stilll about the D3X

[BJL]

But the thing is, the price relationship between these two classes of body has already been established by the D3 and D700.

That is not a safe comparison, because sales volume and elasticity of demand are factors in pricing too, and the D3 is a higher volume product than the D3X or 1Ds class of cameras. Nikon was producing as many as 10,000/mo of the D3 at one point, compared to figures of 4000/mo for several consecutive 1D models and 2,000/mo for several consecutive 1Ds models. Nikon was likely also working hard to win news organizations and such away from the Canon 1D series, which might require prices close to that of the 1DIII despite the higher cost of the larger sensor.

A closer comparison might be 1DsMkIII vs 5DMkII, which currently differ in price by about $4,300: $7000 vs $2,700.

[BernardLanguillier]

This is why I don't think there will be a D700x released in 2009, at least not with the D3x sensor. I think the D700x will either be released with a different, less capable sensor (maybe something in the 18-20mp range that is optimized a bit more for high-ISO than for absolute low-ISO quality), or else it will be released much later than some people are hoping.

Most people were also thinking that Nikon would never ever:

- release a D700 so quickly,
- use the exact same sensor as the D3,

I am personnally 100% sure that Nikon will release a D800 before year end.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

Most people were also thinking that Nikon would never ever:

- release a D700 so quickly,
- use the exact same sensor as the D3,

I am personnally 100% sure that Nikon will release a D800 before year end.

Cheers,
Bernard

peronnally 100% sure. Hmmm.  

I beta tested a lot of stuff but was never 100% sure of the release date.

Edmund

[JeffKohn]

That is not a safe comparison, because sales volume and elasticity of demand are factors in pricing too, and the D3 is a higher volume product than the D3X or 1Ds class of cameras. Nikon was producing as many as 10,000/mo of the D3 at one point, compared to figures of 4000/mo for several consecutive 1D models and 2,000/mo for several consecutive 1Ds models. Nikon was likely also working hard to win news organizations and such away from the Canon 1D series, which might require prices close to that of the 1DIII despite the higher cost of the larger sensor.

On the other hand, the R&D costs for the D3/D700 bodies have already been absorbed. There is absolutely nothing new about the D3x aside from the sensor, which considerably lowers the fixed overhead costs of the new camera. One would presume the same would likely be true for an eventual D700x/D800, unless they decide to add something like video.

A closer comparison might be 1DsMkIII vs 5DMkII, which currently differ in price by about $4,300: $7000 vs $2,700.

But the 5DII camera body is not in the same class as the D700; the D700 has much more features in common with the D3 than the 5DII does with the 1DSIII.

[JeffKohn]

Out of curiosity, is anyone else matching this $7100 price at Cameta? That's the first I heard of such a low price for this camera...

No idea. You would likely have to call/shop around as the big etailers like B&H aren't discounting yet. But Cameta is a legit Nikon dealer; I've purchased several big-ticket items from them in the past, and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. (In fact I probably will be purchasing a D3x from them once they get a little cheaper, because unlike Bernard I don't think a D800 is coming anytime soon).

[JeffKohn]

Most people were also thinking that Nikon would never ever:

- release a D700 so quickly,
- use the exact same sensor as the D3,

I am personnally 100% sure that Nikon will release a D800 before year end.

Cheers,
Bernard

At $4000-4500, maybe. At $3000-3500, I don't believe it. How much do you expect this D800 to cost? I think the economy and currency rates also will have an impact on release timing.

[lisa_r]

Maybe the D800 will come sooner rather than later. According to the retailers I use here in NYC, the D3x IS NOT SELLING. And they can not keep the 5D2 in stock, they are flying off the shelves (as if that is new to anyone.)

Given these facts, maybe Nikon will decide that a substantially cheaper offering is a good idea.

[BJL]

But the 5DII camera body is not in the same class as the D700; the D700 has much more features in common with the D3 than the 5DII does with the 1DSIII.

The D700 costs less than the 5DMkII, so I find it hard to accept an argument that the D700 body costs so much more than the 5DMkII, and thus that using that  body for a "D700x" will cause it to cost far more than the 5DMkII. Likewise, the A900 and D700 bodies (sensor aside) do not seem greatly different in likely unit cost. And I see no evidence of a significant unit cost difference between the sensors of the D700 and of the D3X and A900, so a D700x should have roughly similar unit costs to the D700 and A900.

So I return to the point that sales volume, competition, and elasticity of demand are dominant factors in the pricing of such products, more perhaps than unit costs. And with the A900 and 5DMkII as competitors, a D700x would be held to comparable prices.

