"The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"

[Ray]

Yeah that's what I think too. You can buy 3 5D MKIIs for the price of one DX3, and have 500.00 left over to buy equipment. If I were a pro and were worried about image quality plus reliability, I think 3 5D MKIIs would beat one DX3.

Haven't you forgotten a couple of useful features that Nikon cameras have, that Canons don't have? You can autobracket 9 consecutive shots at intervals from 1/3rd EV to 1 EV. You have complete control over aperture and shutter speed for any shot, however sudden and unpredictable, and rely upon getting a reasonably accurate exposure.

[dwdallam]

Haven't you forgotten a couple of useful features that Nikon cameras have, that Canons don't have? You can autobracket 9 consecutive shots at intervals from 1/3rd EV to 1 EV. You have complete control over aperture and shutter speed for any shot, however sudden and unpredictable, and rely upon getting a reasonably accurate exposure.

If you need those two things, then you have to buy the Nikon. As far as auto bracketing goes, yeah it's a nice option, but I can do that manually too. The option of autobracket 9 shots for an additional 5500 dollars is NOT on my list. I don't know what you mean by total control over shutter and aperture. I thought all cameras came with the option of changing your shutter and aperture for at least the last 50 years.

If you really don't HAVE to have those two options, I'd say a camera that is going to take pretty much the same quality of image x3 would be pretty compelling, especially since the 5D II has "pretty" good sealing. How often do you think you would run out of camera backs using 3 5D IIS? That's a lot of redundancy. So to counter, 3 camera redundancy for less money vs one camera for more money. Of course this would not even be an arguing point if the 5D II were not tough enough in the first place. If I were a war correspondent in the field, then I'd think about the best built/sealed camera I could buy. For the rest of us, 3 vs 1. It is compelling.

[Ray]

I don't know what you mean by total control over shutter and aperture. I thought all cameras came with the option of changing your shutter and aperture for at least the last 50 years.

Sorry! I thought you'd work it out   . With a Canon, you can walk around with camera in aperture priority mode, or TV mode and let the camera do the rest. With Nikon DSLRs (not necessarily all models. I'm not sure about that.) you can walk around in full manual mode (selecting both aperture and shutter speed) and let the camera do the rest (ie. aut-adjust ISO for correct exposure).

That seems to me to be a very sensible and useful feature. I can't understand why Canon have not adopted it.

Of course, you are right. Those two features alone are not necessarily worth the extra bucks, but they help   .

[BernardLanguillier]

The Nikon D3X is precisely $28.65 better in image quality then a Canon 5D Mark II.

Therefore anything over $2,728.65 is way too much to pay for the Nikon D3x.  Sure it offers faster, and more features, but if one determines value by image quality alone, then the D3X is > 1000% over priced.

I guess that it depends how much you value one stop of DR at base ISO, to cite only one major advantage.

Many pros have been selling their wife's Porsche in order to afford Phaseone/Leaf backs offering about the same advantage over the competition, but I guess that you are not one of them.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Anderson]

The simple fact is, the perceived value of a 24 mpx camera has now been diminished.

I fully agree with this and think it's a great point and wonder how many potential purchasers of the D3x are holding off for the half (or less) priced competitor from Nikon themselves ?

Personally I think the more robust bodies in the Canon DsIII (what I use) and the Nikon D3x (I'm aussuming   )  are worth more money then the lower priced models, but IMHO both companies are making it harder to justify the extra spend on these models by releasing the same (ish) image quality in much lesser priced models..

I wonder would Nikon, Canon and Sony give me a few of the cheapies to do a drop test on ??      

[ziocan]

I fully agree with this and think it's a great point and wonder how many potential purchasers of the D3x are holding off for the half (or less) priced competitor from Nikon themselves ?

Personally I think the more robust bodies in the Canon DsIII (what I use) and the Nikon D3x (I'm aussuming   )  are worth more money then the lower priced models, but IMHO both companies are making it harder to justify the extra spend on these models by releasing the same (ish) image quality in much lesser priced models..

I wonder would Nikon, Canon and Sony give me a few of the cheapies to do a drop test on ??  

