Where's the hoopla over the D3x?

<p>I'll give another perspective on $8,000 cameras.</p>

<p>3 years ago I purchased a Canon 1Ds mark II for $6,500. </p>

<p>The entire purchase including lenses was far less than just one of the medium format systems that I used due to multiple back cost and the high cost of medium format lenses, yet for my work I get better results from the small (compared to what I was used to) digital system.</p>

<p>In 3 years it has easily paid for itself in savings in film costs and scan costs.</p>

<p>I just bought its replacement, the Mark III, for $6,600. I'll sell the Mark II for $3,000. With the above mentioned scan and film savings I have still saved money even including the new body. Selling the Mark II is just gravy.</p>

<p>There are many like me who are not crazy rich and are not dentists or surgeons or lawyers who put these cameras to good use without writing lots of posts and bragging about the cameras, so there might be many more out there than you expect. </p>

<p>I've never spent over $18,000 for a car and drive them til they drop, but there are plenty of hourly wage employees' cars and pickups in our parking lot that are $30k+ vehicles depreciating at $4k per year and getting changed out every 3 years. to me that's nuts, to them it's normal but they probably think an $8k camera body is nuts. It all depends on your priorities. </p>

 

<p>Film is vastly more expensive to shoot than Digital. <br>

Sticker shock and the state of the economy as stated by others gets my vote.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Armando's post two above this one (especially the last paragraph) and I recommend it to others who are worried about depreciation (such as Dennis, further up this thread, who bought a D3 as a retirement present to himself; an excellent choice, I must say!).</p>

<p>Consider: If you drive any new car you can buy home from the dealer and then try to resell it, you'll quickly learn that it has depreciated in a few minutes more than the D3 has depreciated in the past year and a half. Sure, $1500 depreciation sounds like a lot on a $5000 camera, but that's a maximum of $100 per month, and those who aren't using their camera enough to warrant that shouldn't spend that much. Less expensive SLRs depreciate only a few hundred dollars per year, and sub-$1000 SLRs depreciate even less--but again, if you're not getting enough use out of them to warrant even <em>that</em> , then buy used (i.e., after someone else has eaten the depreciation).</p>

<p>I always build in generous depreciation expectations when I buy an SLR. With each $8000 Canon I've bought, I <strong>assumed</strong> that it would halve in value in two years (down to $4000) and then halve again the next two years (down to $2000) and then halve yet again (down to $1000). If I decide I won't be getting appropriate value from the camera (i.e., $2000-worth of value each of the first two years), I just don't buy it. So far I haven't been disappointed (my 4-year-old $8000 1DsII is worth just over $2000 now and I find no reason to complain, as it has helped me to get tens of thousands of pleasing photographs; who can put a price on that?).</p>

<p>Ellis, the probelm for the 14 bit NEF files from the Nikon is that there is no real useful tonal data in that 11th and 12th stop.....unlike that of the 16 bit files from the Hassey. Eight and four tonal values in that 11th and 12th stop are of little use and riddled with noise.</p>

<p>As to DxO, I've seen results that exceed even what Nikon and Canon say the cameras are capable of. If you do a wedge test, you probably will come up with very different results. I know I did for my 1Ds Mk2 and 40D.....in the order of nearly 2 stops.</p>

<p>That's not to say the Nikon is bad. But at base iso, where, let's be honest....most landscape and studio photographers work at.....the 16 bit Hassey backs spank the Canon and Nikons in terms of quality. There is no comparison.</p>

<p>Nikon probably isnt selling very many D3x's these days I'm sure. $8000 means they went after the upper echelon of the market. The only killer point is that Sony's A900 is under $3,200.00 and the Canon 5D Mark II is well under $2,500.00, then the Nikon D700 is basically a D3 with wings at $2319.95 as of this posting at adorama. Its just too tempting to go Sony A900 or Canon 5D to consider a car or small slum house downpayment. Its just the worst time ever for a hulking price on a dslr come out. It does look like Canon and Nikon are trying to "hold the line" and make sure theres a marked difference in prices between the Upper end and the mid and lower end. The Hoopla over the D3x you ask... the hoopla is all over the price! I mean at $6,000.00 it would've still hurt but been more like it... $5,500.00 wouldve been the camera of the century. Thats where all the hoopla is... the price.<br /> </p>