[eronald]

I'd expect a D700 price drop and a D800 competitive with the 5DII. But I think the D700 an D3 are general purpose cameras, the D3x is a high-MP low ISO shooter which happens to have good 1600 ISO.

Edmund

The D700 costs less than the 5DMkII, so I find it hard to accept an argument that the D700 body costs so much more than the 5DMkII, and thus that using that  body for a "D700x" will cause it to cost far more than the 5DMkII. Likewise, the A900 and D700 bodies (sensor aside) do not seem greatly different in likely unit cost. And I see no evidence of a significant unit cost difference between the sensors of the D700 and of the D3X and A900, so a D700x should have roughly similar unit costs to the D700 and A900.

So I return to the point that sales volume, competition, and elasticity of demand are dominant factors in the pricing of such products, more perhaps than unit costs. And with the A900 and 5DMkII as competitors, a D700x would be held to comparable prices.

[Ray]

But I think the D700 an D3 are general purpose cameras, the D3x is a high-MP low ISO shooter which happens to have good 1600 ISO.

The D3X at ISO 1600 is about as good as the D3 at ISO 1600, in terms of noise and resolution, isn't it?

Dpreview claim that the D700 has a whisker more resolution than the 5D2 at ISO 3200. Perhaps the reverse applies at ISO 1600, ie. the 5D2 has a whisker more resolution than the D700 at ISO 1600. Either way, in practical terms it seems there's no advantage of the higher-MP camera above ISO 800.

[Tony Beach]

At $4000-4500, maybe. At $3000-3500, I don't believe it. How much do you expect this D800 to cost? I think the economy and currency rates also will have an impact on release timing.

How much would you have guessed a D300 would cost the day before it was announced?  It outperformed the D2x in nearly every way and had the same resolution, Nikon was selling the D2x at that time for $4500.  That works out to 40%, and if Nikon did that again then that would mean a "D800" would likely cost $3200.

[JeffKohn]

How much would you have guessed a D300 would cost the day before it was announced?  It outperformed the D2x in nearly every way and had the same resolution, Nikon was selling the D2x at that time for $4500.  That works out to 40%, and if Nikon did that again then that would mean a "D800" would likely cost $3200.

The D2x was what, 3 years old at that time? It was effectively end-of-lifed with the release of the D3 and D300. Regardless of the supposed retail price, I don't think anybody was actually paying anywhere near $4500 for them, and with the concurrent release of the D3 the D2x essentially was obsolete (if not already discontinued). The resale value of D2x's plummeted overnight, and the stores that were still selling them new sold them for not much more than the price of a D300.

Completely different situation.

[Tony Beach]

Completely different situation.

Nonetheless, it was something you would not have predicted.  It was a competitive move by Nikon.  I submit that both those things will happen again, and I am anticipating a $3500 version of the D3x sensor by the end of this year; anything less costing anymore will make Nikon decidedly uncompetitive in this class of DSLRs.  

Anyway, arguing about it is a waste of time (we might just as well argue about who will win the World Series), by the end of the year we'll know who's right.

[eronald]

The D3X at ISO 1600 is about as good as the D3 at ISO 1600, in terms of noise and resolution, isn't it?

Dpreview claim that the D700 has a whisker more resolution than the 5D2 at ISO 3200. Perhaps the reverse applies at ISO 1600, ie. the 5D2 has a whisker more resolution than the D700 at ISO 1600. Either way, in practical terms it seems there's no advantage of the higher-MP camera above ISO 800.

The D3x is pretty usable at 1600, but the D3 just keeps going above that.
Handheld shooting at low speeds is an exercise in frustration with a hi-mp camera: the shake throws away the pixels.

Edmund

[Ray]

The D3x is pretty usable at 1600, but the D3 just keeps going above that.
Handheld shooting at low speeds is an exercise in frustration with a hi-mp camera: the shake throws away the pixels.

Edmund

As I understand, the D3X pixel is noisier than the D3 pixel at high ISO's, and as a consequence resolution is sacrificed. Even my 5D shows a noticeable loss of resolution at ISO 1600, compared with ISO 400 and below, for example.

However, what's not clear to me is whether or not that loss of D3X resolution at ISO 1600 and above is compounded by an insufficiently faster shutter speed such as would normally be required at lower ISOs, when hand-held, to get the extra resolution the D3X is capable of.

High ISO capability is often described by some manufacturers as another form of image stabilisation because it allows the use of a faster shutter speed. In circumstances where I would use a D3 at ISO 800, if I didn't have a D3X, I might feel the need to jump up to ISO 1600 with the D3X to get that faster shutter speed. The question is, would I necessarily get a sharper result, assuming that half of that shutter speed used with the D3X would be perfectly adequate to produce a sharp result with the D3?

