X-Pro 1 vs Nikon D3 ?

dcsang

dcsang

Canadian & Not A Dentist
Local time
11:16 PM
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,547
Location
Toronto Canada
View My Gallery
Don't know if this has been posted yet - the "Leaked" thread is well into it's umpteenth page so if I didn't spot it in that thread (which I didn't) but it was posted, please, Mods, feel free to delete this post.

This is from a Romanian blog/magazine (by the looks of things) named "F64" - it looks pretty legit but don't quote me on it - it's been put through Google Translate for English folks.

If this guy has a production or even a pre-production test model then the high ISO (6400) looks pretty good compared to the Nikon D3.

There's a lot more in here but just have a read:
http://translate.google.ro/translat.../www.f64.ro/blog/2012/01/20/test-fuji-x-pro1/

Cheers,
Dave
 
Thanks! I've used the D3 in the past to shoot a wedding here and there (strictly on a rental basis) but I was impressed by the higher ISO performance. Looks like the Fuji is doing well against the D3, but to be fair the sensor is a few years old now.... 2007? 2008? That's 4 or 5 years for Nikon to step up their game. I'd love to see a side-by-side with the D4.
 
"AF is slightly improved than on the X100" - Come on, the one on X100 needs more than "slight" improvement.

Hope they get it right in the final product.
 
It's amazing that suddenly if a camera doesn't perform at 6400 it's not really in the race. This has happened very quickly IMO and suddenly my D700's files at 6400 are really nothing to marvel at any more!

From what I can see the X-Pro at 6400 is superior to the D700 ... we always supected it was going to be good based on what the little X100 is capable of. Sensor technology has gone ahead in leaps and bounds of late!

I wonder what the boys and girls in Solms have in store for us?
 
It looks excellent. But, the D3 appears to be resolving more detail at th ehigh iso's (look at the fruit pictures on the bowl) with more apparent noise - perhaps the noise reduction algorithms are diferent and the Fuji's a bit more invasive?
 
f6andBthere said:
I wonder what the boys and girls in Solms have in store for us?
Click to expand...


Depends who they are planning on partnering with for the next sensor I suspect. CMOS architecture clearly has an advantage in low noise at high iso, so perhaps that will be the next step, but who with?

I had a conversation with the Zeiss factory and they said that one of the reasons there isn't a digital ZI is that finding the right sensor partner is very difficult - the customer requires very high quality and the sensor design (i.e. micro lenses etc) is specialist and partnering is not easy.
 
sojournerphoto said:
It looks excellent. But, the D3 appears to be resolving more detail at th ehigh iso's (look at the fruit pictures on the bowl) with more apparent noise - perhaps the noise reduction algorithms are diferent and the Fuji's a bit more invasive?
Click to expand...

This is what I've wondered. I'd rather have noise and detail (or apparent sharpness) than noise-smearing even in RAW that loses detail. (Nikon appears to do that as well, but they lose very little detail.)
 
celluloidprop said:
This is what I've wondered. I'd rather have noise and detail (or apparent sharpness) than noise-smearing even in RAW that loses detail. (Nikon appears to do that as well, but they lose very little detail.)
Click to expand...

My view as well.

The reason that Canon are kings of the astrophotography world (ignoring specialist sensors and webcams) is that they don't muck with the raw files like Nikon and others. If someone is stacking a thousand shots to manage noise, then any NR beforehand just hides the data. (an aside, but I like to hang a camera of my scope occasionally, at a much simpler level I should add)
 
High ISO, the be-all-end-all of photography! 😉

Based on the X100, the X-Pro1 will have very good resolving power without appearing muddy or smudged. I think it would be more appropriate to judge the X-Pro1 for resolving power vs. an APS-C DSLR (despite Fuji's sensor claims).
 
I think that for the last few years the high iso capability has been just fine for most photographers. Improvements are always welcome but are they necessary in most cases. I think it is pretty good if the X-Pro 1 can come close to matching a D3 at high iso considering it is using a smaller sensor. Fuji deserves some credit for this if it turns out to be true.

Bob
 
I look at my D700's files at 6400 occasionally and wish they were better ... not often but now and then I do actually yearn for one more stop! 😀
 
The point in comparing is that the D3 was revolutionary not so long ago.

