Comments on: Nikon D3x vs. Sony A900

By: Jabs

Jabs — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:24:56 +0000

From Dx0 web site.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

Nikon D3X = 88
Canon 5DMK2 = 79
Sony A900 = 78.9

ANY further claims at to the Nikon and Sony sensors being the same – ANYMORE?

WOW!!!

D3X blows everyone away!

By: Lou

Lou — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:27:21 +0000

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three-5.shtml

the test are here, now get me in detail where the 3000 bucks are hidden …sic

By: Lou

Lou — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:19:12 +0000

You are all kidding. The D3X is overpriced. Now concerning the pictures on the jpwatch site. I downed the pictures made with the D3X and the 1DSmk2. I compared them and I do not see where Nikon has any advantage. Yes, there is some more per pixel detail, but just slightly, then the colors are Nikon flat, like usual.
Concerning the capture device. It is the same capture device as in the Sony A900, but, the way Nikon handles it is the same as if you compare the D200 device to all other same sensors in other brand cameras including Nikon consumer dslr’s. Nikon handles this sensor with the known multichannel processing technology we knew in the D200.
In so far, the sensor produced for Nikon is unique and even being basicly the same as the Sony A900, the technology as such is different. In so far Nikon says right that it is a personal for nikon developed sensor.
I do not go for tests and comparing of downed shots. Most are made on different days and no one can prove that none of them have been reworked.
Overpriced, yes, the D3X is overpriced. The D3 body was ready made to receive the larger capture device and even if one analyzes the content in electronic components, there is less in it as in the D3. So, can anyone now tell me where those 3000 bucks go then. We can not compare old times to new times in pricing. Technology is known and development goes far faster then in those related times. Units are easier to produce and here, especially here it’s just a question of 2 different print-boards to exchange compared to the D3.
If one compares the 5Dmk2 to it’s big brother the 1DSmk3, we are in front of a new concept, a completely different body, a new layout with unfortunately an overdue AF system. Despite of that, the picture it makes is better then the one of the big bro and the price is just half of it. There was really no reason for Nikon to overprice the D3X and if I compare the pictures to those of the A900 or the 1DSmk3 and the 5dmk2, there are no 3000$ hidden nowhere and that could justify that price. Nikon sucks and what they have done here is the best publicity for Canon and Sony.
Sony’s A900 can have many features less then the D3X, the use I would make out of it is shooting pictures and just any of those cameras do this and quiet well.
Let’s now wait for dpreview’s compared tests. They are not there yet, but they will certainly come soon.
In the mean time stop kidding and come back to the floor of reality.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:32:06 +0000

I am sorry please clarify – what kind of preview button? Do you mean for the comments?

By: Ralf

Ralf — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:25:31 +0000

Nikon really pissed me off with the pricing of the D3x so while I still have my FE2 I have sold my D200 and related lenses. The D3x was going to cost $12,000 in Oz so I decided to go for the Canon 5D MkII. I had to get some new lenses for a D3x anyway. I ended up getting the 5DMkII, 17-40, 24-70, 70-200and 50mm lenses for less that the D3x alone. I opted for the f4 70-200 something I have been waiting for Nikon to produce for 10 yrs. I will sadly miss my AIS lenses that I still have but I may get an adaptor ring for the Canon and I may also get the Nikon 14-24 using the adaptor ring.

D3x had better be a great camera coz the Canon is pretty damn good and nearly a 1/3 the price. The video stuff is cool if in all likelihood unused by me.

I wanted extra res for landscapes – I do little else so I could care less about high ISO performance after all in the past I shot with Velvia at 40 ISO.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:42:53 +0000

You’re kidding right? You’re making decisions on whether this is a fair price for the D3x based on technology that’s 10 years down the road? How many photo ops are you going to miss between now and then??

Problem with that is in 10 years, there will be some other technology 10 years away that will make buying then a bad decision.

Seems it wasn’t too long ago people were lining up to buy a 1Ds @less than 12MP for $8000, now you can get double that in a much better body with much better ISOs for the same price. Heck, when the first 1-2MP DSLRs came out there were in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. This is a deal and a half by comparison.

