Nikon D3X and Sony Alpha 850

[Roy5051]

May I ask why the Sony 850 was chosen in this battle, when the Sony 900 would seem to be much nearer the D3x in specification, and not that much different in price to the 850?

[Malcolm_Stewart]

My thoughts too - I simply assumed it was no longer a current model?

[Roger_Provins]

I've not seen the report but the only major differences between the a850 and a900 are 3fps and 5fps and the viewfinder is 100% on the a900. The a900 has not been officially retired yet - but who knows with Sony, they don't say when a model is no longer made.

I'd have been interested in the report, I tried yesterday to get a copy of AP but they'd all disappeared locally, so I guess I'll never know AP's conclusions. Not that I'm ever likely to have the money for a Nikon D3X - however good it is.

[daft_biker]

My thoughts too - I simply assumed it was no longer a current model?

I thought it was to compare an expensive camera with a cheap one and show what, if anything, the extra money gets you.

[Roy5051]

Yes, but the 900 specification is very similar to the D3X, but the 850 is a lower spec model, so the battle should have been between models of similar specification. It seems pointless to pick a camera with a lower specification then highlight that lower specification in the text - e.g. 3fps against 5fps, 98% view against 100% view - when, if the comparison had been against the 900, these differences would not have been there, and the comparison would have been fairer.

[LargeFormat]

I'd have been interested in the report

For the things that matter to me, Noise/Resolution and Dynamic Range, they both scored the same. The Nikon scores two more on LCD/Video which is hardly surprising as the Sony doesn't do video or live view and the Nikon gets an extra point on the rest, again hardly surprising particularly on Features.

All in all it gave me a warm feeling as an a900 owner and very glad I hadn't sacrificed good lenses for the Nikon.

[Roger_Provins]

Thanks for the resume.

... The Nikon scores two more on LCD/Video which is hardly surprising as the Sony doesn't do video or live view ...

Didn't the Nikon get scored down for not having image stabilisation - like the Sony?

[mark_jacobs]

Didn't the Nikon get scored down for not having image stabilisation - like the Sony?

The current issue is available until Tuesday, however…

With the Nikon D3X costing £3,100 more than the Sony Alpha 850, you'd think that the D3X would be packed full of features not present in the less expensive camera. However, there is one major feature that the Alpha 850 has that the D3X doesn't, in-camera sensor-shift image stabilisation, or SteadyShot Inside as Sony has branded it. Nikon uses lens-based image stabilisation in its cameras…

[Learning]

Features, especially those invented by software designers, are often only present because they can be cheaply implimented and look good in adverts. Quality often can only be felt in the hand, or becomes apparent when lesser machines fail. Sure the Alpha 850 is great value as is the Nikon 700. But if you are willing to lug around a full frame DSLR wouldn't you want the best? For the best argue as much as you like about Top Nikon or top Canon; Sony is not yet in the running.

[Zou]

Maybe not correct, but I heard that the 850 had a reworked sensor, or at least tweaked to give slightly better results than the 900. As such, surely it is the better of the two to compare with the Nikon?

[Roger_Provins]

Maybe not correct, but I heard that the 850 had a reworked sensor, or at least tweaked to give slightly better results than the 900. As such, surely it is the better of the two to compare with the Nikon?

Where did you "hear" that, can I have a link please?

[GeoffR]

Not that I'm ever likely to have the money for a Nikon D3X - however good it is.

If you look at what has happened to D2X prices over the past couple of years, I reckon that a D3X will be affordable, used, by Joe average within five years.

[Zou]

Maybe not correct, but I heard that the 850 had a reworked sensor, or at least tweaked to give slightly better results than the 900. As such, surely it is the better of the two to compare with the Nikon?

Where did you "hear" that, can I have a link please?

After some digging, it appears to be unproven. I think this was it: posts #93 and #94.

[LargeFormat]

But if you are willing to lug around a full frame DSLR wouldn't you want the best?

The great thing about the Sonys is that they are much easier to lug around than are the Canon 1s and Nikon 3s and if you are a sadist and want more weight you can bolt on the battery holder any build the same muscles as with the Canon/Nikon.

[Benchista]

But if you are willing to lug around a full frame DSLR wouldn't you want the best?

The great thing about the Sonys is that they are much easier to lug around than are the Canon 1s and Nikon 3s and if you are a sadist and want more weight you can bolt on the battery holder any build the same muscles as with the Canon/Nikon.

I'm on my second full frame Canon DSLR, and like it's predecessor, it's pretty much the same size and weight as a smaller-sensored version. No way would I want to lug about one of the big things.

[Barney]

No way would I want to lug about one of the big things.

Wimp!

[Benchista]

No way would I want to lug about one of the big things.

Wimp!

Maybe.

I have used my film EOS 1v with booster, but it's way beyond what I want or need to carry sizewise - the 5D II isn't.

[Barney]

No way would I want to lug about one of the big things.

Wimp!

Maybe.

I have used my film EOS 1v with booster, but it's way beyond what I want or need to carry sizewise - the 5D II isn't.

The D3 is a wonderful camera, but it's a lump. Add a Nikkor f:2.8 zoom and you're talking a serious weight. You have to be out taking serious photographs to warrant carrying it. That's why I got a GF1, for family, for fun and for when discretion is the better part of photography.

[Benchista]

I quite understand - I've always taken that sort of approach with cameras. Just waiting for the GF2...