Nikon D3x

[dkeyes]

http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2008/1201_d3x_01.htm

The only potential benefit of this camera (over the Canon 5DII) may be low-light sensitivity and auto-focus. They also better hope the IQ is much better than Canon, though I doubt it if it's got a Sony sensor. No video, no dust removal/sensor shake. Going to be a tough sell if the price isn't close to Canon (or Sony), most likely it will be twice the price.

Let the comparisons begin.

- Doug

[wilburdl]

Actually it'll be priced @ $8,000. On par with the 1Ds. I'm pretty sure there is a party going on in Nikon-land, though that price may be a bit hard to swallow for more than a few.

[dkeyes]

I guess the 3x means 3 times the price. Wanted to buy the D3x and into a Nikon system but the price kills the deal for me. Guess I'll be going with Canon.

[NikosR]

I guess the 3x means 3 times the price. Wanted to buy the D3x and into a Nikon system but the price kills the deal for me. Guess I'll be going with Canon.

Don't you think that the D3x might justify its introductory price relative to the current street price of the 1DsMkIII? Or are you a Canon system user in which case of course there might not be a compelling reason to switch?

[dkeyes]

Don't you think that the D3x might justify its introductory price relative to the current street price of the 1DsMkIII? Or are you a Canon system user in which case of course there might not be a compelling reason to switch?

I'm a medium/large format film user so I don't own either brand except for a very old Nikon. IQ is my most important requirement, I need the file sizes for large prints. Basically, I need medium format files but can't afford the backs. Now that the full frame sizes are up above 20 meg pixels, they are just starting to get to sizes I can use. I like to shoot in low, available light so was hoping for a Nikon but I can buy a Canon (or Sony) and lenses for less than Nikon body alone. 1DsMkIII will be/is obsolete for all but a very few now that the 5D II looks just as capable and has video to boot.

[SeanBK]

Yes, I read the specs that it is 24.4MP, but so many pixels crammed in there. ISO range is less than what D3 can achive. What I am not sure is the D.R of D3x, does it produce comparable results to D3 or there is significant drop? I am a Nikon user & was looking forward to MX, but @ $8000 I am not sure.

[Tony Beach]

http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2008/1201_d3x_01.htmThe only potential benefit of this camera (over the Canon 5DII) may be low-light sensitivity and auto-focus.

There are a host of features that will advantageous.  For Nikonians, the biggest one will be that it uses Nikkor lenses without requiring adapters.

They also better hope the IQ is much better than Canon, though I doubt it if it's got a Sony sensor.

Nikon has made good use of Sony's sensors, such as the D300 which competes in image quality with comparable Canon DSLRs.  What's more, the sensor can share sensels but have different AA, CFA, and readout channels; so they're not the same sensor.

No video, no dust removal/sensor shake.

No print button either.  The one feature I would miss would be the sensor cleaning, but I expect it will be on the "D700x".

Going to be a tough sell if the price isn't close to Canon (or Sony), most likely it will be twice the price.

Turns out to be more than twice the price.  Ironically, the 1DsMkIII is also a tough sell.  I think Nikon only plans on selling around 25,000 of these per year.  The real competition for the cameras you are comparing it to will be the "D700x", which will almost certainly use the same sensor and have the same image quality as the D3x.

Let the comparisons begin.

Way too early for that.  Nikon claims extraordinary image quality; they call it the "X" factor; so we'll just have to wait until the dust settles and competent photographers have had an opportunity to objectively evaluate it on that basis.

[mas55101]

My thoughts are based on a combination of needs, tests, hopes, and input.  Sometime during the recent past, Michael wrote that digital slr's had achieved MF image quality.  At least that's what I think I understood.  I feel that I need something equivalent to a 6X7, and I figured the D3x would fill the  bill.  After seeing the price, though, I went back to some files I shot with a D3 I had briefly, and looked at them on the monitor at 100%/40x50"/180 resolution.  I could see no problems whatsoever in image quality.  Since my printer is 44", I guess I don't have to have a bigger print than that.  So, perhaps, the D3x is overkill.

Is this rationalization? I don't know.  I do know, however, (as I ramble on) that the one thing I really like about the D3 or D3x is the 5:4 aspect.  So far that is not available on the smaller body.  No one seems to talk about that feature, but to me, it's a real selling point.

Comments?

Michael A S

[dkeyes]

My thoughts are based on a combination of needs, tests, hopes, and input.  Sometime during the recent past, Michael wrote that digital slr's had achieved MF image quality.  At least that's what I think I understood.  I feel that I need something equivalent to a 6X7, and I figured the D3x would fill the  bill.  After seeing the price, though, I went back to some files I shot with a D3 I had briefly, and looked at them on the monitor at 100%/40x50"/180 resolution.  I could see no problems whatsoever in image quality.  Since my printer is 44", I guess I don't have to have a bigger print than that.  So, perhaps, the D3x is overkill.

Is this rationalization? I don't know.  I do know, however, (as I ramble on) that the one thing I really like about the D3 or D3x is the 5:4 aspect.  So far that is not available on the smaller body.  No one seems to talk about that feature, but to me, it's a real selling point.

Comments?

Michael A S

I print 40x50 as well but I find 180ppi insufficient (at least for drum scanned 6x7 film). I believe you ideally need 300ppi (200min). I've done tests and there is a difference. This is the reason I've been waiting for 20+ mp cameras that don't have a MFDB price tag (I'm not a commercial shooter). I just can't justify spending an extra $5000 even if I was committed to a brand/system (which I'm not), for what appears to be a mp upgrade of the D3. Of course, even at these file sizes, I'm only going to get a 18x27 image at 200ppi. The biggest "selling point" for this camera may be the IQ which remains to be seen. Either way, it won't be 5k better than the competition.

I do like 5:4 aspect ratio as well since I'm used to large format. I thought the 5:4 aspect was a crop of the 2:3., I know the file size at 5:4 is smaller than the full frame.

[mas55101]

I do like 5:4 aspect ratio as well since I'm used to large format. I thought the 5:4 aspect was a crop of the 2:3., I know the file size at 5:4 is smaller than the full frame.

It is a crop.
Michael