homework & clearly gave the Sony sensor some serious tweaks
you also get something for the slow down shooting 14 bits with the D3X
DxOMark lists a 1.5 stop advantage over the D3 for DR, btw

I do not trust such benchmarks all that much & particularly when it comes to DR, but having used the Fujifilm S3 for years, I am confident that the D3X is in that camera's league for DR when shooting 14 bit raw files and using the proprietary converters
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 Artichoke's gear list:Artichoke's gear list
Agfa ePhoto 1680 Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro Leica M8 Nikon D3X Leica M9 +13 more
rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,860
Re: Detail

Great image detail Bernard. Not only that, I see the DR, as in some other shots posted around, as very good.

Even in the jpeg test by Rockwell the DR and detail are better than from 5DII. This shows it was no fluke and it's not just the jpeg engine at work.

I had expected the D3x to be better re DR than the D3, since the A900 already was there. But this result is just amazing, it's better than the fujis, which used an in-camera HDR technique.

Congrats to all users, in particular to you, since I recall you being in doubt because of price. I think the more you see and hear about the D3x, the more it's clear Nikon did a wonderful job with it, as a high res/detai/DR camera, just like they did with the D3 for fast action shooting.

Nikon keeps an impressive push into high performance photography.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Ilkka Nissilä Veteran Member • Posts: 4,107
where are all the people who...

Nice result.

Now, where are all the dozens of people who swore that the image quality will be the same as with the Sony A900? Show yourselves and defend your claims with evidence.

Dan Wells Contributing Member • Posts: 571
From looking at prints, I had suspected this...

The increases seemed a little TOO dramatic , compared to any camera I had used before, to be explained by "it's just the Alpha 900 in a new package". I thought I was seeing 1.5-2 stops of extra dynamic range at low IS0 over the 1Ds mkII (note: NOT mk III) ,rather than the 1 stop or so that the Alpha 900 has. DxOmark bears this out (as does a DR test some folks on Nikonians (I think) did). The D3x has .75 stop or so of extra DR over anything except the S5, plus exceptional detail and a gorgeous, smooth tonal range. All the measurements we're beginning to see correlate perfectly with my subjective experiences making large prints from the D3x (I posted on December 28 "Purely by eye, I think this camera has 1.5-2 stops more low-ISO DR than a 1Ds mkII", and DxOmark now says it's almost exactly 2 stops).

This is the finest "35mm" DSLR the world has yet seen, and nearly 1000 high-detail landscapes on mine in the past month, leading to 10 large prints (and I need to order more paper) , support the same conclusion that the technical measurements are increasingly coming to. It's expensive, and there are good arguments why it should be cheaper (endlessly rehashed here), BUT the next step up in image quality is TWICE as expensive, less convenient to use and requires all new lenses (no reasonable zooms. As several knowledgeable people (the staff at Calumet Boston - dealers in everything photographic who care if you buy a camera, but don't care if it's Nikon, Canon or Hasselblad) who saw a 24x36 inch print from my D3x said, "this is the best digital SLR on the market from a pure image quality standpoint, and Hasselblad should be worried for their low end, because the difference from the H3DII/31 is not great". Medium format has its place, especially above 50 mp, but Nikon has done what they set out to do in refining what's possible from a 24x36 mm DSLR. Canon WILL have a competitor later this year at some point, but it will probably be the same price as the D3x.

-Dan

Taikonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,513
Re: such dynamic range improvement unexpected

mesija wrote:

Nothing comes close in dynamic range from direct competitors. I was
expecting something in the sony alpha 900 range.

Really amazing overall.

The true value of DR is the ability to retain IQ consistency and details at high ISO. Having measurable superiority in low ISO, ie ISO 100-400 does not translate into visible image difference due to the fact IQ DR is already at a high enough level detail and colour retention. The only way of seeing better DR at low ISO is 16-bit.

Actually when you consider the price differences I am a bit disspointed with D3x DR at ISO 800 and above. This is were better DR really matters which D3x drops behind the 5DMk2.

steras Senior Member • Posts: 1,084
Re: such dynamic range improvement unexpected

Taikonaut wrote:

mesija wrote:

Nothing comes close in dynamic range from direct competitors. I was
expecting something in the sony alpha 900 range.

Really amazing overall.

The true value of DR is the ability to retain IQ consistency and
details at high ISO. Having measurable superiority in low ISO, ie ISO
100-400 does not translate into visible image difference due to the
fact IQ DR is already at a high enough level detail and colour
retention. The only way of seeing better DR at low ISO is 16-bit.

Actually when you consider the price differences I am a bit
disspointed with D3x DR at ISO 800 and above. This is were better DR
really matters which D3x drops behind the 5DMk2.

Your argument would hold true if you disconnect from the truth...The D3X is a low ISO camera. The high ISO is left to the D3/D700.

 steras's gear list:steras's gear list
Canon PowerShot G10 Nikon D40 Nikon D90 Nikon D2H Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 +10 more
Martin Datzinger Senior Member • Posts: 2,248
Here I am

and I even believed those saying the a900 has better DR, which the D3X would sacrifice for lower High ISO noise. But no, 1 stop better than what Sony could make of their own chip, right up to S5 performance! Congratulations, Nikon!

Kind regards,
Martin

-- hide signature --
jb_va2001 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,741
Point of diminishing returns?

Their tests show the D3x measurably better than D3/D700/5D2/1Ds3 but I wonder how meaningful these differences are in practical use.

Earlier in the DSLR evolution we saw significant leaps in mpix, IQ, noise, DR, FPS, shutter lag, LCD's, battery tech and more. Today, we find fewer improvements model to model.

If people feel less compelled to upgrade to the newest DSLR, how will camera companies motivate us to spend?

Cheers,
JB

Dr Frank wrote:

Wanted to inform the Nikonians also:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3X

Most impressing are 13.7 Bit of real dynamic @ ISO 100.

Nikon obviously spent much more and much better A/D channels, than
others. This might explain, why the D3X is so expensive.

Compare to Canon and Sony also!

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/ (appareil1) 287|0 (appareil2) 279|0 (appareil3) 265|0 (onglet) 0 (brand) Nikon (brand2) Canon (brand3) Sony
--
Frank

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads