Comments on: Nikon D3x noise levels again

By: Englischmann

Englischmann — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:15:01 +0000

You still shooting RAW matey? Haven’t done that since the D200 was introduced and I earn over $100k per year on the back of my work.

Really, you should shoot film anyway, but if slumming it in the digital world for a bit, the gear available now negates the need for RAW. My D3 is so spot on – without fail, every time, – that I don’t need RAW – even though I put it in some extreme situations.

Creating work for yourself – still I guess that’s what amateurs do.

By: ben

ben — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:39:23 +0000

The numbers are not absurd, they are scientific. And those people who say numbers are nothing, go back to them a second later in their defense.
The reason why Dxolabs is so reliable, is because they produce one of the best raw converters out there, so these guys know what they are talking about when they do these scientific tests. When scientific tests showed that Fujifilm S5 had the best DR our of all digital cameras, the field tests facilitated those results as well. When Canon used to have the best high ISO images from any camera, the tests all so proved that. I don’t think anything has changed, except some trolls go around blowing smoke yelling “numbers don’t mean anything”.

Out of all other camera tests usually performed by untrained eye, or by bloggers, I trust these results the least, but I will trust Dxo labs more.

By: Poblav

Poblav — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:38:49 +0000

Hello, this is a very interesting site. I think I will stay a while.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:28:37 +0000

Exactly. A D3X is meant to really never go above say 400 ISO. They should have just made the range 100-400 to prove a point

By: Eggs

Eggs — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:26:00 +0000

actly. The D3 is a PJs tool. Haven’t they even brought out or thought about bringing out a version like one version of the old F3 specifically for PJs – no tripod socket and other bits that they don’t use and can cause probs on border crossings etc… tripod sockets collect dirt if you are in a real PJs environment.

D3X on other hand is really for studio work. Mind you, this is prob with high res digital… if I wanted to shoot real landscapes (for commercial gain) I would take medium format film gear. Similarly, I was recently invited by a friend to a fashion shoot (Lilly Allen was there!) for an international glossy mag and was surprised to see it all done on film – not a digital camera in sight.

There really is not a huge market for the likes of D3x and Canon 1Ds MKIII – except for rich amateurs who enjoy playing at being photographers and one or two so called professionals… but then I never really rated their work.

By: Candidus

Candidus — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:16:28 +0000

All numbers are my friend, all numbers are.

By: LavPol I

LavPol I — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:15:31 +0000

Eh?… no. You have failed to understand the very basics of how the sensor size, photosites/MP count affect the noise levels. Had they increased the MP count on the D3, I would not be taking photos in the dark with it with no tripod or, as last week, in the theatre lighting during Swan Lake.

By: Ralf

Ralf — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:20:44 +0000

If you pay the outrageous price for a D3x you have every right to compare it to whatever you want.

By: Jon McCormack

Jon McCormack — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:15:15 +0000

Last night I set up a test at various ISOs (100-1600) to compare my D3 and my D3x when the output is scaled to the resolution (i.e. D3 resolution). Foll results with sample images are at http://www.jonmccormack.com/d3x.html . The net is that when you compare apples to apples the D3x is better at lower ISOs (100-200), both cameras are pretty much the same at mid ISOs (400-800) and the D3 is better at higher ISOs (1600+). Not a huge surprise but with all the spin on this subject it’s good to see that the physics do actually hold up.

Cheers,

By: rhlpetrus

rhlpetrus — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:23:06 +0000

As already mentioned, they use jpegs and D3x has a very light approach to jpegs, while the 5DII has the heaviest NR jpeg machine around. Even Canon shooters are saying the jpeg engine is pretty bad, with very poor details because of the noise red applied (even at low ISOs).

By: rhlpetrus

rhlpetrus — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:21:17 +0000

That’s not what RAW shooters are seeing. The D3x has better noise performance at low ISOs than 5DII, especially in darker areas. The Imaging Resource RAW tests confirm that as have other people with careful RAW analysis.

Check these tests at Digilloyd:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-01-blog.html#_20090126D3x_vs_5DM2

By: rhlpetrus

rhlpetrus — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:18:13 +0000

5DII jpegs uses heavy NR, even at base ISO, detail is washed out as well.

By: rhlpetrus

rhlpetrus — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:46 +0000

Not really, if you take into account number of pixels. Then, you have to resize and normalize images size, then difference is much less. In DxO Mark, that’s what the PRINT option will do, for charts.

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:55:05 +0000

Yeah, they ought to read Kipling’s Captains Courageous.

By: Jon Paul

Jon Paul — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:52:54 +0000

As mentioned above, I’d trust DXOmark’s noise comparison over pop photo. At least they give an explanation of their numbers.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:46:41 +0000

this was exactly my point and the reason for this post – thank you

By: B3

B3 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:27:54 +0000

I think the point here is that either pop photo has a completely ridiculous rating system, or they got a bad sample of the d3x – because according to them, the 5D MKII has less noise at ISO 3200 than the D3x at ISO 100.

I don’t see any way in hell that this can be true.

By: Nikkoryan

Nikkoryan — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:05:58 +0000

Take Pop Photo ratings with grain of salt. They are far too subjective (what the heck does “extremely high” mean??). Compare the charts. One camera will have the red bar significantly lower than another but both will be “extremely high”.

Their ratings show that my D300 has same image quality as the D3. These charts show the d300 as better color accuracy and far less noise at ISO 800. Tyah…whatever.

D300:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4911/camera-test-nikon-d300-vital-statistics-test-results-page3.html
D3:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5047/camera-test-nikon-d3-vital-statistics-page3.html

I know you were just checking for defects. That’s totally cool. But in general, even if they showed the D3x as better on all accounts, I still wouldn’t trust their ratings.

By: voice of reason

voice of reason — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:04:29 +0000

Hmmm … let me see.

First gen Nikon sensor … Canon … not first gen as it is taken from 1DMIII and improved.

Nikon sensor … more megapixel, therefore more noise ….

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to expect the least noise to be D3, then 5DMkII and then last D3x due to sensor size and life cycle of the product.

By: voice of reason

voice of reason — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:00:46 +0000

This is so true.

People by nature are whiners.

And that is a result of being a first world country and these people not having experience in getting some humbling perspective on what being happy with what you have is.