Jump to content

Nikon D3x Announced


Rob Davies

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Wonder if some poor chump in the Nikon Mail Room is out of work this morning! - I told you to mail them on Friday - not have them delivered on Friday!!!!

 

Looks interesting for studio work and perhaps weddings... Anxious to see what the image quality looks like and if there is more coming on Monday - Such as a baby brother / sister D-400 or D-800?

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact that they are limiting the iso to 100 - 1600 makes me think that they are going for a wide dynamic range, like the medium formats. Good choice, imo, too many companies are pushing the iso on sensors which aren't capable of holding any detail at these extreme high iso.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sensor cleaning, no film mode (not that that really bothers me) is a bit lame, but the image quality and dynamic range

should be good. I'll be pissed if there using the Sony sensor...

 

I was really hoping for an announcement of a Nikon with a larger sensor as well as the d3x, perhaps that is still to come...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long do you guys think the D3 will stay in production? It's become so popular with PJ's, especially with the crazy ISO range that I would think we'll see it stay in production, especially for sports shooters and PJ's with the high fps rate, because it looks like they're not going that route with the D3x...regardless it will be interesting...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gabe -

 

Based on what we know (ISO-Range / Speed) I'd venture a guess that the D3 will remain in production for a while - At least until a D4 comes along... The D3x seems to be aimed more at studios / controlled lighting situations as opposed to fast / extreme low light that the D3 is aimed at. Although I do shoot sports with the D300 which has the same ISO limits.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is clear product differentiation between D3 and D3X: ISO ranges 200-6400 vs. 100-1600, fps rates 9fps vs.

5fps (full size image), image sizes 12MP vs. 24MP; these are all substantial differences. Thus while there is

overlap in capabilities, they are cameras intended for different applications. I don't see the D3 being

discontinued until a D4 is announced. The price may go down as it has already, but from the specs it is obvious

that the D3X is not the replacement to the D3, but its "sister" model. For most applications and common print

sizes the D3 is a very capable camera.

 

To me, I can't afford to, nor do I really want to keep up with the development; I already got what I wanted for a

long time (full frame) and the quality is very good for my purposes, and the file sizes are manageable, which is

important to minimize time spent on post-processing instead of shooting. What's nice is that I can stop

commenting on lens quality - nobody will be interested to know how certain lenses perform on a 12 MP FX camera

and everyone will crave lens tests that are done on 24 MP. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

 

I think there's two completely seperate target markets for the D3 & D3X. The D3 is more the sports and PJ, and the D3X is the studio and landscape camera. I'd say at base iso, where most studio and landscape shots reside, the DR and noise of the D3X should be fine.

 

Now for the price....let's wait and see ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Can I correct some facts in the above? I'm in the UK, and I've my copy of Nikon Pro in front of me, also delivered today.

 

It quotes the ISO range as 50 to 6400, not as above. The other significant thing for me was the frame rate - 5fps at full resolution, 7fps in DX crop mode.

 

Sounds like a D3 killer to me...

 

Mike

 

www.mikemccormac.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

I'm not exactly sure you could call it a D3 killer. Others above seem to be in line with my original thought that they are more sister cameras.

 

The D3 does 9fps in FX, that's a big difference than 5, and the OP as well as the link that Richard included to the articles say the ISO can "jump" to 6400, but the true range is 100-1600.

 

As Dave said, each camera has it's own use and sweet spot. For me (someone who still uses a D2H for PJ work), the D3 would seem to be the perfect balance of everything. One of my friends who works for a sister newspaper, gets very usable results from 12,800 ISO for night football games from his D3 at a reasonable file size. I think 75 MB files would be a bit of a pain, but when you want ultimate detail, it couldn't be better for landscapes and portrait work. I'm sure a RAW file from the D3X at ISO 100 with a great lens is beautiful, but I'll settle for the D3, that is when my newspaper gets around to giving me one :)

 

Gabe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the article, the ISO range up from 1600 are boost modes, just as those higher than 6400 are on the D3 (from

Hi-.3 to Hi-2). Typically Nikon designates the largest calibrated ISO setting (in this case, 1600) as the threshold of a

generally acceptable image, in the context of a pro camera it could be interpreted as the largest ISO which can be used to

obtain a publication quality image with the assumption that the exposure is spot on.

 

7fps in DX crop mode might be fine by itself, but then you lose most of the pixels so why not use a D300 instead, and get

more pixels, higher ISO, higher fps, larger VF, and lower price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's great that the D3 and D3x are so similar, yet subtly but significantly different! I need both high ISO and lots of pixels, but not necessarily at the same time. High frame rate - well, for my purposes, both have that. But since they're relatively similar, they make perfect backups for each other, while at the same time offering an edge each of its own. Switching between them would probably be effortless.

 

Now...it's just a matter of affording them both.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

I would say it's a master at landscape and studio. What I've found with the 24mp files from the Sony is that I can

have a 16x24 just as sharp and detailed as what I got from my old 6mp Canon 10D at 8x12. It's enough that 20x30

works in a stretch. While I prefer 240ppi on print, 200 is close enough at 20x30 to keep most people

happy....maybe even me. At these sizes, technique, processing and lenses are extremely important to the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, if the D3X can use almost all F mount lenses, it sure is more flexible than any medium format system. And also, it's probably going to be a lot cheaper so there shouldn't be any trouble finding applications for it. Personally I am going to pass on this generation - the pace of new models is way too fast for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...