D3X Observations

[Mort54]

Michael, you seem to be suggesting that the $4K USD price premium of the D3X over the D3 is due to sensor costs. While I have no information to the contrary, I doubt the D3X sensor is much more expensive than the D3 sensor. Yes, it has some Nikon goodies added to it, but it is still essentially an A900 sensor, and the A900 sells for what, around $3K USD. That's a body and a sensor for only $3K USD. I somehow doubt Nikon's added goodies drive the cost of that same sensor up by $5K USD.

I suspect - and again I have no information to confirm this - that it's purely market positioning driving the costs, not the components inside. Why would Nikon do this? Who knows. Greed is too simplistic an answer. Maybe they never intended to sell many, and just wanted to have the biggest, baddest, and most expensive DSLR on the market for bragging rights. Well, they succeeded, but at the cost of lots of bad feelings and acrimony from the Nikon faithful.

As a long time Nikon user, I was looking forward to a higher MP offering. But not at that price. Could I afford it - yes. But would I pay that kind of money - no. As an enthusiastic amateur, there's really no way I could justify it, and besides, I find myself being offended by Nikon's pricing policy, and I refuse to submit to it. I plan on laughing my head off when the D700X becomes available at a considerably reduced price (at least I hope I will be :-)

All that said, thanks for posting your views. As always, an informative read.

[mike.online]

Thanks for the read. Insightful and to the point. Glad to see a review without pages of pixel peeping and a greater focus on field usage.

favorite line?

If ... Canon has the balls to move their 5D series upmarket in terms of build quality and features, it'll all be over but the shouting

Cheers

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for the write up Michael.

As far as the pricing of the D3x goes, I don't like it either. My view is that Nikon selected this price point for the following reasons:

- They wanted to be the most expensive because in the end most people associate price with performance,
- They have anticipated the fact that the crisis would impact their volume a lot regardless of the price point, and decided to pick a price point that would make sure they would not loose money,
- They knew that in the end it would still be cheaper for high end Nikon shooters to buy a D3x compared to a switch to another system even if it features a similarly specced camera at a much cheaper price,
- They are really confident in the performance of the D3x compared to its competition, and from what I have seen rightfully so,
- They know that the price point of the D3x is going to impact strongly the price point of the D700x whenever they decide to release it. A bit of a stretch, but if Nikon M1/Mx were real, its price point would also be read relative to the D3x,
- They know that the end of the road is fairly close for the 35mm upgrade craze. The current level is sufficient for high end gallery A2 prints and the additional gains to be had with more megapixels will be very small for various well documented reasons. Many people will simply not upgrade after the D3x so money has to be made now,
- Canon and Nikon have agreed to keep the price of their flagship high (the 2 cameras are within 800 US$ in Japan),

Cheers,
Bernard

[Mark D Segal]

For starters, I just love that cover photo on today's up-date.

Turning to grubbier stuff, you've heard the expression "where they sit is where they stand", so I'll put on my economist's hat and suggest the following. There is a niche market for a 24 MP Nikon DSLR: well-healed prosumers and professionals (preferably with tax deductions) who have an investmnent in Nikon lenses and want the highest resolution and most robust body the company can offer them. Demand for the D3x amongst this group, while some may grumble, is what we call largely "inelastic" - i.e. the change of volume sold will vary less than proportionately relative to the change of price, and on the supply side, costs may well be somewhat ineasltic within a volume range they could contemplate. So by charging 8000 rather than 5000 they may well lose some sales, but they maximize revenue. We should assume they have market research people who study their target audience carefully and understand both their production economics and demand elasticity very well.

[John Camp]

What MarkDS said.

Too many people have been peering at the fish guts, trying to come up with complicated rationales for the D3x price. I think Nikon simply picked a price that would maximize their return, knowing at some point there'd necessarily be a D700x that would pretty efficiently cannibalize the D3x. So, they're making hay while the sun shines, charging the same list price as Canon did with their 1DsIII. That's all. No big deal. The D700x will be coming along sooner or later, probably (I think) for $4000 or so, and that *will* fly off the shelves.

JC

[Mark D Segal]

............. The D700x will be coming along sooner or later, probably (I think) for $4000 or so, and that *will* fly off the shelves.

JC

Well, in this economic environment, there's a lot of uncertainty going forward. There's a growing consensus in that part of the economics profession which doesn't have a vested interest in soothing peoples' nerves that the cycle has not bottomed: there remains much more deleveraging of debt positions and market "resetting" to be done before it turns around, the destruction of demand may well be exceeding the pace of government spending intended to prop it up and the timing of the turnaround, likely to be very gradual, is unpredictable but could be protracted. In these conditions, what do camera manufacturers do? Four-thousand is still a big outlay on a non-essential consumer item in this context. What exactly is the market for new toys when people feel so much economic implosion around them? (There may well be a niche that is comparatively recession-proof, but it is probably small.) And knowing there will be a turnaround one of these months or years, how do they make spending decisions on technological development? Most likely they have a long-term vision on that question, but the timing for commercializing the fruits of this effort in a competitive context would be the major issue each of them must address. I can visualize that if I were a camera manufacturer I don't want to fall behind technologically, I don't want to lose market share, and I need new models to fuel cash flow, but I don't want to lose money on every camera I make which doesn't sell. It will be very interesting to observe how each of them handles this mess.