I want a camera that will make nice images in the lighting we like for social interaction. Ultimately, I would like a camera that will take pictures anywhere the eye can see. My D300 was a significant step forward; it lets me make images I couldn't have made before (e.g. in mood lighting at a dinner table). D7000 is even better. Now this from Fuji looks like a further significant step. Yes, I think clean ISO 6400 will be "table stakes" very soon for all manufacturers introducing new camera models.

I like this progress.

I did notice the comment about turning off NR in the D3. Still, the Fuji images look great.
 
It is rather interesting isn't it? You're most welcome 🙂

The "high ISO" race (or so it seems) may be the last bastion to be conquered; that is, until another one comes along, for digital cameras. They've gone through the megapixel race already. It seems the pocketable camera race was done a long time ago and the fast fixed lens race may be complete with f2 or f1.9 being about as fast as you can get on some of the smaller "advanced" cameras. So, high ISO it is I would assume.

I would concur that I too would like nice images at ISO 6400 - I don't know if it's necessary to go any "higher" per se.

What has often frustrated me about digital capture is the "muddiness" that used to (and in some cases still does) occur at the higher ISO's AND the fact that "subtlety" is lost at those ISOs as well. What I mean by this is; the impression I have always had about high ISO capture is that digital wants to get AS MUCH INFORMATION on the sensor as possible - it's the nature of the beast - while film tends to be subtle in it's movement from light to dark. When it's dark.. its dark.. it's black or really really really really dark grey 😀 (in B&W photography). In digital capture it seems like when the light fall off occurs, it's bright and then suddenly black. I don't want to have all that information - I prefer subtlety.

I guess the best way I can describe it is using somewhat of a colloquialism: Digital capture "makes love" like someone in their early 20's while film "makes love" like someone in their 40's or 50's... 😀

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I guess the best way I can describe it is using somewhat of a colloquialism: Digital capture "makes love" like someone in their early 20's while film "makes love" like someone in their 40's or 50's... 😀
Click to expand...

Wow, that can be taken in so many different ways that I don't want to begin to decipher that...
 
About ISO performance and Information

About ISO performance and Information

The added-value aspect of high ISO performance, or high signal-to-noise ratio cameras used to be flexibility and freedom. These factors are important for action photography and photography with at low EV values (say 4 - 6). Right now we enjoy a variety of cameras that meet the SNR needs of 99% of the photographer community.

What I didn't realize until recently is: high SNR also provides increased dynamic range. For many photographers one or more stops of dynamic range is more valuable than low-noise shadow areas at ISO 1600. Anyone who wishes their digital camera had more dynamic range is really waiting for a camera with a higher SNR which is commonly described as improved high ISO performance. You can never have too much SNR. Nothing beats data (of any kind) with a high information content.

With regard to information content. It is possible to intentionally reduce information content after the data is recorded, but you can not add information content afterwards. If discarding information (data) produces an increase in aesthetic, then digital recording and analog recording should ultimately be equivalent.

I think the loss of subtleness might have to do with the inherent errors caused by converting analog information (photon density and frequency) into digital information. This process is inherently flawed and while digitial imaging (and audio recording) is superior in many ways, it is not possible to perfectly (literally perfect) model analog phenomenon in a digital format. The errors between the digital model and the real, but unknown, values (photon densities and energies) can never be zero.
 
dcsang said:
I guess the best way I can describe it is using somewhat of a colloquialism: Digital capture "makes love" like someone in their early 20's while film "makes love" like someone in their 40's or 50's... 😀

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...
film is slower, used less often and sometimes doesn't work?

but when it's good...
 
I think people are missing the fact that this camera is a third the size and weight, and a third the price (with lenses) of a D3 for more resolution and possibly similar, if not better, low-light capability.

If you need a dSLR, then use a dSLR. The piece de resistance here is an M9-sized package.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
New Voigtlander Nikon/Contax Adapter ..
Replies
0
Views
993
bwcolor
B
GaryLH
FYI - Nice review of xe1 and 18-55 zoom
Replies
4
Views
4K
GaryLH
GaryLH
gavinlg
x-pro1 Japanese samples
Replies
6
Views
3K
gavinlg
gavinlg
GaryLH
Review of the new Zeiss x mount lenses from dslr magazine
Replies
1
Views
986
GaryLH
GaryLH
GaryLH
Fuji 14f2.8 postponed until January 2013
Replies
3
Views
1K
markrich
markrich
Back
Top Bottom