Jealous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[robdavis305]

Took some pictures with my uncles Nikon D3x and now Im not so happy with my D90.Just curious how many other people have got to use one and how did they like it. Im now ready to upgrade but for 7000.00 for a body only, buy the time I save up for that there will be something better.

 

[Phranquey]

My opinion is buy the best glass you can...it will stay with you for decades. Cameras are now just like computers & automobiles, there will always be the "next best thing" coming out, so I stay a step or two behind to avoid paying the massive depreciation. As the top of the lines come out, people are dumping what they have to move up, and that's when I make my purchases.

 

[Atlas77]

Personally I would not drop that kind of money because "I like it better" Phranquey is right, I stopped being intrested in photography because I had to put it off and when I came back nikon had 2 new bodies out and canon had one. Unless you actually have the money for one I would say stick with the D90 because it is a fine camera. By the time your done saving who knows what nikon will have out.

But heres the real plan, when your uncles sleeping take the D3x.

edit: I remember your thread about your daughter buyng a camera, buy the D3x because you want to give your D90 to your daughter.

Both people win your happy your daughter is happy and your visa is in the minuses.

 

[UUilliam]

Just learn to use yours better, end of the day, they both do the same job (in a single frame)~they both capture light.
one may do it easier than the other, but they both do it.

 

[DScience]

Just learn to use yours better, end of the day, they both do the same job (in a single frame)~they both capture light.
one may do it easier than the other, but they both do it.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. With that argument a P&S should suffice.

Truth is, yes they both capture light, but one does it much better. I have used a D60, now the D90, and I already want to upgrade to a full frame D700.

I would say look into the D700 because it's a great alternative to breaking the bank with the D3's and it's pretty much an AMAZING camera.

 

[Garbz]

And it does. What's the bet the original poster was oohed and aahred by the large megapixel count and looking at his images full screen. If you printed your photo and take it at anything under about ISO800 the photos will look identical. Just like if you throw all other additional features out the window like the fancier AF, the inbuilt AF motor, faster shooting times, and other cool features of the D90, it also takes identical pictures to the D60.

But the majority of the people are just too busy blowing up results to carefully examine their sharpness to look at an actual photo.

 

[Mike_E]

LOL Go, Garbz!!!

:thumbup:

 

[Joves]

Nice way to look at it Garbz and so true. Far too many people are stuck onthe latest and, supposed greatest. To the OP get better glass and, if you havent already maximize what your camera will do first and, when it starts holding you back, get a better one.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

+1 to Garbz.

I have seen a few people here who felt limited by their camera. They get a new one, twice the mp, twice the cost, and still show the same snapshots. What's wrong with that picture?

Not to say that your photos are snapshots, OP, but don't worry so much about the gear.

 

[Dao]

This is what people usually are. Not what they need, but what they want. And it feels good. Like someone driving a Ferrari on highway at 50mph or 80km/h.

 

[Garbz]

hahahah what a positive response. I was in such a crabby mood yesterday I feared coming back into this thread.

But yes I say what I say with spite of watching someone I know upgrade from a D200 to a D300, not because they needed the extra camera body, but "the picture quality is so much better". YUK what a waste of money. I can't even justify the D700 upgrade, I'm about to buy another lens instead.

 

[Derrel]

Well, sorry Garbz, but properly exposed D3x captures look nothing like D90 captures. Why? The sensor in the D3x is 2.5 times larger in area than the D90's APS-C postage stamp sensor. The D3x is a full frame amera, and the depth of field is shallower,and many images done with a D3x will be done on some of Nikon's best-designed lenses used on the sensor size they were designed to be used on. "Actual photos" show the D3x is quite a ways ahead of the D90 in image quality.

I've seen and critically examined a number of D3x portraits shot with studio lighting and quality Nikkor lenses--and when looking at D3x portraits made with good shot discipline, the difference between pictures made with an APS-C Nikon and the D3x level is quite significant, and readily apparent.

On a head and shoulders portrait, D3x images have a look that might be best described as reminiscent of 4x5 transparency; the degree of resolution and acuity the D3x can deliver, plus the widest dynamic range of any d-slr camera, sets the D3x apart from the D90 by quite a margin. Check out the sensor performance at DXO Mark: the D3x is #2, right behind the PhaseOne P65 Plus, while the D90 is ranked 15th overall.Camera rankings

 

[whattokingu]

That is IF you can make full use of it. Sadly, most people cant.

 

[inTempus]

The D3X is a beast, no doubt. I would love to have one, but not at $8k. It's one of those dream bodies. If I could dig up about $35k I would buy two D3X's and the Derrel trifecta lenses and call it a day.

Maybe if I win the lottery.

 

[Mike_E]

You can get a Good Speed Graphic with a couple of lenses, a darkroom, the chemistry and paper and film and go shooting every day for 10 years and never approach the $8K mark.

Your prints will be as good or better than the D3x, have selective focus and be something you can hold in your hands. And with the money you save by not having to buy all of that extra glass/software/computing power, you can build an addition onto your house.

If you need one then by all means get one. Just remember that there is more than one way to scratch a cat.