D3x

jazzflyer

Well ... I have read just about everything I can find. The D3x seems like the only pure photo high-end camera out there. There is various 12MP, and of course nothing that isn't full frame. I only here one real complaint about this camera, the price ... I'm looking to buy seriousilly and maybe the rumered d900x would be better, but i'm not interested in speed or video - just a pure play best photo camera. please help.

sellis

jazzflyer wrote:

Well ... I have read just about everything I can find. The D3x seems like the only pure photo high-end camera out there. There is various 12MP, and of course nothing that isn't full frame. I only here one real complaint about this camera, the price ... I'm looking to buy seriousilly and maybe the rumered d900x would be better, but i'm not interested in speed or video - just a pure play best photo camera. please help.

It all depends on your final use- the D3s has better high iso performance than the D3x. Not that many people truly NEED 24MP. What do you shoot and what's the final product?
If you don't need the video feature, don't use it I didn't buy the D3s for the video, but I've used it on a few occassions for personal stuff. If it didn't have it, I still would have bought it based on the low light performance.

Just my thoughts.
Sam

Qarik

jazzflyer wrote:

Well ... I have read just about everything I can find. The D3x seems like the only pure photo high-end camera out there. There is various 12MP, and of course nothing that isn't full frame. I only here one real complaint about this camera, the price ... I'm looking to buy seriousilly and maybe the rumered d900x would be better, but i'm not interested in speed or video - just a pure play best photo camera. please help.

only if you are a landscape photog imo.

ziggy53

jazzflyer wrote:

Well ... I have read just about everything I can find. The D3x seems like the only pure photo high-end camera out there. There is various 12MP, and of course nothing that isn't full frame. I only here one real complaint about this camera, the price ... I'm looking to buy seriousilly and maybe the rumered d900x would be better, but i'm not interested in speed or video - just a pure play best photo camera. please help.

Jazzflyer, welcome to the Digital Grin.

I moved this to the Camera forum because it sounds like you are interested in opinions about the high-end Nikon cameras.

First, what is your experience with dSLRs?

What is your intended use? (Please be as descriptive as possible.)

What lenses are you considering?

Anything else you would like us to know? (The more you tell us about yourself and your plans the better we can help.)

jazzflyer

sellis wrote:

It all depends on your final use- the D3s has better high iso performance than the D3x. Not that many people truly NEED 24MP. What do you shoot and what's the final product?
If you don't need the video feature, don't use it I didn't buy the D3s for the video, but I've used it on a few occassions for personal stuff. If it didn't have it, I still would have bought it based on the low light performance.

Just my thoughts.
Sam

Thanks - makes sense.

I want high-quality portraits and fashion shots for one - studio with strobes. Don't see a need for high ISO, expecially to maintain quality in images. And I want to do art landscape stuff as well. The problem with D3s is that it is already 5k ... still for only 12MP. Though that is very high, then why not do the D900 under that rational -

jazzflyer

ziggy53 wrote:

Jazzflyer, welcome to the Digital Grin.

I moved this to the Camera forum because it sounds like you are interested in opinions about the high-end Nikon cameras.

First, what is your experience with dSLRs?

What is your intended use? (Please be as descriptive as possible.)

What lenses are you considering?

Anything else you would like us to know? (The more you tell us about yourself and your plans the better we can help.)

Just saw this -

very experienced - D20, 1ds Mark III
I want to do high-end portraiture and fasion.
Considering big-print art landscape photography too.
Looking at 24-85mm 1.2 and 70-200mm 1.2

thx,

Qarik

jazzflyer wrote:

Thanks - makes sense.

I want high-quality portraits and fashion shots for one - studio with strobes. Don't see a need for high ISO, expecially to maintain quality in images. And I want to do art landscape stuff as well. The problem with D3s is that it is already 5k ... still for only 12MP. Though that is very high, then why not do the D900 under that rational -

It appears that you are equating pixel count with quality which I would advise against in general. The D3 will indeed give you very high quailtiy potrait and studio work and I don't expect you could tell the difference in image quality short of poster size prints. I only see the D3x beating the D3 in serious landscape work imo.

jazzflyer

Qarik wrote:

It appears that you are equating pixel count with quality which I would advise against in general. The D3 will indeed give you very high quailtiy potrait and studio work and I don't expect you could tell the difference in image quality short of poster size prints. I only see the D3x beating the D3 in serious landscape work imo.

Well - I'm looking a full frame ... a must
Always shoot low ISO -
Lens quality of course
and more MP is better ... but not necessary I know.
It comes down to spending money - $5k for a camera at 12 MP and knowing that in 12 - 18 months everything will be 16 - 24 and I would rather not purchase again.