<p>I agree with the guy who said in another thread that most photographers who would pay $6000 for the D3x will pay $8000 for it--one either needs it badly enough or one doesn't--but I also agree with the expectation that the D3x price will settle down in the mid-$6000 range as the $8000 MSRP Canon 1Ds3 has done.</p>

<p>i love love love my D300. When it dies i will buy a full frame (which may be sooner than later :-)</p>

<p>Most people who have D3's or the equivalent Canon have someone else buy them, like newspapers or news agencies. The D3x will be $5 in six months. Then its value. If the sensor on the D3 or D700 i enough for you, get a D700.<br>

I have a paparazzi mate who makes do with three 40D's with the add on battery grips because he gets big enough Raw images from them as it is. His agency won't take emailed images bigger than 5Mb. Also, they are cheap enough that he just replaces them as they break...and they do. His advice to me was first buy good glass and stick to the brand. He says there is very little to choose between Canon and Nikon in glass for his application...people news.<br>

I asked him what he would do in the next year. His response was to probably get a 50D or 5D Mk2. What about Nikon? He says wait till the D300 replacement which will have the big sensor in a sealed body. His second Nikon choice would be the D700. What about a D3? He says its too big and cumbersome for his use, but he would buy the D3 over the D3x because he does not need the huge file sizes, and as they are now at $4k, they are getting attractive. Pay 8K for the Dx3...no way.<br>

He says the appeal for staying with DX rather than FX is the reach factor on sumething like a 300/F4, ie, 400mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D3x will be $5 in six months.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. Now that's a good price. Unfortunately, gas will be $8,000 a gallon, so it will all even out.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Plenty of speculation and interest over at fred miranda and, inevitably, dpreview...a lot of people want to know about the performance of the sensor in particular; because of the gap in Nikon's marketing strategy that sees the company with two competitors offering highly desirable, quasi 'affordable' 20+ Mp FF cameras. More megapixels with good noise control at moderate to high ISO levels are absolutely wonderful for landscape work, never mind studios. Much easier to render fine detail for a given print size (given high MTF lenses), and more crop options...which is why most now have ~12 Mp cameras rather than 6Mp bodies, and why more serious film landscape photographers use 6x7 or 4x5 than 645 or 35mm.</p>

<p>Big question is: when will Nikon staunch the coming blood loss in the middle of the market: the advanced amateur category? The consensus 'best guess' seems to be 6-9 months, leading to a 'D700x' 24Mp model in mid-year 09, at around $US 3000-3500. Nikon may get away with a price premium due to the D3x sensor's likely overall superiority, but this will not be very large. Expect the price of the D700, which was a years-late 5D catchup model, to continue to drop significantly over the next few months. Life in 09 is very much about cash flow and capitalisation for the industry giants...</p>

<p>The D3x is of course a pro camera, built to compete with Canon's 1dsIII, the street price of which it will approximate in short order. Which still does little to negate the argument that many people will not need the pro qualities and features of the D300x body, for, for example, studio work - leaving an open door for the Sony A900 and 5DII.</p>

<p>Because camera bodies are 'loss leaders' for expensive lens and accessory systems these days, many uncommitted or non 'rusted on' Nikon users are looking hard at the new models - and why not? Competition is healthy and delivers fine equipment for all of us.</p>

<p>Face it, they charge these prices because people will pay them.<br>

A digital camera costs less to manufacture because electronics are cheaper than mechanics.</p>

<p>Steve, a film transport system doesn't cost more to make than the sensor and the computer inside. Think about it.</p>

<p>But otherwise you're correct - the price is set by comparing the product to the competion. Nikon is certain that the D3X is superior to the 1Ds Mk III - therefore, a price to match.</p>

<p>Tell you one little secret. Go here to see for yourself the facts: http://www.dxomark.com/<br>

As you can see - currently the D700 and D3 (not D3x), even at "only" 12 mgpxls, are equal to or better than any other model <br>

DSLR. I've seen - but haven't yet purchased my own to test - images shot with the D3x and they are indeed impressive. As stated<br>

by most - it's a pro camera for pros who need what that camera does. I've been doing this for a living for over 40 years and can only<br>

say that if ACME came out with a better camera tomorrow, I'd switch in a minute. For now - for what I need my tools to do for me - <br>

it's Nikon. If I shot Video, I'd probably seriously consider the 5DII - though my educated guess is that Nikon, having come out with <br>

the first DSLR that shoots video (D90), they too will have a more professional model with more video capabilities soon. But since <br>

I don't shoot video and probably never will, my needs are completely satisfied and then some by the D3 / D700. I do, however, <br>

very much look forward to picking up a D3x as soon as I have time to bother. BTW - just in the interest of full disclosure for all <br>

those who sometimes scoff at anyone using a different "brand" than that which is the more popular, I used Canon from 1990 until<br>

the release of the F5. That after 22 years of using Nikon. It was a rough transition for me from film to digital, I must admit. But<br>

I must say, I've never been as excited about photography as I am now. Camera Raw and Lightroom, CS4, and the latest pro <br>

digital printers combined with a big shiny new Mac Pro give this photographer more control and more creative tools than we've <br>

ever had - ever. It's a wonderful time to be a photographer. </p>

<p><em>As you can see - currently the D700 and D3 (not D3x), even at "only" 12 mgpxls, are equal to or better than any other model DSLR<br /></em> <em><br /></em><br /> As far as I can tell, DXOMark don't give any points for resolution. They just resample all the images from the different cameras to equal resolution and evaluate the signal quality. Of course the D3 and D700 do well in such a test. If they gave points for resolution also, then the rankings would be quite different.</p>

<p>Happy New Year,<br>

Frankly speaking, I see no reason for any "hoopla" about the D3X... I think this camera is just born from a marketing image requirement to compete with the Canon EOS IDs MkIII.<br>

Technically speaking, it is just a live demonstration of the fact the engineers, at least at production level, are still unable to offer a very high definition (very high pixel density) without sacrificing the high ISO - low noise performance and probably (who knows the real cost of things in this matter) to produce a full format high pixel density sensor at a cost low enough to market it at the same price they can for a lower pixel density more performing at high ISO one.<br>

Though the habit to use a small format camera for classic landscape or studio works precede the digital era, as far as I'm concerned, I still believe - as an old MF (film) user - this is a misconception of the optimum use of a small format camera. The D3x price tag is such a digital MF is perfectly envisageable for most potential buyers already having a MF system with interchangeable backs and a bunch of lenses and no Nikon lenses in their bag. The final cost of a complete D3x system (including the related lenses) won't be so much lower at all. The result, even with not the best of the best of today's digital MF back will be clearly superior anyway IQ wise.<br>

The research is nonetheless interesting but will only lead to a truly viable product (even at a similar price tag at least for a professional) when these high definition small format cameras will retain the high ISO-low noise qualities of the less defined bodies of today. Then the expense will be fully justified as such a camera can replace both systems.<br>

For the present time, I only wish the D3 depreciating again and reach the present price level of the D700... For a small format camera, both the D3 and the D700 seem to me much more in accordance with the small format philosophy.<br>

Now, if someone wants to buy a D3x (which most probably is a good camera for waht it is technically worth) he or she will spend his (her) money not mine.<br>

FPW</p>

<p>"Where's the hoopla over the D3x?"</p>

<p>Exactly the question I was asking myself just last week. The thing is in the shops right now. People are taking images with it, I presume. It's not 'what's the fuss', but 'where's the fuss'? All well thought&written contributions in above thread still couldn't give me a really satisfying answer to the question where the hoopla is!</p>

<p>Francois, the lens range available for a small format camera is far greater than that available in any medium format system and the portability with comparable functionality is greater. Due to the improved definition possible with digital cameras, small formats will simply take over what medium format was used for in the past, in fact to a large extent this has already happened. This is not due to a misconception but a simple matter of practicality. Only very few people will be using medium and large format with digital capture. I have never seen a landscape photographer use a MF digital system in the field. I have seen them use MF and LF film in the old days. They're using small formats nowadays for what used to be MF/LF territory. And thanks to the very nice PC-E series of lenses, you can have movements which are very useful for the landscape photographer.</p>

<p>As far as the D3X is behind the D3 in high ISO performance - of course it is - but not everyone is doing photography that requires high ISO. Lots of people shoot still subjects primarily, and ISO 800 is plenty fast (by ISO 1600 the D3 probably has the edge). They aren't using MF because of extreme expense and lack of versatility, and the fact that you can't trust that any of the current MF makers will be alive in a few years, and investing in such a system over the long term is IMO not a good idea unless you really have the need for something better than a D3X can do (with 150 or more different lenses that are available) and have absolutely no need for moving subject photography.</p>

 

<p>Dear Illka,</p>

<p>I have to respectfully disagree...</p>

<p>The main reason why you don't see digital MF out of the studio is purely financial.</p>

<p>I used a Hasselblad (film) system for years before it was stolen in my home. I carried it with me in the field for a lot of uages. All in all it wasn't more cumbersome to carry than the three Nikon SLR with motor I used when I was a Photojournalist, the interchangeable backs allowed me to dispense with a second body for changing film emulsion during a photo scession and I had only to carry a Leica M5 and three lenses as a back-up or the "main system" when I needed extreme portability. The heart of this Hasselblad system was no less than a 553 ELX.</p>

<p>The investment in lenses of a professional using an MF system is considerable. The choice of lenses even today if you go Hasselblad or Mamiya (a.s.o.) for MF goes from fisheye to at least 500mm (about the equivalent of a 300mm on 35mm cameras), and I know very few users, unless they are specialized in some photographic branches which are not really the realm of MF who owns a longer tele-lens on a small format DSLR. Nowadays, features like AE, AF, TTL flashes and even matrix metering are widespread on these systems. So, even relatively fast photography is quite possible. Which I suppose is a blessing for fashion photographers. There are devices which convert most reflex MF to operate with movements like a LF which are equivalent to the PC lenses on a small format.</p>

<p>What makes the difference is the relatively limited maximum aperture available for a given focal length (moreover if you consider the field of view) and much slower fps...</p>

<p>On some classic field applications of MF cameras, it is even usual to carry and use Studio flashes and reflectors the use of a D3x system will not avoid and this kind of "portable studios" litterally dwarf a Hasselblad system, let alone a D3x system, so the difference in portability is negligible ! ...</p>

<p>Few subjects - if any - which used to be treated in MF wil require extreme focal lengths like the ones sometimes used on small format cameras and these lenses are not conducive to portability , even in small format, but they are carried anyway in very difficult terrain by wildlife and sports photographers not to speak about paparazzi.</p>

<p>Landscape and studio works requiring the classic view camera movements won't be carried out with PC lenses with the same degree of precision both in the use of the movements and the focusing of the lenses with a small format camera, even using the excellent screen of a Nikon FX DSLR in live view, unless you tether the camera to a laptop and use the large screen of the latter to proceed. Again it will dwarf the camera system itself even if it is a MF.</p>

<p>Finally the excellent definition of a D3x will never equal the one you can expect from a recent MF digital back.</p>

<p>True the prices are nowadays prohibitive for most photographers, including most pros, at least if you start from scratch. But at $ 8000 <strong>to which you will have to add the necessary lenses</strong> I don't think the total expense will be substantially lower than the acquisition of such a back if you have already the MF camera and its lenses. For example, with the bunch of Mamiya 645 lenses (though manual) I have switching to a digital Mamiya Z of the last generation will require less than $10,000... I simply can't afford it but neither the D3x. Nonetheless, should I have the $8,000 required for a D3x and was mainly interested in MF kind of photography like I was at a certain moment of my carreer, I would probably go for it instead of the D3x.</p>

<p>The trend toward more performing and more affordable sensors is not confined to small format cameras. Within a few years, unless the contradiction between high pixel density and high ISO performance is solved and the long dreamed of "universal camera" becomes available around a small format DSLR, the cost of a digital medium format equipment will return to the average cost of the equivalent gear in film era and at the nominal formats then in use.</p>

<p>The so-called historical trend toward smaller format was a reality in film times, because all types of cameras used the same emulsion and only the size of the negatives made the difference. As the emulsions tended to render almost equivalent resultls in common enlargmeent size (at least for the average viewer) the trend was logical.</p>

