Comments on: Nikon D3x http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:05:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: curious http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-175814 curious Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:55:02 +0000 http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-175814 gee i don't know... how can a new $350 fuji 200exr compact get the same 4 1/2 stars rating as this $8000 nikon? huh... gee i don’t know…

how can a new $350 fuji 200exr compact get the same 4 1/2 stars rating as this $8000 nikon?

huh…

]]> By: Sun Ra http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-164836 Sun Ra Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:48:12 +0000 http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-164836 With film, the image is continuous in all three dimensions: x, y, and z (intensity). With film, you get the same resolution at color transitions (green/magenta, for instance) as you get for light/dark transitions. With film, you have complete R, G, and B resolution at every point. Film's sharpness decreases gradually as the pitch (spatial frequency of fineness of detail) increases. Seen as an MTF curve, film's response to detail gradually becomes less as the details get finer. Film can resolve insanely fine details, but not with as much contrast as coarser features. This natural response is similar to our eyes, and another reason film looks so good. When you scan film, good scanners resolve right up to their DPI (dots or pixels per inch) rating. Film scans also have complete RGB color information and resolution at each pixel. Film scans resolve detail about as well as the original film, up to the resolution of the scanner. There is no response to details finer than the resolution of the scanner, even if it's on the film and visible in optical prints. When laypeople compare film to digital, they aren't comparing film to digital. They are usually only comparing scans of film to digital. With digital cameras, you get full contrast up to the very highest limit of the sensor's resolution. Finer details simply disappear, or become aliases. This is one way film and digital look so different. Film records fine and coarse details naturally, while digital (and video) tend to record medium details more strongly than film, but have no response to the extremely fine details which film can record. Often the finest medium details to which the digital camera is sensitive are boosted in contrast. This is called sharpening, and is how we get digital images to fool the eye into thinking they're sharp. Digital cameras never resolve their rated resolution. The only digital cameras that used to were those with Foveon sensors, but them Sigma started lying, too. All (non-Foveon) digital cameras use a black-and-white sensor on which red, green and blue dots have been painted. Since we only have about a third the resolution in any one color, since only one-third of the sensor is painted with each color, Bayer Interpolation firmware in the camera (or in raw conversion software) takes the pixels of each color, and interpolates (smoothes) values in-between the pixel locations of each color to create brightness value for each color at every other color's location. Therefore, at each pixel location in a digital camera's image, we don't have full R, G, and B data. We only get about half, which is why digital camera images at 100% won't look as good as good film scans at 100%, or lower resolution settings of your camera seen at 100%. This is all called Bayer Interpolation. With this, most digital cameras really only resolve about half their rated megapixel rating. For instance, a 10MP camera really only sees about as well as a theoretically perfect 5MP digital camera, or 5MP film scan. Foveon chips see at full resolution, but the makers of those cameras lie about the resolution to keep up with other cameras. Most Foveon-chipped cameras (Sigma) multiply the real resolution by three! What Sigma sells as 14MP cameras are really only 5MP. So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film? Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero. Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50. 320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels. But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film. Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film. That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5." At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film. As we've seen, film can store far more detail than any digital capture system. The gotchas with any of these systems is that: 1.) It takes one heck of a lens to be able to resolve this well. 2.) It takes even more of a photographer to be able to get that much detail on the film, and 3.) If you want to scan the film and retain this detail, you need one hack of a scanner (320 lpmm = 8,000 DPI). This is why every time higher-resolution film scanners came out back before amateurs could afford DSLRs, we saw more details where we though we wouldn't see any. Consumer 35mm scanners hit 5,400 DPI (Minolta) before the amateurs went to DSLRs, and even at 5,400 DPI we still saw more detail in our scans than we did at 4,800 DPI. Film never stopped amazing us as we scanned it higher, and this is why. 5,400 DPI is equal to 212 pixels per mm, or 0.045MP/mm^2. Thus a 35mm slide, scanned on that Minolta 5400 scanner, yielded 39MP images, without Bayer Interpolation. Open these in PhotoShop, and 39x3 = 120 MB