[eronald]

The shutter speed issue is hard - Canon cameras are somehow notorious for requiring faster shutter speeds to freeze action ...

I think the issue depends on the sensor/microlens layout ad the subject matter in big part. Simulations or better real tests are the only way to check.

Edmund

As I understand, the D3X pixel is noisier than the D3 pixel at high ISO's, and as a consequence resolution is sacrificed. Even my 5D shows a noticeable loss of resolution at ISO 1600, compared with ISO 400 and below, for example.

However, what's not clear to me is whether or not that loss of D3X resolution at ISO 1600 and above is compounded by an insufficiently faster shutter speed such as would normally be required at lower ISOs, when hand-held, to get the extra resolution the D3X is capable of.

High ISO capability is often described by some manufacturers as another form of image stabilisation because it allows the use of a faster shutter speed. In circumstances where I would use a D3 at ISO 800, if I didn't have a D3X, I might feel the need to jump up to ISO 1600 with the D3X to get that faster shutter speed. The question is, would I necessarily get a sharper result, assuming that half of that shutter speed used with the D3X would be perfectly adequate to produce a sharp result with the D3?

[Ray]

The shutter speed issue is hard - Canon cameras are somehow notorious for requiring faster shutter speeds to freeze action ...

I think the issue depends on the sensor/microlens layout ad the subject matter in big part. Simulations or better real tests are the only way to check.

Edmund

That's interesting! I have no idea why the microlens layout might have any bearing on the shutter speed required to freeze action. Testing such issues using the cameras on a tripod should be no problem. Get your friend to drive by in your Ferrari at a constant speed whilst you photograph her.  

Testing hand-held shots is more problematic, with or without image stabilisation, since camera shake varies from shot to shot.

The old 1/FL guideline for shutter speed applied to 8"x12" prints from the 35mm format, and that would apply equally to the D3 and D3X since both cameras are of the same format.

The impression I get is that, on a tripod, the D3X is no sharper at ISO 1600 and above than the D3, and the 5D2 is hardly sharper than the D700 at ISO 1600 and above.

If the subject is moving, then both cameras will benefit from an increased shutter speed at ISO 1600, to the same degree, and both images from each camera will still be equally sharp (or unsharp). I would predict the same would apply to camera shake, if camera shake were constant.

[petermarrek]

It is with great amusement reading all these comments about and why the D3x exists, mostly written by folks who are guessing at best. As far as obsolescence is concerned, My D2x still serves admirably making money for me. The D3x is great when I need the extra resolution. An added bonus is that I can now take more chances physically with the D2x as it has become more expendable. Can't understand why more people don't snap these "outdated" cameras up, judging from the abuse I have put mine through these cameras will function well for many years to come.

[kers]

It is with great amusement reading all these comments about and why the D3x exists, mostly written by folks who are guessing at best. As far as obsolescence is concerned, My D2x still serves admirably making money for me. The D3x is great when I need the extra resolution. An added bonus is that I can now take more chances physically with the D2x as it has become more expendable. Can't understand why more people don't snap these "outdated" cameras up, judging from the abuse I have put mine through these cameras will function well for many years to come.

I had the D2x and now have a D3:

the D3 is at iso 2000 about what you get on iso 400 with the d2x  when it comes to noise.

The D3 has a viewfinder that lets you take a sharp picture with manual focus. ( a shame i had to wait for the D3 for that)

The D3 let's you use the 14-24mm lens - there is no alternative for the dx size

the D3 has live view that lets you focus precise

etc

[eronald]

It is with great amusement reading all these comments about and why the D3x exists, mostly written by folks who are guessing at best. As far as obsolescence is concerned, My D2x still serves admirably making money for me. The D3x is great when I need the extra resolution. An added bonus is that I can now take more chances physically with the D2x as it has become more expendable. Can't understand why more people don't snap these "outdated" cameras up, judging from the abuse I have put mine through these cameras will function well for many years to come.

I have never had a pro series camera damaged by abuse. I don't think it's physically possible for a human being to damage one without a lever effect eg. falls with an attached long lens, or foreign matter in the mirror box. I drop my N and C   cameras into an unpadded bag, they're all pro models, they go where I go and after a few years they're still working perfectly; I do need to change shutters occasionally, but that is considered normal wear and tear. Of course if I did strange things like use sealed plastic bags or rain protectors, I'm sure I would have failures ...

Edmund