D3X Buzkashi Crop-- UNREAL

wildpix · Jan 25, 2009

Buzkashi 3 (2nd link from bottom)

Untouched, no manipulation, Its big, nearly 5mb, but I think its incredible (talking about the quality not the shot! the shot might please or not, personally i like it

handheld, D3X with 200mm f/2--1/1250s f/5.6 200iso, subject moving quite fast oncoming at about 30-40m

let me know what you think? appreciate any comments.

ps: prob with the D3X is that the screen just doesnt do justice to the full image. But the prints are amazing.
wildpix.net

kundalini · Jan 25, 2009

Link says.... Page not found.

wildpix · Jan 25, 2009

kundalini said:
Link says.... Page not found.

sorry, hadnt noticed the site had truncated the link, thanks for the info!!
martin

NateS · Jan 25, 2009

Sorry, but I personally don't see what is so incredible about the quality of that shot that makes it say "whoa" about the D3x. I'd expect the same shot from a D3 or even D700. Maybe I'm just missing something. Oh, and I'm talking about quality, not the shot itself.

tsaraleksi · Jan 25, 2009

Yeah I mean, a high megapixel camera can make close crops... I'm not sure that that is a particularly revolutionary development.

shivaswrath · Jan 25, 2009

very nice indeed!

wildpix · Jan 26, 2009

NateS said:
Sorry, but I personally don't see what is so incredible about the quality of that shot that makes it say "whoa" about the D3x. I'd expect the same shot from a D3 or even D700. Maybe I'm just missing something. Oh, and I'm talking about quality, not the shot itself.

You would expect the same shot from a D3 or D700? how do you work that out?, similiar quality at a much smaller size? if so. agreed? is that what you mean? But if you apply that logic my D2H is pretty good too, f we keep the images at 640x480 i doubt you could tell which was which. But as this crop is 6.9mp or just over 28-29% of the image area of the sensor, the same image with a D3 would be less than 4mp? (3.54mp?) so how you would expect it to be the same Im unsure?. reason I put this up is because some think the D3X is a Landscape or studio camera not for handholding.

Mike_E · Jan 26, 2009

Wildpix, I think that the nit-picking that you're seeing is due to the price of the camera.

A small percentage on this forum could see themselves with a D3, a couple have even bought it. The number who can even be bothered to "run the numbers" for a D3x is Very small. Jealousy is fueling the fire.

And you are right, 72 dpi is hard to use to show the quality of a crop, I'm sure that the prints are great.

Not $8K great, though. LOLOLOLOL.

wildpix · Jan 26, 2009

Mike_E said:
Wildpix, I think that the nit-picking that you're seeing is due to the price of the camera.

A small percentage on this forum could see themselves with a D3, a couple have even bought it. The number who can even be bothered to "run the numbers" for a D3x is Very small. Jealousy is fueling the fire.

And you are right, 72 dpi is hard to use to show the quality of a crop, I'm sure that the prints are great.

Not $8K great, though. LOLOLOLOL.

Hi Mike, I agree 8K is far too much for a camera, no matter how many pixels,

I wouldnt have jumped in reality, 8k just seems a lot! however due to some exceptionally good luck, which is rare for me i must admit, if you accept i paid full price for my 24-70mm, the D3X was only $6500 (the 2 combined with delivery resulted in $8072 being debited from my US account,) and delivery was 74gbp, approx $100?, i work out cost of the 24-70 at approx $1400? Oh an that included an extra 2year warranty (3total) AND worldwide coverage re theft and accidental damage for the 3 years of the warranty. (142.50 gbp).

Luckily I was in UK at the right time when the dollar was strong, pound weak, Nikon hadnt upped their prices to reflect the difference at the time, and as i live outside the UK it was taxfree, (and even more importantly I actually found one available!!) all in all, a bargain...... well nearly

Not that much more than the D3 when it first came out.

for info all of this suddenly dawned on me whilst reading a camera mag around the 26 or 27dec whilst home with my children, and after a few calls found one available, and as santa hadnt brought me anything, i thought why not? ordered thru Mifsuds Uk,only to find i had exceeded my Card allowance over christmas, (kids are expensive!!) however once they made a debit of 2k gbp, they shipped the body and lens on trust for the rest. brilliant service! was delivered to the house on the 30th!

Im a happy camper I must admit!

Mike_E · Jan 26, 2009

LOL Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have one!

I have a hunch that the camera would rival the H3 for most apps. And yes, it sounds as though you found a stellar deal, congrats.

Do keep posting, the scenery there is very interesting to someone half a world away.

thanks

mike

NateS · Jan 26, 2009

wildpix said:
You would expect the same shot from a D3 or D700? how do you work that out?, similiar quality at a much smaller size? if so. agreed? is that what you mean? But if you apply that logic my D2H is pretty good too, f we keep the images at 640x480 i doubt you could tell which was which. But as this crop is 6.9mp or just over 28-29% of the image area of the sensor, the same image with a D3 would be less than 4mp? (3.54mp?) so how you would expect it to be the same Im unsure?. reason I put this up is because some think the D3X is a Landscape or studio camera not for handholding.