The D3 is the current pro photo camera, but why spend $5k on a 3 year old camera, though the D3x is only 1 year newer.

thoth

jazzflyer wrote:

It comes down to spending money - $5k for a camera at 12 MP and knowing that in 12 - 18 months everything will be 16 - 24 and I would rather not purchase again.

I really don't think this should be a deciding point for you unless, as has been mentioned before, you specifically need 24mp for your work. Camera manufacturers are scaling back pixel count, these days, in favor of IQ so you won't need to worry about 16-24mp becoming a standard. That said, if you want 24mp for large-print landscape work, go for it.

jazzflyer

thoth wrote:

I really don't think this should be a deciding point for you unless, as has been mentioned before, you specifically need 24mp for your work. Camera manufacturers are scaling back pixel count, these days, in favor of IQ so you won't need to worry about 16-24mp becoming a standard. That said, if you want 24mp for large-print landscape work, go for it.

Great points -

So if I don't need 24 - what should I buy?

The new D3s?

jazzflyer

thoth wrote:

I really don't think this should be a deciding point for you unless, as has been mentioned before, you specifically need 24mp for your work. Camera manufacturers are scaling back pixel count, these days, in favor of IQ so you won't need to worry about 16-24mp becoming a standard. That said, if you want 24mp for large-print landscape work, go for it.

Another comments -

So If I need the 24, i guess it's easy - it's the d3x ... just have to stomach the price.

If I don't then what is it -

D3s at $5k
But why not buy the D700 for $2.5 and save money ...
or buy the real photo D3 for 2.5 -

But the D3 is 3 years old and the D700 will be phased out shortly -

what was the question?

borrowlenses.com

The D3s is better than the D3 due to the following:

1. Higher ISO
2. Bigger buffer
3. Does video
4. Integrated sensor cleaner

But if those things are not important, get the D3 or D700 by all means. Both are excellent cameras.

ziggy53

If you're not currently committed to a brand, the Canon 5D MKII and Sony a900 or a850 models have excellent dynamic range and resolution at base ISO.

Since you have some experience with a Canon 1Ds MKIII, the tonality of the 5D MKII is awfully similar, not to mention taking the same lenses. In a studio environment the 5D MKII can hold its own to just about anything, and the lens selection is arguably broad.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Looking at 24-85mm 1.2 and 70-200mm 1.2".

bloomphotog

A D3 offer basically no advantages over a D700 in a studio environment. After all, they share the same sensor and AF system.

At low ISO's, the new D3s may offer a slightly higher dynamic range than the D700/D3. However, the minor improvement would probably not justify the extra costs. The D3s is a sports and photojournalism camera, and for those uses the premium is justified.

The D3x is a fantastic studio camera. But truth be told, 24 mega pixels is nothing spectacular for commercial/advertising shoots. Most pros who make a living off those type of shoots use Hasselblad systems($20-50k) with 30-50 megapixels.

My suggestion: The D3x sounds like a great fit, if you can afford the $$$. Otherwise, a D700 will give you about 70% of the performance for less than 1/3 of the cost.

EDIT: I agree with ziggy - the Canon 5DMK2 would also be my pick for dedicated studio work. Incredible dynamic range, and beautiful tonal quality, and it's VERY affordable. IMO, the D3x offers little more than a 5DMK2 in a sports/photojournalism body(a beautiful blend, I must say).

thoth

jazzflyer wrote:

Great points -

So if I don't need 24 - what should I buy?

The new D3s?

If you want the best of the best in Nikon's lineup then the D3s is where you want to be. As other's have mentioned, though, it may be overkill for a studio environment.

jazzflyer

ziggy53 wrote:

If you're not currently committed to a brand, the Canon 5D MKII and Sony a900 or a850 models have excellent dynamic range and resolution at base ISO.

Since you have some experience with a Canon 1Ds MKIII, the tonality of the 5D MKII is awfully similar, not to mention taking the same lenses. In a studio environment the 5D MKII can hold its own to just about anything, and the lens selection is arguably broad.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Looking at 24-85mm 1.2 and 70-200mm 1.2".

I was looking at the 5D M2 - heard it's still having the nightmare Canon focusing issues ... it's a good camera. I would have gone for the 1ds M4 - can't believe they made it partial sensor.

The camera world is going consumer - to make money. Real photographers don't need 200,000 ISO and video ... anyway.

I was commenting on my lens choices -
24-85 zoone 2.8

sorry - got the F wrong.
70-200 2.8

jazzflyer

bloomphotog wrote:

A D3 offer basically no advantages over a D700 in a studio environment. After all, they share the same sensor and AF system.

At low ISO's, the new D3s may offer a slightly higher dynamic range than the D700/D3. However, the minor improvement would probably not justify the extra costs. The D3s is a sports and photojournalism camera, and for those uses the premium is justified.

