D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

Started Jan 26, 2009 | Discussions
pertti Senior Member • Posts: 1,043
About real life situation

J Mankila wrote:

If I were to prepare a photo for an A4 or A3 print and I'd like to
push the shadows quite a bit, I would indeed be grateful for all the
performance I could extract from the camera. I far prefer the D3x
crop. Which would you choose?

My own conversion through DPP. Linked 5DMKII example looks like 10D raw converted with year 2003 PhaseOne, even 5D could manage hll a lot better 100%. Raws anywhere?

I can upload mine next week while back in Finland (now in Colombia).

-- hide signature --
OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
The setup

Iliah Borg wrote:

Probably, in part it is due to uncontrolled setups?

No, the setup is well controlled. There is a slight vignetting, which is almost perfectly balanced between the two points I measured, so small, that it does not need to be calculated with.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,844
Re: The setup

Probably, in part it is due to uncontrolled setups?

No, the setup is well controlled. There is a slight vignetting, which
is almost perfectly balanced between the two points I measured, so
small, that it does not need to be calculated with.

Have you checked densities sgooting the darkest and lightest patches aligned to the centre of the field, while using same light, exposure, and aperture as for the full shots?

-- hide signature --
OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
The setup

Iliah Borg wrote:

Have you checked densities sgooting the darkest and lightest patches
aligned to the centre of the field

Honestly, I don't even know what "sgooting" means. Isn't this a typo?

A large part of the Kodak gray scale is a middle gray strip. I take it granted, that that is uniform, thus providing an excellent reference for the adjacent gray strips.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,844
Re: The setup

Have you checked densities sgooting the darkest and lightest patches
aligned to the centre of the field

Honestly, I don't even know what "sgooting" means. Isn't this a typo?

It is, indeed. Sorry. Should read "shooting"

A large part of the Kodak gray scale is a middle gray strip. I take
it granted, that that is uniform, thus providing an excellent
reference for the adjacent gray strips.

I came across situations where it was not uniform enough, or when it was not used as an actual reference to compensate step wedge data values. I always check.

-- hide signature --
OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
Re the typo

Iliah Borg wrote:

It is, indeed. Sorry. Should read "shooting"

I thought of that; however, I don't have a 5D2 nor a D3X available for test shots. If I had, I would have shot the Stouffer wedge instead of using IR's images.

I came across situations where it was not uniform enough

I don't trust IR's charts without verifying them; they are dirty and scratched. I always verify the uniformity and the uniform illumination in Rawnalyze, with extra high contrast, like

; and with sampling different size areas and watching the intensity variations. By now I have an intimate relationship to IR's test objects.

nicram Regular Member • Posts: 305
Re: The difference..

Mel wrote:

Nic,

You have the beast so just show us it's stuff.
That will silence any questions about it all.

And thanks in advance!
--
Mel

You know, I will, as soon as the D3x starts renting in Manhattan, I don't know what the damn problem is, it's almost February. But I do have friends who have seen it against a 39 MP Leaf, it's not close they say, kind of like 35mm against 2 1/4; ever look at that difference? Sort of the same thing, or so they say. I'll say as soon as I can. But don't forget, a hell of lot of pros shoot the Leaf 39 MP on a 4x5 with large format digital lenses, average price of the lens almost as much as the D3X with lens mount and shutter and all that. The D3X won't hold a candle to that set up, it isn't just Hassy H1 lenses it competes against. Give me your best Nikon prime on the D3X, okay, sure, and I'll give you my best on the Leaf and it isn't a Hassy lens, it's a Sinar digitar, so there you go.

Gil Evans Regular Member • Posts: 122
Re: The difference..

Good points, Leping. But you should be able to get damned near the same results with the 5D2 as Adamus gets with his 1DsMKiii, no? Wouldn't that be good enough?

Agreed, though, that the D3x would be better...or at least make it easier to better shade detail...but at three times the cost.

And this makes me wonder what the point of the D3x is. Figure $10K for the D3x and a 14-24. For $15K, you can pick up a used Hassie H3D 39 and a lens, or get a new Mamiya DL28 with 2 lenses.

Here's some samples of what a Hassie H3D 39 can do...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/slot-canyon-images.shtml

To me, results like this would be worth the extra 5K...but that's just me.

Bernard Languillier Veteran Member • Posts: 4,672
Indeed

fredericFahraeus wrote:

Thats true, the D3X gives a much cleaner file, in fact IMO often
cleaner then a P25 and that saying something.
Still what many here dont realize are the facts: you got to get it
spot-on in camera and PP and lens-choice or else you wont draw the
full potential out of this beast.

Yes, that is totally true.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard Languillier Veteran Member • Posts: 4,672
Re: Well...

Mel wrote:

Great sample and explanation Bernard.
I wish others would do the same regarding their suspected issues. Not
saying they aren't there. But lip service vs a sample just doesn't
cut it.

Thanks. I have been trying for some time to back up every statement with a real world sampe image when available.

Cheers,
Bernard

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads