When comparing with a MF back of similar resolution, the D3x is in the very same ball park. Obviously, it cannot compete in resolution against 39MP backs when things are done perfectly on both sides... this being said, it is a lot easier to do things perfectly with the D3x thanks to a good metering, AF system, built-in leveling check and life view.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think the Leica will sell because it's a Leica. Whether it sells enough to keep it going is another matter, but you know it will sell to some extent and you know the lenses will be stellar.
Personally I believe the days of the $10,000 camera are over. Even at $8,000 the D3x is not selling off the shelf to professionals, lots of Doctors buy em'.
One camera dealer I frequent has sold 40 something D3x's and not one to a professional photographer, just amateurs.
Obviously it's the economy, but even if the economy was flush we are getting very close to the point of why rather than must. Anything past 20 something megapixels is not a must buy for commercial work and the difference in a dslr file and a mfdb file has more to do with the aa filter than mere megapixels. Some people love the smooth look of a canon some people hate it, but it's the look, not the numbers.
For commercial work the deal breaker will be the next round of dslrs, because either Canon or Nikon is going to get off their hands and offer a 20 something mpx camera that really does full frame video with manual controls, an articulating lcd and probably somebody is going to offer a raw codec so you can time and grade the video files further.
That camera probably won't be $8,000, it will probably be less than half that price and at that point it's game, set, match.
My bet would be on Nikon because they have no video market to protect.
The crazy thing about the Leica is there is one still camera that can compete in cache and usability and that's the HY6, other than they named it an AFI or HY6 rather than just a Rollei.
Big mistake.
B