DPR's full D3x review

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by ASAAR, Feb 19, 2009.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    ASAAR, Feb 19, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. In message Alfred Molon
    100% viewfinder.
    Father Guido Sarducci, Feb 19, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    I don't see that it helps at all with my D700.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Feb 19, 2009
  4. ASAAR

    RichA Guest

    If anyone is going to spend $15k going to the Antarctic or some
    extended African safari, that is definitely the camera to get, not one
    one of the pathetic Canon "leaky boats." Also, Dpreview should
    remember that the 1DsMkIII was selling for $8000 street for a few
    months after it's inception, so it hardly started out at $6500.00.
    The price of the D3x compared to the original price of the 1DsMkIII
    seems very reasonable. If that Canon was worth $8k, then the D3x is
    worth $10k, at least.
    RichA, Feb 19, 2009
  5. ASAAR

    Celcius Guest

    Doesn't it, Paul?
    I used to think it was only a gadget when it came out on the XTi (I think
    it's the one).
    With my 5D II, it seems to work. I've changed the lens twice and checked for
    spots... none. I was pleasantly surprised. Although, I suppose that if it's
    damp or humid and I change lenses, it might be another story... In that
    particular model, Canon made the protection plate very "slippery" so nothing
    might adhere to it.
    Celcius, Feb 19, 2009
  6. ASAAR

    Me Guest

    It works. In over one year of use (D300) I haven't put the camera in
    cleaning mode to even look at the sensor, let alone clean it. I leave
    auto modes off - so have only run sensor-shake manually when I've seen
    dust, and it's worked perfectly. But the new filter coatings must also
    play a big part, as it's only been on occasions when changing lenses in
    very dusty and windy environments that I've needed to run the
    sensor-shake, yet with previous cameras even when being careful about
    dust, I'd need to blow dust of the sensor at least weekly, and wet-clean
    every month or two on average.
    Me, Feb 19, 2009
  7. ASAAR

    Paul Furman Guest

    That's about where I'm at. Admittedly I lead a very dusty life <g>.

    Possibly the wet cleaning fluid I've been using isn't the best idea.
    It's blue stuff, not petroleum smelling: 'Delkin Devices, Sensor Solution'.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Feb 20, 2009
  8. ASAAR

    Pete D Guest

    Agree, I have one D-SLR with and one D-SLR without, to be honest I am a lens
    changing freak and rarely have a problem with dust.
    Pete D, Feb 20, 2009
  9. Pete D wrote:
    Unless you stop well down, dust is not always obvious. I find the
    sensor-cleaning on the Nikon D60 gives me fewer spots than I used to get
    on the D40 which lacks automatic cleaning.

    David J Taylor, Feb 20, 2009
  10. ASAAR

    Chris H Guest

    I have to agree. BTW when he dust is "removed" where doe sit go? :)
    Chris H, Feb 20, 2009
  11. ASAAR

    Bruce Guest

    It falls on to a piece of "sticky flypaper" at the base of the sensor
    and stays there.
    Bruce, Feb 20, 2009
  12. ASAAR

    bowzer Guest

    Simply excellent, for sure. But I have noticed one very strange behavior
    from the people in the DP Review forums; they keep comparing this camera to
    the Canon 5D II. Aside from resolution, these two are on different planets.
    One is a full-blown pro model, the other is not, and was never intended to
    be. But that doesn't stop them.
    bowzer, Feb 20, 2009
  13. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    Drat! Now we'll have to start examining D3x images for tiny black
    dots. Yeah, the forums have their share of weird humanoids that
    revel in arguing about how many angels can be thrown down a sensel's
    deep well. But that behavior isn't much different than what we see
    in the newsgroups from time to time. The D700x'll set 'em right.
    ASAAR, Feb 20, 2009
  14. ASAAR

    Me Guest

    Are you trying to say that dust is no more visible at small apertures
    than large?
    If not, then what are you trying to say?
    Me, Feb 21, 2009
  15. I find that dust shows much more when you do stop down, such as in bright
    taking conditions. A clear blue sky provides (for me) the highest
    visibility of the dust, and when stopped down the dust is more "in focus"
    and hence appears with a smaller diameter and a higher contrast. A
    complex background can often mask dust.