files, again, sharper than the Bayer-interpolated images from digital cameras. Resolution has nothing to do with getting the right pixels and making a good photo, but if all you want to do is count pixels, count on film. With film, the image is continuous in all three dimensions: x, y, and z (intensity). With film, you get the same resolution at color transitions (green/magenta, for instance) as you get for light/dark transitions. With film, you have complete R, G, and B resolution at every point. Film’s sharpness decreases gradually as the pitch (spatial frequency of fineness of detail) increases. Seen as an MTF curve, film’s response to detail gradually becomes less as the details get finer. Film can resolve insanely fine details, but not with as much contrast as coarser features. This natural response is similar to our eyes, and another reason film looks so good.
When you scan film, good scanners resolve right up to their DPI (dots or pixels per inch) rating. Film scans also have complete RGB color information and resolution at each pixel. Film scans resolve detail about as well as the original film, up to the resolution of the scanner. There is no response to details finer than the resolution of the scanner, even if it’s on the film and visible in optical prints. When laypeople compare film to digital, they aren’t comparing film to digital. They are usually only comparing scans of film to digital.
With digital cameras, you get full contrast up to the very highest limit of the sensor’s resolution. Finer details simply disappear, or become aliases. This is one way film and digital look so different. Film records fine and coarse details naturally, while digital (and video) tend to record medium details more strongly than film, but have no response to the extremely fine details which film can record. Often the finest medium details to which the digital camera is sensitive are boosted in contrast. This is called sharpening, and is how we get digital images to fool the eye into thinking they’re sharp. Digital cameras never resolve their rated resolution. The only digital cameras that used to were those with Foveon sensors, but them Sigma started lying, too.
All (non-Foveon) digital cameras use a black-and-white sensor on which red, green and blue dots have been painted. Since we only have about a third the resolution in any one color, since only one-third of the sensor is painted with each color, Bayer Interpolation firmware in the camera (or in raw conversion software) takes the pixels of each color, and interpolates (smoothes) values in-between the pixel locations of each color to create brightness value for each color at every other color’s location.
Therefore, at each pixel location in a digital camera’s image, we don’t have full R, G, and B data. We only get about half, which is why digital camera images at 100% won’t look as good as good film scans at 100%, or lower resolution settings of your camera seen at 100%.
This is all called Bayer Interpolation. With this, most digital cameras really only resolve about half their rated megapixel rating. For instance, a 10MP camera really only sees about as well as a theoretically perfect 5MP digital camera, or 5MP film scan.
Foveon chips see at full resolution, but the makers of those cameras lie about the resolution to keep up with other cameras. Most Foveon-chipped cameras (Sigma) multiply the real resolution by three! What Sigma sells as 14MP cameras are really only 5MP.
So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film? Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero. Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what’s on Velvia 50.
320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.
35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.
To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you’ll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.
But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn’t see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you’d need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
That’s just 35mm film. Pros don’t shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4″ or 4×5.”
At the same rates, 2-1/4″ (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4×5″ (95×120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4×5″ film.
As we’ve seen, film can store far more detail than any digital capture system.
The gotchas with any of these systems is that:
1.) It takes one heck of a lens to be able to resolve this well.
2.) It takes even more of a photographer to be able to get that much detail on the film, and
3.) If you want to scan the film and retain this detail, you need one hack of a scanner (320 lpmm = 8,000 DPI).
This is why every time higher-resolution film scanners came out back before amateurs could afford DSLRs, we saw more details where we though we wouldn’t see any.
Consumer 35mm scanners hit 5,400 DPI (Minolta) before the amateurs went to DSLRs, and even at 5,400 DPI we still saw more detail in our scans than we did at 4,800 DPI.
Film never stopped amazing us as we scanned it higher, and this is why.
5,400 DPI is equal to 212 pixels per mm, or 0.045MP/mm^2. Thus a 35mm slide, scanned on that Minolta 5400 scanner, yielded 39MP images, without Bayer Interpolation. Open these in PhotoShop, and 39×3 = 120 MB files, again, sharper than the Bayer-interpolated images from digital cameras.
Resolution has nothing to do with getting the right pixels and making a good photo, but if all you want to do is count pixels, count on film.

