Nikon D3X

[schumionbike]

Anyone have one or know someone that have one? What's the opinion on the overall performance of that camera? I hear a lot of reviews from labs and stuff but never from an actual owner. The labs and magazine seem pretty please with the camera but I it would nice to see from other perspective.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've used one before briefly, and i've used a D3 a few times. The files are amazing at ISO 50 or 100, but I know if I had a D3x, it would drive me nuts.

Simply put, I would never use it.


1.2 (i think it might be 1.5..it's 1.something though) fps in 14bit RAW is way too slow for me. I'm spoiled by the 8fps of my D700. Not to mention, the body is huge. It's an event all in itself. And at $8000 is not that great of a value either.

I'd much rather shoot on a D700 with some of the best Nikkors then own a D3x if i was to spend over 10k on SLR equipment.


The difference between 12 and 24 MP is only about 25% anyway.



IMO the D3x is for the people who have clients who actually REQUIRE at least 20+ megapixels. And most of those people shoot the 5DmkII, which for my purposes at least, is a better camera then the D3x, especially when you consider it's only $2700.

 

[Antithesis]

If you have that kind of money that your actually considering one and you have to ask.... don't get it.

 

[FrankLamont]

Actually, 5fps is the maximum.

Still, if I was a Nikonian, a D3 or at lesat D700. Never D3x.

 

[schumionbike]

If you have that kind of money that your actually considering one and you have to ask.... don't get it.

haha, I don't have that kind of money and I'm don't plan on getting one. I just want to see people opinion of the camera. A step forward in technology or it's just big compromise of what the current technology can offer. I have Nikon D40 and a couple of crappy dx lens, can't even of a D3x yet.

 

[schumionbike]

Actually, 5fps is the maximum.

Still, if I was a Nikonian, a D3 or at lesat D700. Never D3x.

5 fps is when you shoot 12 bit RAW. 1.8fps when you shoot 14 bit RAW. I shoot 2.5fps on my D40 (lol) and that never really bother when I do photoshoot with a friend but I notices quite a few fashion photographers and such that shoot at like 8 fps like Swi1ch does.

The D3x just seem like is a step above everthing else if you don't need speed or ISO, that's why I asked if it's really all that (when compare to a D3) even at low ISO.

 

[JamesMason]

You are paying more for less than the d3. I suppose they are aiming at landscape and fashion photogs who wana print big

 

[Big Mike]

I think the days of these super expensive, top of the line, pro DSLRs are numbered.

Michael Reichmann...

As I read the tea leaves, here's where we stand, or I should say, here's where the camera makers stand. I predict that the days of the uber-camera are numbered. Bodies the size, weight and price of the Nikon D3 series and Canon 1 series were necessary at one point in time, and that point has now stretched forward to the extent that some in the industry are seeing its horizon. In fact I am convinced that Nikon and Canon themselves see this coming.

Nikon D3x

 

[inTempus]

Mike,

I think you're right. Nikon really put the final nail in the coffin of their D3 bodies with the release of the D700. Two things happened when they released the camera.

1) They put pretty much all of the necessary functionality of the D3 into a smaller, lighter, body. It has the exact same AF system, it has a phenomenal sensor, it has the speed, it has the weather sealing... and it's a fraction of the cost.

2) Nikon has now set a precedent with the D700. They can't take it back even if they wanted to, it would cause a revolt. If Nikon doesn't release an even more feature rich D700 replacement and they try to push people back to the D3, people will leave Nikon in flocks. So they have to continue the trend, the cat is out of the bag.

Nikon gutted their own D3 market. Perhaps it was by design or perhaps it was by mistake. Either way, the end user really gained from their actions... even us Canon shooters did. Because what Nikon does Canon must counter if they want to stay in the game.

Canon has purposely tried to avoid doing this. They push people to their 1D bodies by watering down their lower end bodies. Robbing them of high-end AF systems, dual card slots and weather sealing. Personally, I find this rather annoying. As a user, I like Nikons approach.

Obviously this new trend pushed Canon in the right direction. Look at the 7D. Canon is still fighting though. While we got 19 AF points, it's still a far cry from the AF system found in the 1D. Nikon has literally taken the entire D3 AF model and put it into the D700 and D300.

But I believe the assessment is right. We might have one or two more generations of "pro" bodies like the D3/1D left. But there's always medium format and I bet Nikon and Canon both are eye-balling this market. If they bring such bodies to market, I suspect they'll be in the $10+k range.

 

[Big Mike]

It's certainly interesting to see the different approaches that Nikon & Canon have taken. Canon was leading the market and keeping it's own line up very segmented...but then Nikon started giving people more of what they wanted and blurring the lines between models...thus cannibalizing some of their own sales, but making the consumers really happy with some great products.
Lets not forget that Sony has a full frame, high MP body for a darn good price.

All this competition can only be good for us, the consumers.

I think it's mentioned in the article I linked to...there was mention of the Nikon F6. The last of the super pro 35mm SLR bodies. Nikon knew that digital was overtaking film but they still finished their development & release of the F6....maybe just for the reason that they could claim bragging rights. Might be the same deal with the D3X (or whatever comes next).

