would u pay an extra $7,250 for this? d3x vs k20d

ghelary · 12-22-2008, 06:03 AM

The whole idea behind D3x is where very high resolution is needed.
- When shooting fashion or studio
- When shooting lanscapes with very large prints in mind.

First reviews of D3x pointed out that the D3x is not a bad camera, but compared with other FF camera, it is ridiculous price that shocked many especially compared to Sony's Alpha 900.

In many cases, the differences between D3x and even the higher grades APSC, like D300, Pentax K20D, Canon D50 , won't be noticable. Provided we have put good lenses on.

Given the purpose of D3x, a real life comparison, would be to check the difference on a full page of a magazine (or something equivalent) Either for outdoor picture or fashion. And as ever, ask a professional photographer using it what he really think of it (even if we can have here some bias due to brand loyalty)

Regards,
Guillaume

Last edited by ghelary; 12-22-2008 at 09:17 AM.

RiceHigh · 12-22-2008, 06:51 AM

Have you seen this before?

YouTube - Hitler rants about D3x

Funny that Hitler does not like the D3x and I have to agree that why not just a Sony A900 or a Canon 5D MkII? ;-)

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: The Ultimate "Whiner"!

But anyway forget about the K20D in this case, as Alan has pointed out clearly above, comparing a cropped APS-C DSLR with far less resolution against a high resolution FF DSLR is totally pointless and doesn't make any sense at all.

Originally posted by ghelary

The whole idea behind D3x is where very high resolution is needed.
- When shooting fashion or studio
- When shooting lanscapes with very large prints in mind.

First reviews of D3x pointed out that the D3x is not a bad camera, but compared with other FF camera, it is ridiculous especially compared to Sony's Alpha 900.

In many cases, the differences between D3x and even the higher grades APSC, like D300, Pentax K20D, Canon D50 , won't be noticable. Provided we have put good lenses on.

Given the purpose of D3x, a real life comparison, would be to check the difference on a full page of a magazine (or something equivalent) Either for outdoor picture or fashion. And as ever, ask a professional photographer using it what he really think of it (even if we can have here some bias due to brand loyalty)

Regards,
Guillaume

Marcus · 12-22-2008, 07:26 AM

Not today. Not ever.

I think D3X is better suited as a rental. But other FF systems (D700, 5D Mk2, etc) can get you more than adequate performance for a wide range of applications right now, for WAY less. You can put together an entire FF system for the price of the D3X body alone.

Maffer · 12-22-2008, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Sailor

I've never looked at this site before; right now, I rather wish I hadn't. I compared a still life image at ISO 1600 from a K20D (an example of which is wrapped under the tree right now) with the same image from a K200D (which presumably has the same sensor as my K10D). I must say, the K200D image looks cleaner and sharper, particularly when you look at them "full size". Not what I was expecting. I must be missing something - at least, I hope I am.

Jer

K200D ISO1600 is horrible compared to K20D ISO1600. I do not own a K20D but have seen lots of ISO1600 stuff from K20D and compared it to the pictures I've taken @ ISO1600 with K200D. Well you can always turn noise reduction to max with 200D but that just destroys any detail the picture might have.

**Sailor** · 12-22-2008, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Maffer

K200D ISO1600 is horrible compared to K20D ISO1600. I do not own a K20D but have seen lots of ISO1600 stuff from K20D and compared it to the pictures I've taken @ ISO1600 with K200D. Well you can always turn noise reduction to max with 200D but that just destroys any detail the picture might have.

Thanks, Maffer. Your observations are consistent with mine, thus my surprise when I made the comparison last night. This morning, with a head cleared a bit from "holiday cheer", I revisited the web site. Like Peter, I saw no information on how the shots were made - RAW or JPEG? Camera settings? etc. So - again as Peter points out - comparisons from the images can't be interpreted.

Jer

Jasvox · 12-22-2008, 08:27 AM

I don't care which lens is being used, I cant see justifying that kind of money for a camera "system" unless 100% of my livelihood (and a successful one at that) came as a result of my photography. And even then, I would have to do some intensive hands-on with several different systems.

Anyway...

Jason

*isteve · 12-22-2008, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by vitalsax

bigger here : http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/3125987293_9eda758949_o.jpg

Sorry, both shots are 100% crops so both should be equally sharp. The reviewer simply fuc*ed up this review.