]]> By: Brent Allen http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-164633 Brent Allen Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:26:46 +0000 http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-164633 Well I think some need to quit complaining. I bought the D3x....and you know what? Its ALREADY paid for itself in a month. When clients heard I had the new Nikon, they went crazy (magazines). I didnt hear anyone crying when Canon charges 8 grand for their camera? If it's too much, dont buy it. SIMPLE! I bought it and leaving the competition behind. As far as the F6 film comment....DUDE.....WAKE UP!!! Well I think some need to quit complaining. I bought the D3x….and you know what? Its ALREADY paid for itself in a month. When clients heard I had the new Nikon, they went crazy (magazines). I didnt hear anyone crying when Canon charges 8 grand for their camera? If it’s too much, dont buy it. SIMPLE! I bought it and leaving the competition behind.

As far as the F6 film comment….DUDE…..WAKE UP!!!

]]> By: Jim P http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-161549 Jim P Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:35:05 +0000 http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-161549 Its not the eight grand that bothers me. Its the idea that Nikon manufactured a camera only marginally better than the D3 and THEN tagged that price-point. Canon charged 8 grand for the EOS 1Ds Mk III for two years and it didn't bother anyone because shooters perceived they were getting quality far beyond the nearest competitor at any price. For Nikon to sustain this price level, I think they're going to have to rework the camera or replace it in short time with a D4 that's been completely re-engineered from the ground up. The high ISO performance, the buffer, and the continuous frame rate need to be improved to warrant this cost. My studio will wait and see what happens. And as for the comment about film and the F6 - I've been a paid shooter for over 35 years. My D2Xs produces 16 x 20s that exceed the quality of any print from any 35mm negative or chrome I've ever seen. The Hasselblad H3D 60 easily rivals anything from a 6x7, too. We're at the point where film may be different, but not "better." And as for cost, the Hassy will run you the better part of $40K. Oh, and as for longevity, I'm still using the D2Xs... and will be for some time. That model was and still is a great camera. My vote would be to boycott the D3X for a time. Let's see if Nikon will (1) reduce the MSRP or (2) quickly replaces this goof with a high-res body that warrants the price. Its not the eight grand that bothers me. Its the idea that Nikon manufactured a camera only marginally better than the D3 and THEN tagged that price-point. Canon charged 8 grand for the EOS 1Ds Mk III for two years and it didn’t bother anyone because shooters perceived they were getting quality far beyond the nearest competitor at any price. For Nikon to sustain this price level, I think they’re going to have to rework the camera or replace it in short time with a D4 that’s been completely re-engineered from the ground up. The high ISO performance, the buffer, and the continuous frame rate need to be improved to warrant this cost. My studio will wait and see what happens.

And as for the comment about film and the F6 - I’ve been a paid shooter for over 35 years. My D2Xs produces 16 x 20s that exceed the quality of any print from any 35mm negative or chrome I’ve ever seen. The Hasselblad H3D 60 easily rivals anything from a 6×7, too. We’re at the point where film may be different, but not “better.” And as for cost, the Hassy will run you the better part of $40K. Oh, and as for longevity, I’m still using the D2Xs… and will be for some time. That model was and still is a great camera.

My vote would be to boycott the D3X for a time. Let’s see if Nikon will (1) reduce the MSRP or (2) quickly replaces this goof with a high-res body that warrants the price.

]]> By: Sun Ra http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-159996 Sun Ra Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:48:59 +0000 http://www.dphotojournal.com/nikon-d3x-review-sample-photos/#comment-159996 This is ridiculous, paying $8,000 for a camera that will be outdated within 18 months. C'mon, this is a rip-off. Digital camera, including so-called high-end models, are essentially consumer items and are updated and surpassed frequently by the manufacturers. And the image results still don't approach the quality shooting film through the F6 and scanning the negative at 9600 dpi. We've all been suckered into believing digital is better, any paying through the nose for it. Wake up! :-( This is ridiculous, paying $8,000 for a camera that will be outdated within 18 months. C’mon, this is a rip-off. Digital camera, including so-called high-end models, are essentially consumer items and are updated and surpassed frequently by the manufacturers. And the image results still don’t approach the quality shooting film through the F6 and scanning the negative at 9600 dpi. We’ve all been suckered into believing digital is better, any paying through the nose for it. Wake up!
:-(

]]>