D3x versus D3s ding ding round 2

H

Harrogate Photos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Edit My Images
No
I know this must of been covered in detail before, but....

There's lots written about how good the D3s in low-light but the D3x is meant to be identical up to ISO 1600 - how often do you need to shot above that ?

Also, image-quality wise, the ability to have a large crop and still retain good image quality is also seldom talked about.

I am between the two of them for now....

I do a mix of portraits, weddings, press, events - all but landscapes!

Comments would be appreciated as you are a knowledgeable bunch on here.

Tim

www.timothycook.co.uk
 
I don't think the image quality on the d3x is anywhere near as good as the d3s at 1600 iso. Where did you get the fact that it's meant to be as good? People have likened it to the same level of noise as when shooting on a D300, in which case I probably wouldn't want to take it over 640 asa if I wanted to retain quality
 
Not through tests myself, but from a couple of review sites on here.

So, I can't be 100% sure how correct that is
 
Have had a play with the D3s and ISO6000 is easy peasy.

I regularly shoot above ISO 1600 and was shooting at ISO4000 last week on a D700 and I would not want to be without that performance any more. I was limited to ISO 1600 last year and changed 2 camera bodies, 5 lenses and 2 flashguns to get that high ISO performance.

So, for me, no contest. :)
 
Ive never used a d3s but everything ive heard is superb and its a dream body for me

J
 
I think I need to be realistic in how often I would really need the image size that a D3x produces - I was shooting a dimly lit fashion show yesterday and to be able to go to ISO1600 or more comfortably would of been so much easier.

Also with weddings, I am often in dimly lit churches with Vicars who don't like flash.

Also, a D3x is a lot of money really. Overall though it's better ISO rather than more cropping that would get me more overall usable images.

Nice website Alison too :)

www.timothycook.co.uk
 
Harrogate Photos said:
ISO 1600 - how often do you need to shot above that ?

Tim
Click to expand...


Last week at 6400 and I gave up about 20 mins later, 1D IV is lookin' good for the winter!

cham1485web.jpg
 
Thanks Tim, that's the decision I came to last year. I had more MP on my Canons but lacked the AF and high ISO. It was either upgrade the Canons and get the high ISO in one body and good AF in the other or come to my senses (;)) and swap the whole lot and get D700s. I have shot a few frames with the D3s and it's a stonking performer. Give me a good clean noise free image any day :)
 
Am thinking a D3s and a D700 as a backup/smaller body.

If I ever really needed lots of megapixels then the fee normally goes alongside that sort of work so would go for a Hasselblad, but that's a way off for now.

I run a Fuji S5 now which is (arguably) only 6mega pixels or 2 x 6 megapeixels, so a D3s is still going to be a good improvement quality.
 
Fuji S5 now which is (arguably) only 6mega pixels
Click to expand...

Yes I have one too. On the 12mp setting, an A2 enlargement is stunning and shows no sign of pixelisation or noise, but that was at 100 iso, not sure what its like higher up the range as I use my D90. depends how much you need that high ISO performance
 
A review I read says the ISO performance is identical on both bodies AFTER you downsample the D3X image to match the resolution of the D3S.....no idea how much truth is in this. At best it means you have an awesome HIGH MP camera until you need great ISO performance, at which point, it is downgraded to 12mp....

G.
 
How often do I need to shoot above that???

I never realized I needed to facebook 50 times a day from my phone until I could... :)

So perhaps I would if I could. Am intrigued how it would change my event/party type work with much less flash being used.
 
Harrogate Photos said:
Gary.... thanks, that's a curve ball :)
Click to expand...

Research it - I have NO IDEA where I read it, but I did read it and there were several side by side comparison pixelpeeping shots. They argued no real difference when both at 12mp, but a massive drop in noise performance when at full res....

It may have been on DPReview...

G.
 
Harrogate Photos said:
How often do I need to shoot above that???

I never realized I needed to facebook 50 times a day from my phone until I could... :)

So perhaps I would if I could. Am intrigued how it would change my event/party type work with much less flash being used.
Click to expand...

you'll never get away from flash for nightlife work tim, light's in the wrong place and too random...will mean you can burn in back lights a bit more though by cranking the iso. End of the day it's facebook res output...
 
Iso 10,000 without noise reduction:

DSC_2584.jpg



DSC_2548.jpg


I don't know how good the D3x is, but I was happy to get these in a dark venue without flash. I had it set on auto iso if I remember correctly and still had it set from shooting aircraft earlier in the day at about 1/800s. But it sorted it.