 

[KmH]

Anyone have one or know someone that have one? What's the opinion on the overall performance of that camera? I hear a lot of reviews from labs and stuff but never from an actual owner. The labs and magazine seem pretty please with the camera but I it would nice to see from other perspective.

Go to and read the May 10 blog entry.

 

[blash]

It's certainly interesting to see the different approaches that Nikon & Canon have taken. Canon was leading the market and keeping it's own line up very segmented...but then Nikon started giving people more of what they wanted and blurring the lines between models...thus cannibalizing some of their own sales, but making the consumers really happy with some great products.
Lets not forget that Sony has a full frame, high MP body for a darn good price.

All this competition can only be good for us, the consumers.

I think it's mentioned in the article I linked to...there was mention of the Nikon F6. The last of the super pro 35mm SLR bodies. Nikon knew that digital was overtaking film but they still finished their development & release of the F6....maybe just for the reason that they could claim bragging rights. Might be the same deal with the D3X (or whatever comes next).

I read an interview with the designers of the F6 a while back, basically said that the designers understood that the F5 was going to be the last camera for photojournalists etc. because of digital's advent so they went ahead and made the F6 for the film enthusiast.

Right now, digital has replaced the 35mm format on a mass-market level, but hasn't *quite* replaced medium format yet. It has started to, with some digital backs and cameras like the D3X, but none of them really approach the quality of medium format film and they're also prohibitively expensive in comparison - let alone large format film and gigabyte-big drum scans.

The good thing about digital though, is that eventually, as technology improves, medium format will be available in a package that is just about as portable as current 35mm-digital replacement cameras, and when that happens, professionals and photojournalists will flock to the format - basically leaving Nikon to make like a D6 which is for enthusiasts of the antiquated format, whose advantages against a medium format camera of similar physical stats would be the very small size files so thousands can fit on a card, shoot at burst rate for a long time, etc., in comparison to the medium format cards where a photojournalist might only get like 10 shots in a burst (which is enough in most cases I'd wager) and only fit 400 shots on a card.

 

[Hobbes]

2) Nikon has now set a precedent with the D700. They can't take it back even if they wanted to, it would cause a revolt. If Nikon doesn't release an even more feature rich D700 replacement and they try to push people back to the D3, people will leave Nikon in flocks. So they have to continue the trend, the cat is out of the bag.

Obviously this new trend pushed Canon in the right direction. Look at the 7D. Canon is still fighting though. While we got 19 AF points, it's still a far cry from the AF system found in the 1D. Nikon has literally taken the entire D3 AF model and put it into the D700 and D300.

Though I agree with most of what you said but after I have been reading some of the posts by certain members I am sure there would be some fanatics who would buy Nikon no matter what they come up with. It's kinda like religious fanaticism both stupid and illogical. As for D700, this is actually the camera that makes me regret a little bit for have chosen Canon especially after they released the eos 7D

 

[Derrel]

Clash of the Titans – Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock | Yuri Arcurs

Has some good comments on actual usefulness and on body ergonomics,as well as lenses that are up to the task.

I don't see people leaving Nikon in "flocks",not matter what a D700x might have, since even their prosumer D300 body has the same, capable autofocus system in a body that prosumers and hobbyists can afford. Nikon's users are not sheep, which gather in flocks. Nikon has been gaining market share, largely at the expense of Canon.

As for the end of the high-priced, single-digit bodies from Canon and Nikon, executives at Canon and Nikon are the ones who make the decisions, and the flagship factor of the highest-MP bodies is something neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to throw away because Michael Reichmann has had his fill of costly bodies,finally; anybody who knows camera marketing can tell you that the top-tier bodies,and lenses, are aspirational tools; without a top-tier body, users of the system do not have something to covet and aspire to eventual ownership of. People who say the days of the Nikon D3x or Canon 1Ds Mark III are somehow "numbered" or "limited" are clearly not in tune with photographic consumers, or top level professionals. What, will Ferrari start making $80,000 "economy model" cars next? Will Rolex start selling $149 watches? Will Crystal become a $49 econo-champagne. Duh....

There are ample people who will ALWAYS be willing to pay for the Top Model. And beneath them are legions who look to the Top Model as the pinnacle of the system. Nikon has made a major sea change over the 27 years I've shot Nikon--and that is to rather quickly down-migrate Top Model features, such as the pro-level AF system and pro-level metering modules in the D3 series, in the mid-level D300 and D700 bodies. Nikon is also a very proud engineering company; the F6 was made for company pride and for proof of engineering prowess, not for sales numbers.

The D3x is for the upper echelon of shooters, just like the 1Ds Mark III is. The masses are shooting D90's and D300's and 50D's and 5D Mark II's. The beginners are buying Digital Rebels and D60's. But deep down inside, there seems to be quite a bit of interest about the Top Model,even among those who have no need for it, and no means to ever obtain it. And that is why the days of the expensive, Top Model d-slr are not limited, but unlimited.

 

[inTempus]

Well Mike, it would appear we're both idiots. The Derrel has spoken.

As you can see, he's continuing to try and start a flame war in every thread in which he posts.