The D3x is a fantastic studio camera. But truth be told, 24 mega pixels is nothing spectacular for commercial/advertising shoots. Most pros who make a living off those type of shoots use Hasselblad systems($20-50k) with 30-50 megapixels.

My suggestion: The D3x sounds like a great fit, if you can afford the $$$. Otherwise, a D700 will give you about 70% of the performance for less than 1/3 of the cost.

EDIT: I agree with ziggy - the Canon 5DMK2 would also be my pick for dedicated studio work. Incredible dynamic range, and beautiful tonal quality, and it's VERY affordable. IMO, the D3x offers little more than a 5DMK2 in a sports/photojournalism body(a beautiful blend, I must say).

Really good comments - was going to buy the D700 as a starting point, put the money into all my lenes. Then I heard the D700x is just around the corner. Also, I looked at the dpreview images against the 700 and D3x, and the later look fantastic. So I'm like the D3x is it ... stuck on the $8k I guess.

But you're also right, if i get serious in the studio, could easily go to the medium format ... I still have my M645 pro (film). So I shouldn't worry about it.

I guess the issue for me is the better pure photo camera's are at least a year old and I wonder if they are going to release anything new, or if it will al be geared to the sports, speed, video side.

The Canon 1ds M4 would have been my choice if it was full frame, they gave up the quality for speed and video ... just my point.

ziggy53

jazzflyer wrote:

I was looking at the 5D M2 - heard it's still having the nightmare Canon focusing issues ... it's a good camera. I would have gone for the 1ds M4 - can't believe they made it partial sensor.

The camera world is going consumer - to make money. Real photographers don't need 200,000 ISO and video ... anyway.

I was commenting on my lens choices -
24-85 zoone 2.8

sorry - got the F wrong.
70-200 2.8

It was the Canon 1D MKIV that was introduced, the 1Ds MKIV is expected sometime, maybe this year. Specs are unknown. The 1D series cameras are crop 1.3x, but if you want FF then you want a 1Ds or 5D model.

The Canon 5D MKII has an OK autofocus that would be fine for studio work. I use one for events and I get very good focus accuracy in less than studio lighting. It's only "very" low lighting where the AF struggles, and then you can add focus assist to help compensate.

The Nikkor 24-85mm, either version, is an OK lens, but not really what I would recommend for what you want to accomplish. If you want a high-end studio zoom for a FF body I would suggest the Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED. Coupled with the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm, f/2.8G ED VR II, and maybe a couple of prime lenses, you would have a good start on a studio lens kit.

jazzflyer

ziggy53 wrote:

It was the Canon 1D MKIV that was introduced, the 1Ds MKIV is expected sometime, maybe this year. Specs are unknown. The 1D series cameras are crop 1.3x, but if you want FF then you want a 1Ds or 5D model.

The Canon 5D MKII has an OK autofocus that would be fine for studio work. I use one for events and I get very good focus accuracy in less than studio lighting. It's only "very" low lighting where the AF struggles, and then you can add focus assist to help compensate.

The Nikkor 24-85mm, either version, is an OK lens, but not really what I would recommend for what you want to accomplish. If you want a high-end studio zoom for a FF body I would suggest the Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED. Coupled with the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm, f/2.8G ED VR II, and maybe a couple of prime lenses, you would have a good start on a studio lens kit.

Ok - thanks for the tips ... low light not my primary consideration.
My friend has the 1ds M2 and it drives him crazy, in and out with the focus consistency. I'm reading reviews of folks already complaining of the same with the 5d M2.

I see the lens, know the ED is the best ... so the 24-70 over the 24 to 85 since it is not ED. 70-200 VR 2 pricey for the stablization. I love to have an 85 1.4 in my bag as well. I have one on my fm2 - sure you know what that is. lol.

Can't say I still know what to do - it's just easy to spend the money ... but hard.

Thanks for all the feedback, ideas ...

The 24mp would be great for landscape and such - not my primary concern, so basic studio leaves me back to the 5d i guess ... and hope focus is not an issue for me.

though I love Nikon --

so 5D M2 for or D700 for $2.7k
an old D3 for $4.3k
spring for the D3x - $7.4k

or wait for D700x, 1ds M4 or yet something else.

the 1ds M4 is likely to be at least $7k the same for the D3x ...

It seems like the 5d M2 is the right choice for $2700 - checking out the images on dpreview ... looks great.

bloomphotog

The Canon 5DMK2 AF system will be WAY more than sufficient for studio use. Heck...the $30,000 Hasselblad's have a even simpler AF system and they are the industry standard for commercial studio work.

I think the 5DMK2 is a killer camera, it just isn't the best fit for me. I need the high-ISO, weather sealing, and faster handling of the D700.

For your purposes, the 5DMK2 presents a fantastic value. I would take the jump and see if you like it. The resale will probably be a lot better on the 5DMK2 opposed to a D3x as well.