[BernardLanguillier]

I can visualize that if I were a camera manufacturer I don't want to fall behind technologically, I don't want to lose market share, and I need new models to fuel cash flow, but I don't want to lose money on every camera I make which doesn't sell. It will be very interesting to observe how each of them handles this mess.

I guess that one key question in this context for a Japanese company would be "where to produce our high end models"...

Nikon has always produced all their higher end models in the Sendai factory, located 250 kms North East of Japan, and all the rest in Thailand.

Considering that the strenght of the Yen is one of the main factors working against their margins, it would be very tempting to produce in Thailand since the Bhat has been less affected... now are they going to risk putting their key IP outside of Japan?...

This is probably one of their key concerns right now and a question that will have very deep and long lasting impacts on the way some key Japanese companies do business.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Panopeeper]

it is still essentially an A900 sensor

I wonder on what facts this often appearing claim is based. I don't see any likeness between these sensors, except for the format and the numer of pixels in one dimension.

[Mark D Segal]

Bernard, since last June, the THB has devalued by 21% relative to the Yen and 12% relative to the USD, so indeed, depending on what it costs them to shift production, that may well be an option for some. The big risk in such a decision,however, is what will happen to the value of the THB over time. Recall that in 2003/04 it was in the range of 41~42 to the USD, and as the Thai economy strenghtened and the USD weakened, the THB revalued considerably. Another such cycle could well occur when international demand recovers and Thailand's traditional export markets gain some strength, so timing of decisions and the duration of a marginal foreign exchange advantage become risk factors that are hard to evaluate. As for control over IP, not really too clear how much the locus of production really matters. The design and engineering work probably remains firmly anchored in Japan, and I would assume that what poaching there is happens regardless of where the patent owners' products are made.

[John Camp]

Well, in this economic environment, there's a lot of uncertainty going forward. There's a growing consensus in that part of the economics profession which doesn't have a vested interest in soothing peoples' nerves that the cycle has not bottomed: there remains much more deleveraging of debt positions and market "resetting" to be done before it turns around, the destruction of demand may well be exceeding the pace of government spending intended to prop it up and the timing of the turnaround, likely to be very gradual, is unpredictable but could be protracted. In these conditions, what do camera manufacturers do? Four-thousand is still a big outlay on a non-essential consumer item in this context.

I actually think the D700x users would fit in the inelastic demand niche group along with the D3x users, and that was one reason that we heard so much grumbling -- the group demand was there, but the price seemed unreasonable even for those with tax deductions. (Many of them -- like Bernard, who is writing on this thread -- at first said the price was too much, but they eventually bought one anyway.) I think the potential D700x buyers are as you describe the D3x buyers, well-healed prosumers and professionals who really think they *need* that sensor and that level of response, but for whom the $8,000 was a bridge too far. Many people on these forums said, you know, if it were only $6,000 or so, I would have gone for it. My feeling is that if they can afford $6,000, they could probably afford $8,000, but refused, much like Michael did, because they felt they were being ripped off. They are not, however, a guy for whom a D700x is a whim or a status symbol...IMHO.

But really, who knows? I certainly agree with you about the cycle -- the fear sloshing around the world seems uncontrollable, and the current US administration (for which I voted) seems to be deliberately making things worse, rather than better. (Maybe *deliberately* is too strong; but maybe not.)

JC

[douglasf13]

Gabor, wouldn't the on chip AD be a pretty striking similarity?   Either way, some are saying the color separation of the A900 is better than the D3x, so Im still in the camp that neither is better IQ wise, just different.

[Panopeeper]

Gabor, wouldn't the on chip AD be a pretty striking similarity?

Not for me.

1. One of them generates over 16000 levels of tones per channel, the other less than 4000,

2. one of them supports 12 AND 14bit depth, the other only 12bit,

3. one of them supports analog ISO gain up to 3200 (the A900 seems to do this), the other only up to 1600,

4. the number of pixels is not *exactly* the same.

some are saying the color separation of the A900 is better than the D3x, so Im still in the camp that neither is better IQ wise, just different.

The color separation is not strictly the characteristic of the sensor but of the color filters over the sensels. The D3X red filter has a greater transmissivity than the A900's, while the blue transmissivity is higher with the A900, for white illumination. However, the graphs of the spectral characteristics are not published by them. Finally, the color separation is the product of the demosaicing and color space conversion, i.e. it may depend on the raw processor.