Please see below for a valid comparison of an A900 and a K20D resized to match. Better? Yes. But how much will this matter to you?

Sorry - bogus comparison: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

augustmoon · 12-22-2008, 10:46 AM

If I had the extra money, I'd buy one, I'd take it to the zoo and sling it around my neck, and leave it hanging there off my shoulder for show while I continued to shoot with my K20D and the new 60-250. I wouldn't even put a more comfortable cushiony strap on it, I'd be sure to keep the original strap with the big Nikon in gold lettering.

Then I'd make a custom t-shirt that would say something like, screw you Hitler, the new Nikon rocks dude. Or something to that effect...

Everyone would be very impressed that I had one, and even more fascinated that I was shooting with a Pentax instead. (Especially the regulars who are there everyday with their Nikon D80 and D90 who tell me that they are actually pro photogs, who just come to the zoo to keep in practice between safari journeys, and being pros, they would never use Pentax, which is why they ponied the big money for the D90 and the Tamron 70-300)

NO, scratch all that (I'm sorry)... If I had the extra money, I'd wait til everyone else had the new $8000 Nikon, then I'd schlep around with a Leica S2 and its gaggle of lenses. That actually makes better sense.

cwood · 12-22-2008, 11:14 AM

of the D3x:
no other camera in the world can take a 300mm lens and make it a 450mm lens and still produce shots at 10MP. Only the Canon 1D can match the frame rate. Only the Canon 1D plus FF bodies can match the ISO performance.

If these things don't matter to you then its not worth the money. Those things DO matter to me but unfortunately I don't have that kind of dough for a body. So I'm just happy to see the technology progress so that in 4 years I can have a camera just like it for $2000.

nostatic · 12-22-2008, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by augustmoon

NO, scratch all that (I'm sorry)... If I had the extra money, I'd wait til everyone else had the new $8000 Nikon, then I'd schlep around with a Leica S2 and its gaggle of lenses. That actually makes better sense.

umm, you know what an S2 will likely cost?

Buddha Jones · 12-22-2008, 03:34 PM

At first glance I would say no, then after close inspection i can see that the D3x handles the greens, reds, and yellows better than the K20D, but the K20D handles the tans, blues and pinks better than the D3x. So after further review, I would still say no.

dopeytree · 12-22-2008, 03:53 PM

Now redo it on iso 3200 and you'll see why people buy it

Marcus · 12-22-2008, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by kunik

of the D3x:
no other camera in the world can take a 300mm lens and make it a 450mm lens and still produce shots at 10MP. Only the Canon 1D can match the frame rate. Only the Canon 1D plus FF bodies can match the ISO performance.

My question with the D3X is, if you have a 24 megapixel camera, why would there ever be a need to shoot 24 megapixels at anything beyond ISO 800 if you're concerned about quality? ISO 400 at the most really? Or am I totally in the dark?

codiac2600 · 12-22-2008, 04:30 PM

I myself am one who does not follow the pack on why not spend 3000 on an A900 instead of the D3x. They are truly different cameras just like the argument many pros who are mad at Canon on the 5DMKII vs 1DsMKIII debate.

The D3x has these features that are alone worth a hefty price tag vs the A900 and 5DMKII:

Weathering sealing with weather sealed lenses because one the 5DMKII is not weather sealed and the A900 is but Sony won't tell me which lens they have is weather sealed.

An advanced AF system... the clunky 9pt single cross type AF system in the 5DMKII and A900 are blown away by the Nikons 51pt AF which has now been rated as the fastest lowlight AF system and that matters a lot to pro shooting weddings, sports, etc.

Noise... if we look at ISO 400 and above the D3X blows the A900 just completely out of the water. Heavy handed noise reduction and large blotches plague the Sony system since the advent of the A700, while the Canon rides smoothly along with the D3X until we hit above 2000 where the D3x is able to retain much more detail. Canon always uses heavy noise reduction which smudges all useable detail away.

Metering... well I know Sony has decent metering and so does Canon, but Nikon definitely wins in the metering and WB camp with their full frame cameras. Some reason the A900 I have shot with can't hold it's metering, either over or underexposed with no regular pattern. Canon always seems a little hot to me at times with the 5DMKII and the dynamic range is pretty poor with the camera so highlight clipping is just something you'll deal with.