For dedicated studio lenses, I would stay away from the zooms if possible.

Here's my Canon studio lens dream team:

-Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
-Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
-Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
-Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

And of course, make sure you have some nice strobe lighting with very short flash durations - this will be the foremost issue for image sharpness.

Enitsugua

jazzflyer wrote:

Great points -

So if I don't need 24 - what should I buy?

The new D3s?

Probably. Or this http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092301_leica_s2.asp if you don't need 24 but need even more.

jdorseydesign

jazzflyer wrote:

I was looking at the 5D M2 - heard it's still having the nightmare Canon focusing issues ... it's a good camera. I would have gone for the 1ds M4 - can't believe they made it partial sensor.

The camera world is going consumer - to make money. Real photographers don't need 200,000 ISO and video ... anyway.

I was commenting on my lens choices -
24-85 zoone 2.8

sorry - got the F wrong.
70-200 2.8

I bet there's a lot of folks here who consider themselves "real photographers" that are just fine with what you are calling "consumer" cameras.

Enitsugua

jazzflyer wrote:

Ok - thanks for the tips ... low light not my primary consideration.
My friend has the 1ds M2 and it drives him crazy, in and out with the focus consistency. I'm reading reviews of folks already complaining of the same with the 5d M2.

I see the lens, know the ED is the best ... so the 24-70 over the 24 to 85 since it is not ED. 70-200 VR 2 pricey for the stablization. I love to have an 85 1.4 in my bag as well. I have one on my fm2 - sure you know what that is. lol.

Can't say I still know what to do - it's just easy to spend the money ... but hard.

Thanks for all the feedback, ideas ...

The 24mp would be great for landscape and such - not my primary concern, so basic studio leaves me back to the 5d i guess ... and hope focus is not an issue for me.

though I love Nikon --

so 5D M2 for or D700 for $2.7k
an old D3 for $4.3k
spring for the D3x - $7.4k

or wait for D700x, 1ds M4 or yet something else.

the 1ds M4 is likely to be at least $7k the same for the D3x ...

It seems like the 5d M2 is the right choice for $2700 - checking out the images on dpreview ... looks great.

You can get a good used D3 for $3K

jazzflyer

bloomphotog wrote:

The Canon 5DMK2 AF system will be WAY more than sufficient for studio use. Heck...the $30,000 Hasselblad's have a even simpler AF system and they are the industry standard for commercial studio work.

I think the 5DMK2 is a killer camera, it just isn't the best fit for me. I need the high-ISO, weather sealing, and faster handling of the D700.

For your purposes, the 5DMK2 presents a fantastic value. I would take the jump and see if you like it. The resale will probably be a lot better on the 5DMK2 opposed to a D3x as well.

For dedicated studio lenses, I would stay away from the zooms if possible.

Here's my Canon studio lens dream team:

-Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
-Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
-Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
-Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

And of course, make sure you have some nice strobe lighting with very short flash durations - this will be the foremost issue for image sharpness.

I think I'm sold - the 5d Mark II ... now onto the lens -

I have a Nikor 85mm 1.4 - love it.
So the Canon 85 1.2 is great.
I see the 200 on their site, but not a 100 ...
and no 35 either -

is it just me - did they change their lens line-up?

their zooms are almost all so slow - 3.5 +

bloomphotog

jazzflyer wrote:

I think I'm sold - the 5d Mark II ... now onto the lens - .....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/wl/2EDBDD628C

Here you go, I made this wish list awhile back when considering a Canon setup. Check it out, it has everything I mentioned, and the total is less than the cost of a single D3x body.

LKN Dave

jazzflyer wrote:

I think I'm sold - the 5d Mark II ... now onto the lens -

I have a Nikor 85mm 1.4 - love it.
So the Canon 85 1.2 is great.
I see the 200 on their site, but not a 100 ...
and no 35 either -

is it just me - did they change their lens line-up?

their zooms are almost all so slow - 3.5 +

They have made some changes to their US site and removed most of the lenses in their line up. I believe the UK and Japan sites still have the full line up.

5d is a great camera too.

Brett1000

jdorseydesign wrote:

I bet there's a lot of folks here who consider themselves "real photographers" that are just fine with what you are calling "consumer" cameras.

isn't that the truth !

jazzflyer

bloomphotog wrote:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/wl/2EDBDD628C

Here you go, I made this wish list awhile back when considering a Canon setup. Check it out, it has everything I mentioned, and the total is less than the cost of a single D3x body.

Thanks - all I have to do is click the button!

Prime lenes are great, always cleaner then zooms...

Nice site btw - very cool photos, especially for your wedding stuff.

thx for all your help!

DsrtVW

Looks like renting would be a good way to try out all options before settling and cash outlay