[douglasf13]

How do you feel about the theory of the D3x doing multiple reads or multiple samples to get 14bits, thus limiting fps in 14bit mode?

The Borg was the one who mentioned that the spectral properties of the A900 as better, so I'm a bit out of my league

[Panopeeper]

How do you feel about the theory of the D3x doing multiple reads or multiple samples to get 14bits, thus limiting fps in 14bit mode?

I have zero competence on the hardware area. I don't know if the very same sensor (this includes the same electronics on the sensor chip) could do this. Or differently expressed: if the sensor is the same, why would Sony leave this capability unused?

However, if I had a sensor capable of doing this, then I would create 16bit output with three stops higher DR, by reading several times with different ISO amplification and combining the results.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

We had this discussed before on these forum, and I think that "ejmartin" suggested that would be possible but would give telltale signs in the "raw" file. It seems that the D3x is using the 12 bit on chip ADCs, if that is the case they need to use som smart solution to get 14 bits. Another theory may be that there is an external readout mechanism with of the chip ADCs. There can be minor variations on on chip electronics between the D3X and the Alpha 900.

Best regards
Erik

How do you feel about the theory of the D3x doing multiple reads or multiple samples to get 14bits, thus limiting fps in 14bit mode?

The Borg was the one who mentioned that the spectral properties of the A900 as better, so I'm a bit out of my league

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

IMHO we will still see some developments in the pixel density area. There are some reasons for it:

- Less need of low pass (AA) filtering
- There are some suggestions that many more pixels are needed for optimal quality, but I may have doubts in this regard (in my view the resolution of the eye sets a limitation of around 7-10 lp/mm.

On the other hand we ae going to have diminishing returns:

- Lenses are not sharp enough
- Diffraction limitation may be more interesting than pure resolving power, we don't shoot flat test targets, don't we?

Best regards
Erik

...
- They know that the end of the road is fairly close for the 35mm upgrade craze. The current level is sufficient for high end gallery A2 prints and the additional gains to be had with more megapixels will be very small for various well documented reasons. Many people will simply not upgrade after the D3x so money has to be made now,
...

Cheers,
Bernard

[douglasf13]

Hi,

We had this discussed before on these forum, and I think that "ejmartin" suggested that would be possible but would give telltale signs in the "raw" file. It seems that the D3x is using the 12 bit on chip ADCs, if that is the case they need to use som smart solution to get 14 bits. Another theory may be that there is an external readout mechanism with of the chip ADCs. There can be minor variations on on chip electronics between the D3X and the Alpha 900.

Best regards
Erik

  Yeah, there certainly is something interesting going on there.  It appears that the D3x board is a lot more D300-like, rather than D3 like, leading some to believe that there are not ADCs off of the chip.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...+board&qf=m

[idenford]

At the end of the day, I would be interested in seeing studio photography comparisons between the a900 and the D3x
Since we tend to do post on most shots, I wonder what photos side by side look like using the same lighting set up.
Since the higher iso's are not necessary for studio work, I wonder how different the end result would be.

[Rob C]

D700 leading to D700x.

Well, it  might not just be as easy as switching sensors about. For a start, what´s so clever about paying for more pixels if you are stuck with a viewfinder that can´t show the full frame that your sensor is going to give you? If the D700 had come complete with a proper full-frame finder, then the cost of the hard work would have been included at that stage and not saved up for inclusion as a new development in the price of a hypothetical x version, making that price even higher. Or will a D700x have to be built around a D3 chassis making it something else entirely? Which makes me wonder whether a D700x really is a feasible idea.

(I can´t see the protruding bit of pentaprism which houses a flash being so damn clever either. There is one on the D200 which makes changing aperture on manual lenses very awkward indeed, not something I ever noted on the film Nikons!)

Maybe what Nikon needs to do is leave the traditional 35mm body format alone now, and be brave and adventurous and use a new shape. Perhaps if it does do a MF camera that´s when the body format might change for ever. Anyway, if they have to do something so that they can incorporate a dust-prevention device along with FF sensor and a full viewfinder screen, it seems reasonable that that will demand a new or heavily revised body.

Rob C

[Quentin]

As a long time Nikon user, I was looking forward to a higher MP offering. But not at that price. Could I afford it - yes. But would I pay that kind of money - no.

You join quite a number of us who took the exact same view.  Like many others, I baulked at the price, and then went on to purchase a Sony A900.  I could not be happier I did so.

If Nikon's intention was to make a statement with the D3x, it did so at the price of lost customers.  Now, even if Nikon do bring out a D700x it is very unlikely I'll bite.

Pride comes before a fall.

Quentin