Sorry, I thought you said quality not size/resolution. So all you are talking about in here is the size of the image.....okay, but that's no new news. Double the megapixels is clearly going to be a larger, higher resolution image. I don't necessarily consider high resolution and quality to be the same thing....so yes, I would expect similar QUALITY from a D3 or D700. If you are printing billboards, then maybe the D3x is better for you, but of course, everybody already knows that and I don't see how a large web image tells us anything new.

Sorry I misunderstood you....we clearly have different definitions of what quality applies to.

Sw1tchFX · Jan 26, 2009

I think the image describes the quality of the 200mm f/2 more then the D3x.

I think it's a great image nonetheless. 1.3 or so fps though is way too slow for me.

wildpix · Jan 26, 2009

Sw1tchFX said:
I think the image describes the quality of the 200mm f/2 more then the D3x.

I think it's a great image nonetheless. 1.3 or so fps though is way too slow for me.

Hi, sure, 1.3 is sloooow, but thats only in 14bit, as Ive only ever seen much difference in the shadows between 12 and 14, im quite happy to shoot 12 at 5fps.
as for 200mm being brill and the reason for the image, no arguement if we were shooting film, as then in reality it was a lens/film partnership, the body didnt matter too much, but with digital as the camera itself captures the image and is the "film" its probably a more accurate statement to say the combo gave the results? either with a lessor partner would have been inferior?

As for the previous response,NateS, hi, not sure what your point or arguement is, but wanna step outside?

IMHO higher res cameras are a bit like a combination step up in format and film quality, each one allows us to shoot a larger similar quality image than the last. as I said even my original D1 produced a very good 10x8 shot, the D2H was better still, and so on.
If a camera can reproduce a similar quality image to a larger print size, then is it not better qualty? was a 6x6 image better quality than a 35mm image, did the print look finer with more detail?
which was better quality, 110 or 35mm , 35mm or 6x6? 35mm has never been able to compete with medium or large format on a pure quality basis as the larger formats generally used the same film/transparency as the 35mm, just larger bits of it, resolution or lack of it is the digital equivalent of formats, assuming all else stays equal.

So please explain in your mind just what about the image is not 'quality', and what camera under the same conditions would you use to reproduce to the same or even approximate "quality"

at the end of the day, neither of us care, you might choose a D3 over a D3X, or wait for the D8 or whatever, thats your choice, ok, im happy with mine.

NateS · Jan 26, 2009

wildpix said:
Hi, sure, 1.3 is sloooow, but thats only in 14bit, as Ive only ever seen much difference in the shadows between 12 and 14, im quite happy to shoot 12 at 5fps.
as for 200mm being brill and the reason for the image, no arguement if we were shooting film, as then in reality it was a lens/film partnership, the body didnt matter too much, but with digital as the camera itself captures the image and is the "film" its probably a more accurate statement to say the combo gave the results? either with a lessor partner would have been inferior?

As for the previous response,NateS, hi, not sure what your point or arguement is, but wanna step outside?
IMHO higher res cameras are a bit like a combination step up in format and film quality, each one allows us to shoot a larger similar quality image than the last. as I said even my original D1 produced a very good 10x8 shot, the D2H was better still, and so on.
If a camera can reproduce a similar quality image to a larger print size, then is it not better qualty? was a 6x6 image better quality than a 35mm image, did the print look finer with more detail?
which was better quality, 110 or 35mm , 35mm or 6x6? 35mm has never been able to compete with medium or large format on a pure quality basis as the larger formats generally used the same film/transparency as the 35mm, just larger bits of it, resolution or lack of it is the digital equivalent of formats, assuming all else stays equal.

So please explain in your mind just what about the image is not 'quality', and what camera under the same conditions would you use to reproduce to the same or even approximate "quality"

at the end of the day, neither of us care, you might choose a D3 over a D3X, or wait for the D8 or whatever, thats your choice, ok, im happy with mine.

You took my statements wrong (or they didn't come out right on my end). All I'm saying is that your web image makes it hard to see what exactly makes the D3x so incredible. If you had posted that picture, and said nothing about the equipment you shot with, very few if any would be able to say it's a D3x shot and most of those who did get it right would have been a guess.

Regarding the quality statment, at an 8x10 or 11x14 print the resolution of the D3x isn't going to produce a better print than a D3 or D700. Obviously when you get into the bigger prints that extra resolution will make a difference. I wasn't trying to rag on you or your equipment...I was just stating that I didn't see how the shot you posted was specifically representative of a D3x and it's abilities. This could have been due my misunderstanding your information in the first post regarding what about that image you found to be the amazing part of the D3x. I see now you mean quality AND resolution (or one in the same if you look at it that way) and I agree on that aspect.

Oh, and I never said the image wasn't "quality" and I think it definitely is....I just didn't see what set apart from the crowd.

Sw1tchFX · Jan 26, 2009

wildpix said:
Hi, sure, 1.3 is sloooow, but thats only in 14bit, as Ive only ever seen much difference in the shadows between 12 and 14, im quite happy to shoot 12 at 5fps.

Whatever floats your boat. As far as i'm concerned though, I didn't spend 3 grand on my D700 to shoot in 12-bit. Not to mention, when set to 14-bit uncompressed NEF, my camera can still shoot 8fps, not a piddly 1.3. Even if i'm doing portraits, when you get in the zone with your model or client, 1.3 is still slow, especially when shooting with availible light.