Comparison between D3x and D3

[David Kwok]

Found this article at http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rs2A

Unfortunately D3x ISO didn't managed to surpass D3. That's makes 12K worth of beast only a pixel bumper at most.

[Rashkae]

Well, that's very well known... There have been many comparisons already on DPR. You can't break the laws of physics. An ultra-dense sensor can't have better ISO than a sensor with large photosites if they're based on the same generation of technology.

[KY1977]

Maybe a better comparison would be between D3X with 1Ds. More apple to apple.

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by KY1977 Maybe a better comparison would be between D3X with 1Ds. More apple to apple.

There is also. The idea about D3x and D3 is merely just to find out whether it's worth to upgrade or how much did Nikon does for D3x as the new flagship. 1Ds and 5DM2 versus D3x has been done, at most in par in performance for sensor wise. Other areas is pretty obvious. As or price wise of course, if mainly just sensor performance that one is looking for, 5DM2 gives a better value for money. 1Ds being older than D3x now is definitely less costly.

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by David Kwok There is also. The idea about D3x and D3 is merely just to find out whether it's worth to upgrade or how much did Nikon does for D3x as the new flagship. 1Ds and 5DM2 versus D3x has been done, at most in par in performance for sensor wise. Other areas is pretty obvious. As or price wise of course, if mainly just sensor performance that one is looking for, 5DM2 gives a better value for money. 1Ds being older than D3x now is definitely less costly.

Or get the A900. D3X sensor and Zeiss AF glass.

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by Rashkae Or get the A900. D3X sensor and Zeiss AF glass.

Nah... sorry to say, in the comparison between D3X, 5DM2 and A900, A900 got the worse performance. The only good thing is the good option for lens and bang for bucks.
Seriously speaking... the body to alpha series don't really appeal to me Sony should really work on it's DSLR body. No flame please.... just some sincere comments

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by David Kwok Nah... sorry to say, in the comparison between D3X, 5DM2 and A900, A900 got the worse performance. The only good thing is the good option for lens and bang for bucks. Seriously speaking... the body to alpha series don't really appeal to me Sony should really work on it's DSLR body. No flame please.... just some sincere comments

Oh? Odd, the sony DSLR bodies are well-known for their good ergonomics.

As for the "worst performance", where did you see this? Most reviews give it about the same performance, especially when you consider that Nikon does not use the actual sensor ISO. So a 3200 ISO shot is actually taken at about 2600, then the highlights are boosted. This gives the appearance of less noise and "wow! high iso!" but in reality you're not shooting at that ISO.

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by Rashkae Oh? Odd, the sony DSLR bodies are well-known for their good ergonomics. As for the "worst performance", where did you see this? Most reviews give it about the same performance, especially when you consider that Nikon does not use the actual sensor ISO. So a 3200 ISO shot is actually taken at about 2600, then the highlights are boosted. This gives the appearance of less noise and "wow! high iso!" but in reality you're not shooting at that ISO.

Well... lets not dwell into this OT liao... each as it's own uniqueness and for me, I tend to bend towards Nikon while I can see Sony is for you.

I am aware of the published ISO and the effective ISO issue, but in any case, I am even considering Fujifilm S5Pro as a backup mainly given it uses Nikon mount

I won't be nor can I afford a jump ship. keke. Since I settle for Nikon and Nikon is not lousy either, I kind I would just love to make it work hard for me. At least my $$$ at least

[Rashkae]

Actually, the S5Pro does look like a very good backup camera if you're on the nikon mount. Too bad they're not releasing an update.

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by Rashkae Actually, the S5Pro does look like a very good backup camera if you're on the nikon mount. Too bad they're not releasing an update.

Since it's just a backup and I have used D300 previously and D700 is just like a D3 without the bells and whistles, I kind feel I wanna try out fujifilm since I can reuse my lens. But I have seen comments from a fujifilm users saying S5pro is not even as sharp compared to D80, so I wanna see the real thing for myself before deciding. For just merely 1+K for the body, I feel it makes an affordable backup.

[Giorgio]

Isn't this just similar to the A700 and A900 comparism?
Apart from the selling point of the megapixel,the A900 offers no substaintial justification for the additional 2k over the RTP of the A700.

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by Giorgio Isn't this just similar to the A700 and A900 comparism? Apart from the selling point of the megapixel,the A900 offers no substaintial justification for the additional 2k over the RTP of the A700.

Having used both, i highly disagree.

[daftone]

It is expected. If D3x really does blow everyone away with high ISO performance, Nikon would be making a damn woohaa for its launch.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Giorgio Isn't this just similar to the A700 and A900 comparism? Apart from the selling point of the megapixel,the A900 offers no substaintial justification for the additional 2k over the RTP of the A700.

Except the premium for D3X is $5k compared to D3... and A700 isn't even FF...