Nikon D3X - Sony Alpha 900 - Canon 5DMkII Photo Gallery by David Kilpatrick at pbase.com

Nikon D3X - Sony Alpha 900 - Canon 5DMkII

Some comparison images between the two cameras with 24 megapixel sensors, plus some Canon material from the 5D MkII as found appropriate. The Jellybean ISO tests are all identically exposed on the A900 and D3X, and processed using the same raw developer from uncompressed raw files. Iridient's RAW Developer was used on the Mac with sharpening and NR both turned off; this wonderful processor allowed a constant crop to be saved, along with other adjustments, and applied rapidly to each file.

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALL

D3X-45mmTSNikkor-f8.jpg	DX3-TSNikkor45mmstraight-f11.jpg	santas24-120VR-f56-120-800.jpg	D3-enlarged3200-50mmf4p5.jpg
D3X-800iso-24mm.jpg	d3x-6400-RawDeveloper.jpg	A900_100.jpg	A900_200.jpg
A900_400.jpg	A900_800.jpg	A900_1600.jpg	A900_3200.jpg

pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALL

comment |

Lou Giroud		17-Feb-2009 13:35
Thanks for info, David, I will give raw developer a try. I do personally not too much value curbs and histograms first but most look at them once a shot looks the way I like it or to find the complex things on difficult or miss-exposed shots. The colors are a question of taste anyway and the violin shots look for me more natural with the A900 then the D3X. I do not doubt that without some d-lighting the D3X able to do the same. I like D-Lighting for certain things but not for all and shooting with dynamic range enhancement does not always a good job. One doesn't needs to forget that often reality gets falsified and many shots just look non natural with it. But all in all, if one sticks within the 600 ISO limits all those cameras do excellent job. I don't need speed and high iso ranges so I do not value those things since I never use noise flattening and stay within what the capture device is able to do. My S5 does 1250 clean and I use it once I need some more sensitivity. I wait for my A900, she's back-ordered but think mid march she'll be here.

David Kilpatrick		09-Feb-2009 23:29
I do have the latest version of C1 Pro (and also a range of processors) but I find that the differences they apply to cameras by default make it hard to compare them. C1 Pro, like DxO Optics Pro, applies a colour profile - when using ACR, I stick to the generic profiles rather than use the ICC range (where available). It's nearly always possible to beat one converter with another. The viola shots used either in-camera JPEGs or Iridient Raw Developer, the only option at the time which processed all three camera types. I actually find Raw Developer to be better, technically, than C1 Pro especially for minimising high ISO noise and keeping a tight grain structure.

Lou Giroud		09-Feb-2009 15:26
Thanks for sharing this and especially in full size. I am just calculating how much of good Minolta Glass one can buy for 5000$. Note that the 28105 pictures of the violin give a fair advantage to the Sony. but, this can be a lens issue as well. Some lenses on the D3X draw colder but that can be redressed by balancing the WB in the raw soft. You should try to process Sony Raw files with Capture One Pro, you will jump a few steps higher when you see the difference. Yes, the curb and the historgramm give a better dynamic to the D3X, Nikon managing of the sensor and the inner soft do well, but on the end, if you process well, does the common mortal sees that and is it worth that 5 Grant you pay more. I do not start the discussion here again, I let those decide who are facing the choice.

Saso Stavrev		16-Dec-2008 01:33
very useful and informative gallery

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment