Nikon D3x Announced

sorry kris, but chances are it's the Sony 24.6 MP sensor in the D3x. Joe W. has a point, though; nikon has so far had better performance on the same chip then sony, which they better, since sony makes other things than cameras.

OK Dave, so if the D3x is a master of landscape photography, then I guess that makes you 4x5 cameras obsolete. Please whip me an email so I can take them off your hands ;)

 

So the D3 is for pro's shooting sport, pj and events. The D3x must be for part time pros shooting landscape, studio. I hope it is cheap enough for them to justify the price.

Great news! Nikon finally has a full frame camera that should be able to compete with Canon's 1DsIII for landscape and architectural image quality. Great for competition which will eventually drive prices of full frame DSLRs down!

So here we go again - - & I still won't be able to afford it if it comes with a price tag of about $ 8,000 like the equivalent Canon....

 

Nice to dream though......

 

Lil :-)

<b>Troll fail</b><p>

<del>yes, sony has 24MP, Nikon will have that as predicted. Now, do we still hear Nikon users saying higher MP don't matter ? haha</del>

Pixel count isn't everything. It's the quality of those pixels that count. And a well-informed rumour has it that the D3x is even better than the Hasselblad H3D in a controlled light environment. That is to say, not having to crank up ISO too much. If that turns out to be true, it's certainly a very viable alternative to medium format, what with the choice of lenses, flash system, accessories, and all.

 

I could certainly do with lots of pixels with a high dynamic range and low ISO for my landscapes. The D3 is much too fast at ISO 200 for some applications, forcing me to use ND filters and much too small apertures to get long enough exposures. But then again, that makes it just about perfect in other situations.

 

But I'll pass on this one. Simply can't justify the cost. I'm saving up for a new version of the 200/4 Micro which I hope might be in the Nikon pipeline.

"rumour has it that the D3x is even better than the Hasselblad H3D" Gee, I wonder who started that rumour. I really wish Nikon came out with some new lenses instead of more pointless cameras. Something like a 1.4/85 VR AF-S; now that is something that would get me excited.

I wonder why Ellis has posted anything on this thread! Uhmmm! Do you guys think he is already writing his report to be

posted on Dec. First after Nikon announcement?

 

If all this is true, I think this camera will be great to use with my DX lenses and I still get 10 MB files! Great! I'll buy one as

long as the price is the same as the D700! :)

It is likely that is has the Sony sensor, and teh Sony A900 is on par in dyamic range with the D3 (dxomark.com). Of course you need to apply more noise reduction to high ISO images of D3x than to D700/D3. But again, the Sony is ranked number five at dxomark.com.

 

dpreview.com says [about the Sony A900 with the 24mp sensor]"Measured noise as you move up the ISO range is broadly the same for all cameras [A900, D700, EOS 4D, EOS 1DS Mark III], though one glance at the crops above should be enough to tell you that Sony is making increasingly desperate attempts to control noise through pretty brutal noise reduction as you head up the scale. By ISO 3200 the result is a blurry mess with little fine detail - with the added insult of visible chroma noise in the shadow areas. I think it's fair to say that ISO 3200 and 6400 are firmly in the 'emergency use only' bracket (of course with 24MP to play with you shouldn't have many problems at small print sizes).

 

Funny, the guy from the local Nikon service told me a month ago that a 24MP Nikon was on its way ;-)

 

I wait for the day when the cameras do something similar as the retina in our eye: good light, high resolution. Poor lighting, photoreceptors connect to each other in order to average out noise, but at the cost of resolution (bith spatial and temporal). A camera working like that would be D3x at low ISO, and D3 at high ISO (in terms of noise and resolution).

<b>Collateral damage troll fail.</b><p>

 

<del>As Anson pointed out, where are all the Nikon users that consistantly bashed the 1Ds markIII & 5D markII high MP count because it ruins the image quality, don't see to many of those posts on here. Come on Nikon users doesn't doubling the MP on the camera affect the IQ to the point of where the camera is not even worth considering? You knew Nikon would come out with this camera to compete with Canon, I think it is about time. Would be a great Landscape camera for Nikon users. Now if Nikon would come out with a series of some high quality affordable professional f/4 lenses like Canon, I might just switch to Nikon.</del><p>

 

<i>C'mon, Eric, you can do better than to cite Anson Ko as supporting evidence! -- LJ</i>

Is the lack of high iso settings because Nikon is keen to fit this in as a landscape/studio camera and keep the D3 for

sports/reportage? Or is it because the Sony sensor is just piss at really high iso? My prediction is a £3999 or $7000 price

tag. If they announce a D800 for half that I'll def be tempted. If not then I'll just keep saving for a Phase One P65+

 

I was really hoping for a larger sensor... Wonder what Canon will be doing to the crippled 1DIII next year.

