Blistering D3x Review

<p>From a pro-shooter in the B&H user review...</p>

<P>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/592951-REG/Nikon_25442_D3x_SLR_Digital_Camera.html#reviews

<blockquote>

<p>"I have just completed an overseas shoot in China and have shot about 6,000 images with both the d3x and d3 and can share some thoughts. Overall I found the d3 much more flexible and versatile mainly because its iso capability surpasses the d3x in every aspect even beggining at 1200 .I found the d3x useful only in about a dozen shots out of those thousands when both were in similiar circumstances and those shots were at 24 m pixels. I regret purchasing this camera for 8k and believe that a more correct price is about 2,800 -3,000 especially in view of the new canon 5d mkii."</p>

</blockquote>

<P>

<p>Objection your honor - hearsay!</p>

<p>The law of diminishing returns ...</p>

<p>I suspect the camera was the WRONG tool for the guys type of shooting. If I were going to drop 8 grand for a body, I'd darn well make sure what it could and couldn't do before I did ! The D3x seems to be the studio and landscape camera. Using it in other settings would not be it's best use. ( Of course, $8000 is STILL a lot of money and I will never spend that on a camera body ! But, I'm not the one making money with it. )</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm with Jonh. all this confirms for me is that the D3X is a specific use camera, and the reviewer quoted above used it for the wrong specific use.</p>

<p>I have seen a few samples of images taken with both cameras, then the d3x files downresed to d3 size... the d3x seems to have an advantage in high ISO noise in some of those files. If you look at both files at 100% on the computer, though, you'll think the d3x is worse. It really depends on the output you are creating with it. Specific use, sure, but it seems to be better than the D3 in more broad strokes when considering output, not simply digital files at 100%. I could be wrong, as I dont have a d3x, but most other people that have used them seem to think they are worth the money. </p>

<p>To me, this confirms my view of the benefit of high-ISO capability. It is a great luxury to have the ability go up to 1600/3200/6400 when needed. But if you have the light, strobes, whatever, the 24.5 MP would be good too.</p>

<p>So this guy (Steve) believes that the D3X should be cheaper than the D3. Well, I believe Nikon should just give me one for free. :-)<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/592951-REG/Nikon_25442_D3x_SLR_Digital_Camera.html#reviews">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/592951-REG/Nikon_25442_D3x_SLR_Digital_Camera.html#reviews</a></p>

<p>Well, to each their own.....<br>

D3x cheaper than the D3..... hummmmmm Did he check out the Canon<br>

EOS-1Ds Mark III - It's a $ 7999.99 camera & that's where Nikon got the price. Add to that - it's more of a camera than the Canon....<br>

So to compare it to the 5D II - - really.<br>

Please - can someone waste their time on helping me find a new printer/copier/scanner/fax instead?<br>

I'm not getting much help anywhere.... :-(</p>

<p>Lil :-)<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15710" ></a></p>

<p>For all we know Steve is a trolling Canonite or a KR boycott disciple. Still, for 8K, most would expect a more versatile tool; one could come to Steve's conclusion by clicking on BHPV's specification tab.</p>

<p>Ok, so he gives it a bad review because he bought the wrong tool for the job... He said it himself "<em>Overall I found the d3 much more flexible and versatile" </em> , so it's his own damn fault, he didn't really need 24mp so why did he buy it, it's not as if he didn't know the price when he bought it, or that it offered zero new features... It was also no mystery that the ISO performance would be expected to be a bit worse than the D3. Personally, i take any review of any equipement where no pictures are provided to prove the point in question with a truckload of salt. Not to be mean, but his review points out his ignorance and perhaps his delusion in believing that more megapixels would give him better pictures.</p>

<p>I can empathize with the OP. When I first got my D3 about a year ago, I had some problems with it, some the fault of a minor defect in the camera, most the fault of my lack of understanding of the camera. I returned it. Months later, I came to the realization that I needed some specific features offered only by this camera and in time bought another one. I have come to better understand how to use the D3 to get the shots I need from it and am fully satisfied with it.</p>

<p>Last week, an avid D40x user friend of mine unknowingly ordered a D90 last week from Amazon by mistake (used their one-click order option). He got it on Thursday, took a few shots with it and proclaimed it was no better than his D40x and told me he was going to return it. I related the above story to him and told him to at least give the camera a try and that he might like it. He had a shoot on Saturday night, decided to use the D90 and to his surprise, he loves the camera. To my pleasant surprise, he claims there is a noticeable improvement in picture quality over his D40x. (Perhaps it is time for me to upgrade my D40!)</p>