<p>Today, the situation is a bit more complex. As long as the the technical contradiction between pixel density and high ISO performance won't be solved, the larger the sensor for the same pixel density, the better the high ISO performance but conversely a higher number of pixels, each dedicated to a smaller part of the subject is possible on a larger sensor (hence more nuances will be resolved) without altering the ISO performance. So, eventually the MF image quality will stay superior. The only limit will be what our eyes will be able to discriminate.</p>

<p>The real chance of the small format DSLR in this race toward performance is more of an economical nature than anything else. If a certain IQ threshold is reached (and I think it will be reached in the future) which lets only a marginal perceptible advantage to larger formats, then it will be possible to use only one system for every kind of photography and the universal camera will be born, and your arguments against MF will become plainly valid as it will allow the photographer to concentrate on a single system. The D3x (moreover at the present price) is unable to claim such universality. For me it is clearly a premature product triggered by marketing considerations to demonstrate Nikon is able to produce equal or better products than Canon on the same ground.</p>

<p>Look at the EOS 1Ds Mk III sales, I don't think they are so flourishing at all... IMHO, I think the 1Ds MkIII, the Nikon D3x and the would be Leica S2 are not promised to a large diffusion and won't serously challenge the MF market at all... It is a case of too early too few and too expensive to convince people.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's not just economics, it's also versatility. Can you do with MF digital what you can do with a 14-24+D3X? Can you get a 24mm (35mm equivalent) PC-E lens with that much shift per focal length for crop-frame MF digital? No, you can't. For view cameras, maybe you can get one but the cost of the capture device and inability to handle a moving person on the street without blur may not work. With view cameras, when you do macros with tilt, you need a huge setup which is sensitive to wind unlike a D3X+85mm PC-E. Also, sometimes you can take advantage of hand-holdability with a D3X - take a look at Nikon's example shot in the D3X samples gallery with the 200/2 at f/2.8 - do that with MF digital ... I use lenses from 18mm to 420mm and could never get the equivalent of that in MF digital. Not only because of money but because the gear doesn't exist.</p>

<p>And by the way it's not at all hard to master precise tilt - I have been actively using tilt in close-ups for only weeks (my use of the 24mm PC-E didnt' require it) and I can do it accurately enough using just the optical viewfinder, and there's always the possibility of reviewing the image and zooming in and taking a corrected shot if needed. This is a non-issue and setting up a view camera and adjusting it for a shot take a lot more time than doing it with 35mm digital. Yet the effectiveness is there, with phenomenal near-far sharpness.</p>

<p>While you suggest that larger sensors have intrinsic advantage with respect to high ISO performance the reality is that the 35mm sized sensors rule this area. Whatever the reason, MF digital systems are typically limited to ISO 400. Whereas reviewers suggest that the D3X still has better IQ at ISO 1600 than the D3 ... which is saying a lot. There is no contradiction between small pixels and high ISO performance. Of course if you look at the image at a higher magnification you get more noise with small pixels, but if you print at the same size you'll get more detail and if the detail is too small to see then the additional noise is averaged out to yield an approximately similar result than the larger-pixel camera, as long as the photon collectione efficiency and overall sensor size remain the same. There may be slight differences but not anything to make a point about.</p>

 

<p>Resolution- Nikon vs Canon. Eh, I think everyone using either system has their favorite lenses.<br>

And to get down to the nitty-gritty, most lenses are better than most photographers.<br>

Look at (and understand) MTF charts (Modulation and Transfer Function) before proclaiming any particular brand is <br>

"better". Go here to read an article which explains MTF: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml<br>

Then go to the manufacturers websites and look for yourself at the MTF charts on any given lens. <br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111<br>

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/index.htm<br>

When you've finished examining all that - maybe take a bit of time to read this stuff here:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml<br>

After reading and digesting some of the science that relates to photography, you may be surprised and even enlightened . . . and I hope inspired to create whilst continuing to learn about that which most of us love - making good pictures. <br>

We are living in a very exciting time for photography. After 40 years of seeing and shooting, in my humble opinion, what really matters is making good pictures. For me - for the work I do and enjoy the most, Nikon (currently) does a fantastic job of giving me what I need . . . and it just keeps getting better. </p>