Kev.
 
hells teeth thats impressive, is the D700 as good as the D3 s at these high ISO's?
 
Dave Pickett said:
hells teeth thats impressive, is the D700 as good as the D3 s at these high ISO's?
Click to expand...


I doubt it. I know my D3 wasn't. It peaked at about 3200 if I remember correctly.


Kev.


Edit: It's my D300 that peaked at 3200. My D3 seems to have been at 6400. So it's about half of what the D3s is capable of.
 
If you could downsample with a median value per 4 pixels instead of pixel binning NN style, that'd be interesting.

D3x downsampled will look a lot like a D3s. You're basically "averaging out" the noise. Same reason you can get away with murder resizing anything to web resolution :)
 
Denyerec said:
If you could downsample with a median value per 4 pixels instead of pixel binning NN style, that'd be interesting.

D3x downsampled will look a lot like a D3s. You're basically "averaging out" the noise. Same reason you can get away with murder resizing anything to web resolution :)
Click to expand...

Median filtering is a non-linear operation and will not be equivalent to larger photosites (mean might work, though the D3x doesn't have 4 pixels to each on the D3s).

The D3x does seem to have extremely low-noise electronics (seen an amazing example of underexposed image recovery), so it wouldn't surprise me if with a bit of clever down-sizing the D3x's high ISO was decent :thumbs:
 
I've had both cameras.

Sold the D3x to get the D3s, mainly due to high ISO performance (I was shooting a lot of swimming at the time in poor lighting). D3s is night and day better than D3x at High ISO, in fact you can't get the Higher ISO settings on the D3x that you can on the D3s.

D3x maxes out at 1600, then has Hi 1 and Hi 2 - so 3200 and 6400 - but these are very noisy.

D3s is up to 12800 expandable using the hi settings up to 102400
 
Dave Pickett said:
hells teeth thats impressive, is the D700 as good as the D3 s at these high ISO's?
Click to expand...

D700 kind of tops out for clean files at around ISO 6400 as far as I can make out in practical use. (I'm not spending a week in a darkened room doing tests!)

I have used mine at ISO 3200 and ISO 4000 with absolutely no problem. The D3s will just keep on going. At ISO 12,800 it starts getting a bit manky. :D
 
Denyerec said:
D3x downsampled will look a lot like a D3s. You're basically "averaging out" the noise.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. Noise is random and can be bigger than one pixel. Even if you down-sample four to one, which is a resolution reduction to a quarter (!), I doubt you'd get it to levels achieved by larger photoreceptors with clever signal amplification and processing.

edit: well, seems as if Mud beat me to it.
 
I also flogged one of my D3x bodies and bought two D3 bodies instead...even though it has a lesser high-iso capability than the D3s (still out of stock everywhere and I've been after one since May), the D3 is so much better as an all-rounder than the 'X'...

Unless you're studio-bound and need those ultra-large file sizes, then the D3x offers no significant advantages over the D3 and quite a lot of drawbacks - I found it to be very noisy above 800 - comparable to the D2x, IMO and stupidly-big NEF/RAW file sizes that you'll never really use the full potential of.

I may even sell my remaining D3x and buy an 'S' when they finally become available again, as I only ever use it for studio portraits now...and how large an image do they have to be?
 
Arkady said:
I may even sell my remaining D3x and buy an 'S' when they finally become available again, as I only ever use it for studio portraits now...and how large an image do they have to be?
Click to expand...

I don't/can't believe it is going to be replaced ?! :thinking:
fotokina is coming, so after that I think everything will be clear.
 
Harrogate Photos said:
That's another thing, where are the D3s actually in stock just now ?
Click to expand...


Several suppliers claim to have them, but if you place an order, the delivery date suddenly goes left by about a month :(

WEX and Park Cameras still have them listed as on back order....since mid-March...:eek:
Gray's sold their last one at the beginning of April - I missed it by two days...:suspect:
 
Starastin said:
I don't/can't believe it is going to be replaced ?! :thinking:
fotokina is coming, so after that I think everything will be clear.
Click to expand...

Can't see it being replaced just yet!

I will probably get a D4 though.

Oh and D700 is ok to ISO 6400 possible 8000 but it depends on the colours too ! I think blues get noisy after 6400 more. Can't really say without having a mess though as I tend to use a flash if the ISO is getting that bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top