Buffer... so the Canon can do 12 raw photos, Sony does 13 raw files and the D3x doesn't have a firm raw buffer but I'm taking a stab at 18 RAW which at it's file sizes just blows the other two out of the water for pro shooting. The dual CF slots also help a lot and yes I know with Sony I can put a MS pro duo in there, but I don't want two memory card formats to play with.

Live view... I hate the thing myself but Nikon wins in AF speed in live view AF using contrast detect. But the Canon wins cause it takes video??? Not my cup of tea but a def use for certain photographers.

Image potential.. with a 100+MB raw file you can loads of editing to and retain tons of detail while manipulating it. Just that is a big draw that neither of the competition can handle.

If we dig deep the shutter lag and response times are twice as fast in the D3x vs the competition.

Battery performance... the Nikon battery system dwarfs the competition here with it's massive EnEl4a battery. Even with a grip neither Canon nor Sony can take the same number of shots.

Noise... yes again I just have to mention how bad the A900 noise is again because it just stinks!

For the price you get more but that is again for a price. If I had the cash, and I do, I wouldn't buy one cause I can get the same camera in a D700 and get two great f2.8 lenses and a grip with an ENEL4a.

I still think the D3x is worth the bucks, cause if it isn't than the 1DsMKIII isn't worth the buck either. It's not a just the same A900 sensor in a Nikon body, Nikon actually made good use of it.

BTW, Pentax, if you can hear me I'd like a FF 18MP for Christmas

cwood · 12-22-2008, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Marcus

My question with the D3X is, if you have a 24 megapixel camera, why would there ever be a need to shoot 24 megapixels at anything beyond ISO 800 if you're concerned about quality? ISO 400 at the most really? Or am I totally in the dark?

Nobody WANT's to shoot beyond ISO 800 (unless you're going for a grainy look) and it probably wouldn't matter if you had 100MP at that point anyway. The point is that this camera has the best compromise/trade-off of any camera on the market now
1. excellent high ISO capability
2. superb resolution at low ISO

I'm still not sure I understand what you're asking so maybe you are totally in the dark?

12-22-2008, 06:51 AM	#17
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	The Ultimate "Whiner"! (on D3x) Have you seen this before? YouTube - Hitler rants about D3x Funny that Hitler does not like the D3x and I have to agree that why not just a Sony A900 or a Canon 5D MkII? ;-) RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: The Ultimate "Whiner"! But anyway forget about the K20D in this case, as Alan has pointed out clearly above, comparing a cropped APS-C DSLR with far less resolution against a high resolution FF DSLR is totally pointless and doesn't make any sense at all. Originally posted by ghelary The whole idea behind D3x is where very high resolution is needed. - When shooting fashion or studio - When shooting lanscapes with very large prints in mind. First reviews of D3x pointed out that the D3x is not a bad camera, but compared with other FF camera, it is ridiculous especially compared to Sony's Alpha 900. In many cases, the differences between D3x and even the higher grades APSC, like D300, Pentax K20D, Canon D50 , won't be noticable. Provided we have put good lenses on. Given the purpose of D3x, a real life comparison, would be to check the difference on a full page of a magazine (or something equivalent) Either for outdoor picture or fashion. And as ever, ask a professional photographer using it what he really think of it (even if we can have here some bias due to brand loyalty) Regards, Guillaume

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D Body Like New Plus Extra Battery	lawsonstone	Sold Items	10	09-04-2009 10:12 AM
Is It Worth to pay extra $125?	jadem	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	04-10-2009 01:51 AM
extra w/ the k20D	-=JoN=-	Photographic Technique	3	02-28-2008 11:17 AM

12-22-2008, 06:03 AM	#16
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	The whole idea behind D3x is where very high resolution is needed. - When shooting fashion or studio - When shooting lanscapes with very large prints in mind. First reviews of D3x pointed out that the D3x is not a bad camera, but compared with other FF camera, it is ridiculous price that shocked many especially compared to Sony's Alpha 900. In many cases, the differences between D3x and even the higher grades APSC, like D300, Pentax K20D, Canon D50 , won't be noticable. Provided we have put good lenses on. Given the purpose of D3x, a real life comparison, would be to check the difference on a full page of a magazine (or something equivalent) Either for outdoor picture or fashion. And as ever, ask a professional photographer using it what he really think of it (even if we can have here some bias due to brand loyalty) Regards, Guillaume Last edited by ghelary; 12-22-2008 at 09:17 AM.

