Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

D3 vs D3x Noise Comparison: First Tests


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 craig

craig

    Full Moon Rising

  • Super Mod
  • 2826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:34 AM

The end result is the same: Canon is better for astro work. The only reason I mention it is that the D3 is unlike the D3x in that specific regard. The Sony sensors excel in low ISO shooting but not in high ISO due to rapid rampup in amp noise. I suspect the Sony sensor design is preferable underwater more often than not.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Col. John "Hannibal" Smith

------
Nikon, Seatool, Nexus, Inon
My Galleries

#42 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 26 January 2009 - 12:33 PM

Thom Hogan has just updated his D3x review.
Apparently the long exposure amp noise issue was a problem with his camera and this is now resolved with the replacement camera. Generally noise performance is significantly better than his initial test.
In summary up to 1600 ISO, he would choose the D3x. Starting at 1600 ISO and definitely at 3200 ISO he would choose the D3. The D3x also demonstrably begins to lose it's DR advantage by 800 ISO.
He demonstrates nicely as well the point that has been made in this thread how the D3x will be very unforgiving of poor technique etc.
I like his reviews, 'fair and balanced' I would say.
http://bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm

Edited by loftus, 26 January 2009 - 12:35 PM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#43 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 01 February 2009 - 05:53 AM

Another reviewer that seems to post fairly thoughtful reviews has posted quite a bit on the D3x, D3 and 5DmKII.
Unfortunately one has to pay to subscribe to the full reviews, (which I did), but in summary the D3x is pretty impressive, and surprisingly even outshines the 5DMkII in deep shadow noise performance even at low ISO.
I generally like to have two bodies, particularly when I travel. I was planning to get another D700, but it seems like it's worth waiting to see if a D700x is released. Then I REALLY think I'll be set for a while. Or maybe I need a D400 as well, do still love my 10-17. :(
http://diglloyd.com

Edited by loftus, 01 February 2009 - 06:08 AM.

Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#44 jeremypayne

jeremypayne

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 01 February 2009 - 06:11 AM

Another reviewer that seems to post fairly thoughtful reviews has posted quite a bit on the D3x, D3 and 5DmKII.
Unfortunately one has to pay to subscribe to the full reviews, (which I did), but in summary the D3x is pretty impressive, and surprisingly even outshines the 5DMkII in deep shadow noise performance even at low ISO.
I generally like to have two bodies, particularly when I travel. I was planning to get another D700, but it seems like it's worth waiting to see if a D700x is released. Then I REALLY think I'll be set for a while. Or maybe I need a D400 as well, do still love my 10-17. :lobster:
http://diglloyd.com

A D700x in DX-mode would seem to be a pretty good option ... but I'm all for more cameras ... :( ...

Thanks for linking to that site ... I like it.
Jeremy Payne
My Website