I'm afraid that a dropping test would damage or kill any of the bodies regardless of brand and grade.
On the other hand, a banging test  , will show that the pro grade bodies can take more abuse.

[ziocan]

Enough. You people have the collective IQ of a clam. Let me be clearer: Individually you are all nice guys and bright cogent practitioners of the art of photography, and i have the highest respect of your skills, far superior to mine. Together you are a bunch of querellous tykes, and you spout insulting nonsense. Go home, get a drink. Kiss your wife and tell her you love her and she makes you happy every day. Get a life. Stop polluting this forum.

This was a public service broadcast. Thank you for tuning in.

Edmund

     
well said.

[ziocan]

   
well said.

The only thing I can say, it is that with a Nikon ( Or Canon to a lesser extent) lens in front, the resulting image will always look  like a 35mm photo, regardless of how this marvel of a camera can handle photons, electrons, neurons and testosterone.
That is what you get: the classic Nikon look. It may work for some landscape, reportage and and environmental photography, but as for portrait, beauty, advertising and fashion it will always show that look. It is a matter of midrange contrast and bokhen, it is very distictive of 35mm lenses (a part for Leica and Zeiss), and it was not meant to be a compliment..
Do you remember how your contact sheet of the same shoot from the nikon looked close to the contact sheet from the hasselblad, contax or mamiya?
there you go.

[Guillermo Luijk]

As far as auto bracketing goes, yeah it's a nice option, but I can do that manually too.

You can, but at a high risk to move the camera and get misaligned RAW files. With so many users and applications around making full use of bracketed shots in digital photography, designing the Canon 5D MKII with the old {-2,0,+2} scheme in mind is just ridiculous. Among other things, enhanced bracketing and the higher quality of wide angle lenses available in Nikon are making me seriously think of a change from Canon.

[JohnKoerner]

I fully agree with this and think it's a great point and wonder how many potential purchasers of the D3x are holding off for the half (or less) priced competitor from Nikon themselves ?
Personally I think the more robust bodies in the Canon DsIII (what I use) and the Nikon D3x (I'm aussuming   )  are worth more money then the lower priced models, but IMHO both companies are making it harder to justify the extra spend on these models by releasing the same (ish) image quality in much lesser priced models..
I wonder would Nikon, Canon and Sony give me a few of the cheapies to do a drop test on ??  

Well, glad someone thought what I said made sense

While the majority are buzzing and squawking about whether the $8100 D3x is capable of marginally-eclipsing the $2700 Canon 5DMkII, in certain "areas of blackness," some people might ask the question is this really worth paying 3x as much over? I am not sure if we should be doing backflips over what the D3x can do, or ask the question, "Is that it, for 3x the price?"

Which camera is the better value? I think even Lloyd himself answered that ...

For those into telephotos and animal shots, another way to look at value is the fact a person could but a Canon 5DMkII and a 500mm f/4L IS USM for just about the same price as a D3x with no lens ... $8100 spent and you can't even take a photo yet  

Same money spent on a 5DMkII and you're ready for a safari ...

[dwdallam]

Sorry! I thought you'd work it out   . With a Canon, you can walk around with camera in aperture priority mode, or TV mode and let the camera do the rest. With Nikon DSLRs (not necessarily all models. I'm not sure about that.) you can walk around in full manual mode (selecting both aperture and shutter speed) and let the camera do the rest (ie. aut-adjust ISO for correct exposure).

That seems to me to be a very sensible and useful feature. I can't understand why Canon have not adopted it.

Of course, you are right. Those two features alone are not necessarily worth the extra bucks, but they help   .

Ah I see what you mean. Hmmm, for me that option would be of limited use, since I want full control of my ISO when shooting. And one button allows me to quickly adjust ISO on the fly is I need to, but I never need it so quickly that auto ISO would be a sale maker for me. When camera come with 100 ISO noise all the way up to 1600, or even 100-800 that would THEN be a very useful option. Now that I think about it, it would be useful RIGHT NOW, if you can limit how far it goes, say from 100-400?