<p>I don't know anything about the Dan but perhaps he, like me, my D40/D90 friend and many other photographers blame the gear first and the photographer last for photographic 'problems'. It can takes months of shooting and thousands of shots to learn how to properly use a camera. Perhaps Dan should take the time discover what this incredible camera can do when used properly and learn the techniques necessary to operate it correctly to maximize its abilities and maximize the quality of his photos.</p>

<p>And Dan, if you really no longer want your camera, sell it! You don't have to keep it.</p>

<p>Elliot, It wasn't Dan that bought the camera, he was just relaying the story ;-)</p>

 

<p>If the short review of a fellow photo.net user makes any difference - I have been using my D3x now for about a week and am very happy with it, both in terms of image quality and ergonomics. Just as my D2x, it is geared for landscapes and studio: tripod mounted, low ISO, slow and deliberate technique (think several minutes to set up a shot). I don't think it is best used handheld or in rapid-fire mode.</p>

<p>So far I have only had time to learn the controls and settings and take a few simple flower macros in my spare time after my regular job. I intend to test more thoroughly in Shenandoah NP this coming long weekend.</p>

<p>@Kuryan</p>

<p>I was surprised to find you don't have a web site - so I presume you are a serious amateur (rather than a pro). You must be the only hobbyist who owns a D3X I guess (assuming my assumptions are right) :-)</p>

<p>Oppss... Sorry Dan. Didn't realize that. Oh well! At least it makes for an interesting discussion!</p>

<p>Kuryan, looking forward to your comments. Perhaps you can post a review on B&H to follow the one review there.</p>

<p>I am not a professional in that photography is not a source of income for me, merely a source of mental healing.</p>

<p>I'm happy to post my thoughts on the system here if requested; however, photo.net's review is likely to be much more thorough than anything I could come up with. Another good ongoing review is at Lloyd Chambers's site, diglloyd.com, but an annual subscription is required.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan already has an on-going review on the D3X: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00S6IK">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00S6IK</a></p>

<p>I don't think photo.net has a review sample from Nikon yet, and I am not about to spend $8000 myself. Personally, I am quite happy with the D700. To some degree I agree with Steve, the reviewer who posted to B&H, that I would rather have 12MP with better high ISO results than 24MP. And since I shoot a fair amount of sports and wildlife, the DX D300 is a better choice in many cases for me anyway.<br>

Having said that, almost anybody can post a review to B&H just like they can post to photo.net's forums. There is not much quality control and it is up to the readers to decide how valuable the information is.</p>

<p>Kuryan, if you can share some of your thoughts, I am sure a lot of us will appreciate it.</p>

<p>Sounds like the reviewer would have been better off with a D700, Mamiya 7, 2 rolls of 120, and $8000 in the bank. That said I'd take the D3x off his hands, trade for a D2x?</p>

<p>I shot a coupl of thousand frames with the D3x in all sorts of very challenging light conditions (Ask Tom Meyer) since getting one last December. I don't know what the B&H poster quoted in the OP is disappointed about (beyond high ISo performance not matching the D3) and without seeing what he thinks are sub par photos from the D3X, probably never will.</p>

<p>So yes it has more noise than the D3 at ISO 1200 and above, but that is a pretty high bar to start with, and in reality it isn't that objectionable. If I need an extremely clean extremely high ISO camera I'll use the D3 or D700. </p>

<p>If he has serious regrets I'll gladly buy it from him for $3,000.</p>

<p>Oh man, somebody gets surprised that the D3X has worse high ISO performance than the D3. It seems that people's faith in camera makers being able to change the laws of physics is limitless...<br>

As far as the price goes, only those complain who can't afford to buy it. Me, I will check what the market has to offer in a year or two, I have no hurry for upgrading.</p>

<p>Hmm, let's see.</p>

<p>Dave Black raves about his D3x. John Shaw seems to be pretty impressed this his D3x after taking it on the road for a while. Joe McNally seems to like the camera. The Luminous Landscape guy thought the D3x was somewhat overpriced but raves about its image quality.</p>

<p>Yet some no-name dude gripes about the camera on B&H's feedback page, and HIS comments are the ones that get posted here! How about some balance?</p>

 

<p>Add to that the Luminous Landscape guys report on the 25% failure rate of Canon 5DII while the Nikons (mostly D700s) reported no failures on a trip to Antarctica.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SNBR">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SNBR</a></p>

<p>You may also want to note that Dan Brown does not claim to own or even having used a D3X! He only read about a (short) review of it at B&H's Web site. Hearsay, indeed!</p>

<p>Aren't we being somewhat harsh on Dan, who is just reporting a bad review? He hasn't stated whether he agrees with the review or not.</p>