12-22-2008, 07:26 AM	#18
Marcus Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 187	Not today. Not ever. I think D3X is better suited as a rental. But other FF systems (D700, 5D Mk2, etc) can get you more than adequate performance for a wide range of applications right now, for WAY less. You can put together an entire FF system for the price of the D3X body alone.

12-22-2008, 07:33 AM	#19
Maffer Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 308	Originally posted by Sailor I've never looked at this site before; right now, I rather wish I hadn't. I compared a still life image at ISO 1600 from a K20D (an example of which is wrapped under the tree right now) with the same image from a K200D (which presumably has the same sensor as my K10D). I must say, the K200D image looks cleaner and sharper, particularly when you look at them "full size". Not what I was expecting. I must be missing something - at least, I hope I am. Jer K200D ISO1600 is horrible compared to K20D ISO1600. I do not own a K20D but have seen lots of ISO1600 stuff from K20D and compared it to the pictures I've taken @ ISO1600 with K200D. Well you can always turn noise reduction to max with 200D but that just destroys any detail the picture might have.

12-22-2008, 08:20 AM	#20
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,205	Originally posted by Maffer K200D ISO1600 is horrible compared to K20D ISO1600. I do not own a K20D but have seen lots of ISO1600 stuff from K20D and compared it to the pictures I've taken @ ISO1600 with K200D. Well you can always turn noise reduction to max with 200D but that just destroys any detail the picture might have. Thanks, Maffer. Your observations are consistent with mine, thus my surprise when I made the comparison last night. This morning, with a head cleared a bit from "holiday cheer", I revisited the web site. Like Peter, I saw no information on how the shots were made - RAW or JPEG? Camera settings? etc. So - again as Peter points out - comparisons from the images can't be interpreted. Jer

12-22-2008, 08:27 AM	#21
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	I don't care which lens is being used, I cant see justifying that kind of money for a camera "system" unless 100% of my livelihood (and a successful one at that) came as a result of my photography. And even then, I would have to do some intensive hands-on with several different systems. Anyway... Jason

12-22-2008, 09:06 AM	#22
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by vitalsax bigger here : http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/3125987293_9eda758949_o.jpg Sorry, both shots are 100% crops so both should be equally sharp. The reviewer simply fuc*ed up this review. Please see below for a valid comparison of an A900 and a K20D resized to match. Better? Yes. But how much will this matter to you? Sorry - bogus comparison: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

12-22-2008, 10:46 AM	#23
augustmoon Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Toronto, San Diego, Seattle Posts: 455	If I had the extra money, I'd buy one, I'd take it to the zoo and sling it around my neck, and leave it hanging there off my shoulder for show while I continued to shoot with my K20D and the new 60-250. I wouldn't even put a more comfortable cushiony strap on it, I'd be sure to keep the original strap with the big Nikon in gold lettering. Then I'd make a custom t-shirt that would say something like, screw you Hitler, the new Nikon rocks dude. Or something to that effect... Everyone would be very impressed that I had one, and even more fascinated that I was shooting with a Pentax instead. (Especially the regulars who are there everyday with their Nikon D80 and D90 who tell me that they are actually pro photogs, who just come to the zoo to keep in practice between safari journeys, and being pros, they would never use Pentax, which is why they ponied the big money for the D90 and the Tamron 70-300) NO, scratch all that (I'm sorry)... If I had the extra money, I'd wait til everyone else had the new $8000 Nikon, then I'd schlep around with a Leica S2 and its gaggle of lenses. That actually makes better sense.

12-22-2008, 11:14 AM	#24
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	of the D3x: no other camera in the world can take a 300mm lens and make it a 450mm lens and still produce shots at 10MP. Only the Canon 1D can match the frame rate. Only the Canon 1D plus FF bodies can match the ISO performance. If these things don't matter to you then its not worth the money. Those things DO matter to me but unfortunately I don't have that kind of dough for a body. So I'm just happy to see the technology progress so that in 4 years I can have a camera just like it for $2000.

12-22-2008, 11:30 AM	#25
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by augustmoon NO, scratch all that (I'm sorry)... If I had the extra money, I'd wait til everyone else had the new $8000 Nikon, then I'd schlep around with a Leica S2 and its gaggle of lenses. That actually makes better sense. umm, you know what an S2 will likely cost?