I think the best thing about Nikon is that, although it's not manufacturing any new lenses with really big apertures, you can still use its oldest but really sharp lenses on the newest cameras. I think investment in Nikon system is a really good thing for this reason. I don't think people with DX lenses should sell their good DX lenses at all. Because, DX lenses are lighter than their FX brothers. Especially on a giant camera like D3 or X. Maybe that's why nikon delayed the FX cameras.

People who want high frame rates and higlhy light sensitive sensor can go for D3. So, I don't think this new camera can be a D3 killer. They are totly different cameras. Anyway, why would sport photographers or photojournalists want a camera with 24 MP sensor. This camera is for studio and landscape like the Canon's 1DSIII. With a little bit more pixel count and I am sure better ISO performance. And the DX lens usability advantage. What I'd like to see is better sharpening.

I am a little surprised by this camera. I actually thought Nikon would come out with an upgrade to the D2x first. If the D3 now becomes their sports body, which certainly becomes the case with the release of the D3, have they decided to kill the pro 1.5x body? Which makes me wonder now what Canon will do for their next pro sports body.

should be a flood of D700 on the market. yea baby.

Nikon currently makes 35/1.4 Ai-S, 50/1.4 AF-S, 50/1.2 Ai-S, 85/1.4 AF-D, 105/2 AF-D DC, 135/2 AF-D DC, 200/2

AF-S VR etc. fast prime lenses. In the second hand market, readily available are 28/2 Ai-S, and others. Then

there are Zeiss manual focus fast primes available (11 types). I would say that as far as fast glass is

concerned, the Nikon system is well covered. The only thing that is missing is a fast AF-S wide angle prime, and

I suspect one will be announced within the next year.

 

It looks like Nikon is not planning on making another FX single-digit body. Half of their current DSLRs are

(after the D3X becomes available) FX. Many new lenses have been announced since the introduction of the D3 but

still there are some basic things missing such as a prosumer set of f/4 zooms, which I think would be welcome by

many, an AF-S VR 80-400, and the fast wide angle autofocus prime which I already mentioned. But if one is willing

to look at older glass, there are gems to be found.

 

When considering the D3X as a competitor for MF systems, remember that none of the MF digitals are known for good

high ISO performance; many of them don't even have ISO settings higher than 400. ISO 1600 should do just fine in

this market; in most cases if you really want 24 MP resolution, high ISO isn't in your mind - or shouldn't be,

because the images will not have that level of actual detail in most cases anyway - you'll probably be using fast

lenses before going there and most of these don't resolve 24MP wide open - far from it; even the D3 can show

their faults at wide apertures.

<i>It looks like Nikon is not planning on making another FX single-digit body.</i>

<p>

Typo. Should have said another <i>DX</i> single-digit body. But the D300 is already excellent so this should not be a big concern.

You're right Ilkka we need an 80-400mm update.

You're right Ilkka we need an 80-400mm update. Which I think is due now.

D3X.......when we see it on the shelf, we're all going to buy one....!;)

So are we to expect a D700...X in the not too distant thereafter also ?

"When considering the D3X as a competitor for MF systems, remember that none of the MF digitals are known for good high ISO performance; many of them don't even have ISO settings higher than 400."

 

Illka, we have gone from 12 to 24mp and all of a sudden this jump is supposed to render the D3 usless for studio/landscape work and put a small format camera in the realms of the 'big boys'. The proper studio cameras are now 65 MEGAPIXELS, and that isn't even a full frame 6x6! So, apart from this camera being a 'poor mans' medium format camera, can someone tell me why I would need all those pixels jammed into a little 35mm camera?

i just got my Nikon pro magazine ,did not open it yet - same with the other last 3 copys ,i do not bother

- i'm a Nikon pro for years , and i would not update my digital gears " d70s-dx2-d200"...not until they fade out , if ?....save my money for a couple of lenses.

Tom, I'm sure you know that you can use any camera you like to do photograph what you want to. No one is saying

you should buy a D3X.

 

The D3X is not a medium format camera - again, no one is saying that it is. However, it may be applicable in some

situations where previously people used medium format. This is not a new development - moving slowly towards

smaller formats is a trend that has been going on since the beginning of photography. Whether small formats can

replace larger ones in any particular application is of course a matter of judgment. Just because a photographer

isn't willing to pay $40000 for a single digital camera back doesn't mean that they're poor - actually it means

that they are sane.

OK I agree Illka, I can see how this camera could become a viable option for someone who can't justify the expense of a proper studio camera. I was merely pointing out that it is 1/3 of the resolution of the pro studio cameras, yet a D3 is now considered only good enough for low light photography. I find it laughable to hear that some people will dump their D700's for the D3x. I guess a fool and his money are soom parted.

This is exciting news. I hope to see some reasonably priced, used D3 cameras enter the market.