By: rthomas

rthomas — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:42:31 +0000

Well, I do wear and need glasses, but my monitor is very high resolution and is calibrated (I’m currently doing archival scanning for a living). To my eyes, the ISO 50 shot seems to have quite a bit more color saturation. For some people, this will be a great reason to drop $8000… I’m not one of those people, my D300 is fine.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:56:57 +0000

Testing show the limits of actual sensor technology.
But what about the future?
Silicon based sensors capture 15% of incoming light – nanotechnology promises 80%.
Available, but not here implemented, black silicon technology may icrease this ratio to some 50%.
Therefore the D3x seems overpriced, according to expected technological developments. Otherwise, 24 megapixels and 3200 ISO is nice for non-professional users.
Michael – Germany

By: STFU

STFU — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:07:43 +0000

Hey,

NR rocks, but every time I read the name in its abbreviated form, my head says ‘Noise Reduction’… Shows what kind of a techno freak I am

Anyway, great post, pics look amazing despite all the idiots who spend too much time nitpicking every pixel. FFS, D3x has 24 Megapixels!!! Any noise would be expected, yet these charts show it is far better then A900. Like it or not, it is what it is, so stop complaining!

P.S. Can you please add a preview button on the boards?

By: someone

someone — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:37:46 +0000

These shots were picked up from Japanese famous site where review new products.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/
(In Japanese Only)

By: towert7

towert7 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:51:11 +0000

That’s why we buy Nikon.

By: cv

cv — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:20:40 +0000

Hmm;

there is almost no detail in the testshots. Simply big squares with one color.

The A900 shots are overexposed compared to the D3X shots.

By: Spiritualized67

Spiritualized67 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:16:11 +0000

Interesting test. Although I’d like to see the results in low light – especially in shadow detail and IQ. These colored blocks were taken in relatively bright conditions. I’m more interested in what goes on when the sun is down.

-Dan

By: ennan hamill

ennan hamill — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:58:07 +0000

http://masterchong.com/v2/sony-alpha/sony-alpha-dslr-a900-iso100-iso6400-100-cropped-comparison.html

this shows the sample images for A900 were taken in october (look at the dates) Given that the D3x has only just been announced I think it’s fair to say that the testing conditions were quite different. I believe that the scratched panels have been replaced for the D3x test which is why they havent shown up on the sample images. There is no way in hell nikon would have been that aggressive in their noise reduction as to completely destroy such obvious detail.
Sony I’m afriad dont even come close to matching the Nikon.
I would like to see a comparison taken at the same time under tighter conditions if only to shut the naysayers and canon fanboy detritus up.
Still dont think its worth the price they’re asking though…

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:55:44 +0000

You can’t reproduce those details. They are incidental. Maybe the scratches got there on the second shot, but they are the same card, taken at similar times. A thread moves with the slightest brushing. So you are not likely to get the scratches out without moving it. Look at all the boarder threads. They are all in exactly the same place. I still think nikon is doing some NR even at low ISO.

By: Eric B

Eric B — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:44:43 +0000

Also it is worth noting the the D3x displays shockingly little color noise. Even pegged out at 6400 there are no color splotches to be seen. amazing!

By: Eric B

Eric B — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:41:53 +0000

What about ISO 100!!!! the D3x isn’t applying NR at ISO 100. It simply isn’t. The test cart is obviously different. I can say with certainty that the chart for the A900 is different (scratched) from the one used for the D3x. Nikon is applying LESS NR at the high ISO if you look at the texture of the area between the swatches this becomes apparent.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:33:51 +0000

So, I am looking very carefully at the detail on both charts, and they are the same. If you look at the pink square, about 1/4 of the way down on the right hand side, you notice the thread in both images. There are lots of other details that are the same. My guess is that Nikon is doing a whole lot of NR and we are not seeing the scratches.

By: Eric B

Eric B — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:32:17 +0000

This is a ridiculously telling test!

People who are moaning about the color sample thing being different are bering amazingly short-sighted. People who are moaning about the low ISO are being amazingly short-sighted.

For all we know, one test was taken a month ago and the other today. The temperature of the sensor might have been hugely different, the lighting is different, the D3x image might be slightly OOF etc. People talking about the D3x being heavy handed with NR are obviously not looking at the Sony images because the latter look like they were subjected to a media filter with a 5px radius.

Anyway, the D3x is obviously much, much, much cleaner than the sony. I don’t care about 1 sec exposures at ISO 100… At those settings it is more due to lens quality and temperature than sensor quality. Look at ISO 6400, it doesn’t look much noisier than the D3!

Personally I am stunned and impressed. I thought the sony was bad but not god-awful… but now, in comparison, I have to say Sony is still two year behind. What amazing quality from the D3x sensor! Not only that, the D3x produced files with less NR and a more pleasing noise dynamic, almost like grain.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:24:11 +0000

Thank you once again for you insightful reviews Ken.