12-22-2008, 03:34 PM	#26
Buddha Jones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,587	At first glance I would say no, then after close inspection i can see that the D3x handles the greens, reds, and yellows better than the K20D, but the K20D handles the tans, blues and pinks better than the D3x. So after further review, I would still say no.

12-22-2008, 03:53 PM	#27
dopeytree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Somerset, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 619	Now redo it on iso 3200 and you'll see why people buy it

12-22-2008, 04:21 PM	#28
Marcus Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 187	Originally posted by kunik of the D3x: no other camera in the world can take a 300mm lens and make it a 450mm lens and still produce shots at 10MP. Only the Canon 1D can match the frame rate. Only the Canon 1D plus FF bodies can match the ISO performance. My question with the D3X is, if you have a 24 megapixel camera, why would there ever be a need to shoot 24 megapixels at anything beyond ISO 800 if you're concerned about quality? ISO 400 at the most really? Or am I totally in the dark?

12-22-2008, 04:30 PM	#29
codiac2600 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Rockford, Illinois Posts: 2,027	I myself am one who does not follow the pack on why not spend 3000 on an A900 instead of the D3x. They are truly different cameras just like the argument many pros who are mad at Canon on the 5DMKII vs 1DsMKIII debate. The D3x has these features that are alone worth a hefty price tag vs the A900 and 5DMKII: Weathering sealing with weather sealed lenses because one the 5DMKII is not weather sealed and the A900 is but Sony won't tell me which lens they have is weather sealed. An advanced AF system... the clunky 9pt single cross type AF system in the 5DMKII and A900 are blown away by the Nikons 51pt AF which has now been rated as the fastest lowlight AF system and that matters a lot to pro shooting weddings, sports, etc. Noise... if we look at ISO 400 and above the D3X blows the A900 just completely out of the water. Heavy handed noise reduction and large blotches plague the Sony system since the advent of the A700, while the Canon rides smoothly along with the D3X until we hit above 2000 where the D3x is able to retain much more detail. Canon always uses heavy noise reduction which smudges all useable detail away. Metering... well I know Sony has decent metering and so does Canon, but Nikon definitely wins in the metering and WB camp with their full frame cameras. Some reason the A900 I have shot with can't hold it's metering, either over or underexposed with no regular pattern. Canon always seems a little hot to me at times with the 5DMKII and the dynamic range is pretty poor with the camera so highlight clipping is just something you'll deal with. Buffer... so the Canon can do 12 raw photos, Sony does 13 raw files and the D3x doesn't have a firm raw buffer but I'm taking a stab at 18 RAW which at it's file sizes just blows the other two out of the water for pro shooting. The dual CF slots also help a lot and yes I know with Sony I can put a MS pro duo in there, but I don't want two memory card formats to play with. Live view... I hate the thing myself but Nikon wins in AF speed in live view AF using contrast detect. But the Canon wins cause it takes video??? Not my cup of tea but a def use for certain photographers. Image potential.. with a 100+MB raw file you can loads of editing to and retain tons of detail while manipulating it. Just that is a big draw that neither of the competition can handle. If we dig deep the shutter lag and response times are twice as fast in the D3x vs the competition. Battery performance... the Nikon battery system dwarfs the competition here with it's massive EnEl4a battery. Even with a grip neither Canon nor Sony can take the same number of shots. Noise... yes again I just have to mention how bad the A900 noise is again because it just stinks! For the price you get more but that is again for a price. If I had the cash, and I do, I wouldn't buy one cause I can get the same camera in a D700 and get two great f2.8 lenses and a grip with an ENEL4a. I still think the D3x is worth the bucks, cause if it isn't than the 1DsMKIII isn't worth the buck either. It's not a just the same A900 sensor in a Nikon body, Nikon actually made good use of it. BTW, Pentax, if you can hear me I'd like a FF 18MP for Christmas

12-22-2008, 04:36 PM	#30
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by Marcus My question with the D3X is, if you have a 24 megapixel camera, why would there ever be a need to shoot 24 megapixels at anything beyond ISO 800 if you're concerned about quality? ISO 400 at the most really? Or am I totally in the dark? Nobody WANT's to shoot beyond ISO 800 (unless you're going for a grainy look) and it probably wouldn't matter if you had 100MP at that point anyway. The point is that this camera has the best compromise/trade-off of any camera on the market now 1. excellent high ISO capability 2. superb resolution at low ISO I'm still not sure I understand what you're asking so maybe you are totally in the dark?