D3x versus D300 high ISO

So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times
better pictures, right? Wrong!
Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest
possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer.

It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference
is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x.
I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on
her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a
little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who
really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and
heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop
format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price
I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-)


--
Focus

Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times
better pictures, right? Wrong!

No,I didn't think that.
Dave Cohen

Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest
possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer.

It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference
is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x.
I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on
her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a
little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who
really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and
heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop
format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price
I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-)

Dave Cohen wrote:
Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3
times better pictures, right? Wrong!

No,I didn't think that.

Neither did I, but I did think "trim reply" and "set f-u" so as to not
bother our bretheren in aus. photo.

Try to be considerate, "Focus".

--
lsmft

Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times
better pictures, right? Wrong!
Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest
possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer.

It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the difference
is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for the D3x.
I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put on
her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it was a
little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who
really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger and
heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in crop
format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in price
I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before ;-)


Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and
report back.

Very good point Dave.

The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to
perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the
D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200).

But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps
0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20.

John





"Dave" wrote in message
...
Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times
better pictures, right? Wrong!
Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in
highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer.

It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the
difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money for
the D3x.
I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She put
on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print, because it
was a little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but who
really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger
and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses in
crop format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in
price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone before
;-)


Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and
report back.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:32:59 +0000, Focus wrote:

So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3 times
better pictures, right? Wrong!
Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in highest
possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson printer.



But how would you compare several D300 landscape and portrait shots
against the D3X after you crop each about 25% and then print them at
16x25? On the D3X you are working with double the pixels and double the
sensor. You should see a major difference.


It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the
difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money
for the D3x. I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive
one. She put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print,
because it was a little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but
who really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much bigger
and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX lenses
in crop format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in
price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone
before ;-)

The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or
landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other
camera in this format is exceptional. Every other comparison is just
nonsence.
--
Dimitris M
áöáéñÝóôå ôá äýï ôáö ðñéí ôï ðáðÜêé áðï ôçí äéåýèõíóç


Very good point Dave.

The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get
to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine
the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200).

But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps
0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20.

Exactly!



"Dimitris M" wrote in message
news:1232655289.209591@athprx04...
The real potential of D3x is not in 1600 ISO, but in 100 ISO, in studio or
landscape, where the quality and dynamic range difference from any other
camera in this format is exceptional. Every other comparison is just
nonsence.
--
Dimitris M
áöáéñÝóôå ôá äýï ôáö ðñéí ôï ðáðÜêé áðï ôçí äéåýèõíóç


Very good point Dave.

The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get
to perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I
imagine the D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200).

But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps
0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:27:57 -0800, John Smith wrote:

Very good point Dave.

The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get to
perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine the
D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200).

But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps
0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20.



20x30 may be rare but a cropped (25%) 16x20 is a good size if you want to
matte, frame, and hang and I think you would see a big advantage. I
would say the same goes for the Canon 5DII and the 50D.


John





"Dave" wrote in message
...
Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3
times better pictures, right? Wrong!
Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in
highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson
printer.

It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the
difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money
for the D3x.
I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She
put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print,
because it was a little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but
who really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much
bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX
lenses in crop format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in
price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone
before ;-)


Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and
report back.

What does "cropped (25%) 16x20" mean? How does 25% play into your
statement?





"measekite" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:27:57 -0800, John Smith wrote:

Very good point Dave.

The D3x will show ZERO advantage over a D3, D300, and D700 until you get
to
perhaps 16x20 prints, or probably 20x30 and above. And there, I imagine
the
D3x will be superior (at least at ISO 200).

But then, how many of us really EVER print at 20x30 and above? Perhaps
0.0001% of the prints produced in the world are over 16x20.



20x30 may be rare but a cropped (25%) 16x20 is a good size if you want to
matte, frame, and hang and I think you would see a big advantage. I
would say the same goes for the Canon 5DII and the 50D.


John





"Dave" wrote in message
...
Focus wrote:
So you think a camera *5.5 x the price* would give you at least 3
times better pictures, right? Wrong!
Selecting both still life pictures from imaging-resource.com in the
comparometer, I took both in 1600 ISO and printed them on an A4 in
highest possible resolution with ultra gloss paper on an Epson
printer.

It's not possible to show it on a site, but I can tell you, the
difference is so small, I would be crying if I had paid so much money
for the D3x.
I showed both to my wife to tell me which was the expensive one. She
put on her glasses and after a while she choose the D300 print,
because it was a little brighter...

Of course at some point the D3x will beat the D300 in resolution, but
who really needs that?
Other thoughts:
no build-in flash (even if it was only to work as a master), much
bigger and heavier, slower and less lenses that fit, unless you use DX
lenses in crop format...

I made up my mind and will stick with the D300. For the difference in
price I can buy a used 4x4 and shoot picture where no man has gone
before ;-)


Yeah sure. A4 is a real test of those two! Try a 20x30 inch print and
report back.