    David J Taylor, Feb 21, 2009
  16. C J Campbell wrote:
    I used "in-focus" in quotes, as it's not a focus issue but a lighting one.
    A shadow is sharper with a point source of light than with a more diffuse
    source, and what you have with dust is the shadow of the dust falling on
    the sensor. So with the lens wide-open, the light is more diffuse and the
    shadow of the dust less sharp. On the cameras I've used the shadow can
    extend over many pixels. With the lens stopped down to a small aperture,
    it more resembles a point source of light, and hence the shadow of the
    dust on the sensor is smaller and deeper, and hence it may be more
    visible, particularly as the eye is more sensitive to finer detail than
    smooth large-are changes.

    But don't take my word for it - try it for yourself and see.

    David J Taylor, Feb 21, 2009
  17. C J Campbell wrote:
    No, the dust isn't touching the sensor, C J, it's sitting on top of the
    RGB filter and the anti-alias filter, so it's a finite distance away.

    Next time you have some dust, check out the effect of aperture. No, I
    won't be blowing dust either!

    David J Taylor, Feb 21, 2009
  18. ASAAR

    Bruce Guest

    It is one of Nikon's strengths that the company prefers to complete the
    development of its DSLRs before releasing them to the market. Although
    I have been a happy Canon user for the last couple of years, I find
    their policy of releasing less than fully developed DSLRs surprising.

    The 1D Mk III was released with a very serious focusing problem that
    took months to fix. My two supposedly identical 5D bodies focused very
    differently with the same lenses; Canon couldn't fix it and I had to
    send them to an independent, though Canon approved, workshop to have
    them recalibrated. The 5D Mk II had the black spot issues, something
    serious that should have been developed out of the camera long before it
    got to market.

    All this played a part in my decision to replace my 5D bodies with Nikon
    bodies. Having tried the Canon 5D Mk II and the Sony A900 - and not
    being particularly impressed with either - I'm already using a Nikon
    D700 body as part of a mixed Canon/Nikon outfit. I will make a decision
    on the second body when it becomes clear whether there will be a D700X
    or similar model using the 24 MP sensor in a body that's smaller than
    the gargantuan D3X, and at what price.

    The alternative is a second D700. This camera is a big step forward
    from the Canon 5D with lower noise, significantly greater dynamic range,
    more detail in images from RAW files, vastly better high ISO performance
    and an outstanding rear LCD which sets new standards. Detail appears to
    be on a par with the 5D Mk II, whose advantage in the pixel count is
    thrown away by smudging of detail, presumably down to noise reduction.

    The Sony A900 offers more detail than the 5D Mk II but less dynamic
    range and a lamentable high ISO performance - this is a real noise box
    and takes us back to the dark days of 6 MP Sony CCDs in any number of
    brands of DSLR, all of them mediocre by today's standards. The A900
    looks as though it needs a lot more development; it was clearly rushed
    to market to pre-empt the 5D Mk II (and the still anticipated D700X) in
    order to shore up Sony's sagging product line.

    I understand from my friend the Sony dealer that five lenses have been
    dropped from Sony's development plans. Three would have been branded
    Sony and the other two branded Carl Zeiss.

    Sony Corporation announced historic losses just a few weeks ago, with
    the photo division giving its worst performance for years. And this
    accounting period was *before* the worst of the credit crunch. Sony has
    nowhere near the 20% market share it had targeted for this time, and the
    company must be wondering why on earth it bought Konica Minolta's DSLR

    Marry in haste, repent at leisure. ;-) I doubt Sony will repent for
    long, though. If the Alpha line doesn't start contributing a profit,
    and soon, Sony will be very quick to drop it altogether.
    Bruce, Feb 21, 2009
  19. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    If market and economic conditions further erode Sony's DSLR sales,
    reducing its current minuscule market share, all isn't necessarily
    lost. There's bound to be a white knight (or samurai) waiting in
    the wings to come to the rescue, as Sony did for K-M. As Sony's
    largest customer by far (consider all of those sensors), Nikon could
    just be that benefactor, which should make Alan breath a lot easier.

    ASAAR, Feb 21, 2009
  20. ASAAR

    Me Guest

    That was true of my older dslrs. There was always some dust. With the
    D300 (presumably because of sensor filter coatings) there's hardly ever
    any dust, and on the occasions where some is visible, so far (over a
    year of use) the sensor-shake system has worked 100%.

    I'm amazed that people are sill debating this subject.
    Me, Feb 21, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.