[dwdallam]

You can, but at a high risk to move the camera and get misaligned RAW files. With so many users and applications around making full use of bracketed shots in digital photography, designing the Canon 5D MKII with the old {-2,0,+2} scheme in mind is just ridiculous. Among other things, enhanced bracketing and the higher quality of wide angle lenses available in Nikon are making me seriously think of a change from Canon.

I agree. If you need that for the reasons you state, then it's priceless for sure.

[dwdallam]

One area of photography I can say the 8K DSIII now 6500.00 and the 8K Nikon D3X are nice to have is when you pull out your camera in a situation where the folks who hired you are more interested in "what" you shoot with rather than "how good" you are shooting. I got hired to do some modeling school work a while back and the woman who hired me said, "Oh that's a IDS MKIII, no one around here shots with one of those. That's professional for sure." It was all I could do to stop my eyes from rolling and from shaking my head. I felt like shooting the whole thing with my 5D1 just so I could watch her fascination as the "Professional IDSMKIII" files came out shot with a 5D1. I should have shot the whole thing with a G9--lol.

I read once where Joe McNally was in a pissing contest with the art director of a shoot where he was the photographer, and he kept saying he wanted to do the shoot with one light and she was saying that just wasn't possible with one light and that they needed a minimum of four lights and that was that. So he set up the lights, turn all of them off but one, shot the test shots, and she said, "See, it looks great." He never told her the truth.

[David Anderson]

The show is sometimes as important as the shoot..  

[dwdallam]

The show is sometimes as important as the shoot..

Sad but true. The show part is not an area at which I excel.

[NikosR]

Ah I see what you mean. Hmmm, for me that option would be of limited use, since I want full control of my ISO when shooting. And one button allows me to quickly adjust ISO on the fly is I need to, but I never need it so quickly that auto ISO would be a sale maker for me. When camera come with 100 ISO noise all the way up to 1600, or even 100-800 that would THEN be a very useful option. Now that I think about it, it would be useful RIGHT NOW, if you can limit how far it goes, say from 100-400?

You can limit that in Nikon cameras (don't know about other makes). I shoot my D700 at auto ISO very often capping it at 800 or 1600 depending on the subject and use since I find I get very acceptable results within that range for a multitude of subject / use combinations. Your mileage might differ.

Classic example for Auto ISO use often mentioned is sportshooting when targeting a subject moving fast from sunlight to shade.

[Jonathan H]

The show is sometimes as important as the shoot..

I have found this to be the case on nearly every job I've ever worked.

What sets apart the working stiffs from the superstars is delivery and showmanship.

[Colorado David]

I have found this to be the case on nearly every job I've ever worked.

What sets apart the working stiffs from the superstars is delivery and showmanship.

This made me laugh out loud.  I used to work with an art director that carried a man-purse (no offense if any of you do).  When he would show up at a location, he would put on this artist's face and walk all around and look and study like a creative genius.  Clients would stand back in hushed amazement at the creative force at work.  Then we would shoot.  I always thought that if I walked around looking at the locationthe same way everyone would say "What? Doesn't he know what he's doing?"  This guy had a wall full of Addy Awards.  We'd still be working together, but he divorced his wife, married his assistant and moved away.

[lovell]

Haven't you forgotten a couple of useful features that Nikon cameras have, that Canons don't have? You can autobracket 9 consecutive shots at intervals from 1/3rd EV to 1 EV. You have complete control over aperture and shutter speed for any shot, however sudden and unpredictable, and rely upon getting a reasonably accurate exposure.

Yea, yea Ray.  Good point.  Those nikon-only features are surely worth the extra $4,500+ over the stupid crappy junk Canon 5D Mark II.    

If a Nikon D3X shooter uses that feature more then a few times a year, I would be surprised, to be sure.

[Chairman Bill]

Yeah that's what I think too. You can buy 3 5D MKIIs for the price of one DX3, and have 500.00 left over to buy equipment. If I were a pro and were worried about image quality plus reliability, I think 3 5D MKIIs would beat one DX3.

Quite right. And the D700 is so much more than a Canon 350D too. These Nikons are all so over-priced. Er ...