Nikon D3x Announced

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by robert_davies|2, Nov 28, 2008.

  1. Just got my copy of Nikon Pro magazine through the door (UK).

    Nikon D3x

    24.5mp in FX, 10mp in DX crop

    iso 100 - 1600 (50 - 6400 expandable)

    5fps FX, 7fps DX

    Looks just like a D3 (with a little 'x') :)

    ...still reading the article.
     
  2. We have already received rumours that an official Nikon event will be produced on next thursday 4th in the morning. I suspect that it will be that FD3x announcement.

    I wish to find some long awaited lens updates, too.
     
  3. The only lens mentioned in the magazine is the 50mm f1.4 afs (and the 18-105 DX).
     
  4. Nikon Pro is published by Nikon UK, so I'd say this counts as an official announcement. Anything on pricing?
     
  5. No mention of pricing or release date.
     
  6. Just found some scans of the article here:

    http://sebrogers.typepad.com/seb_rogers_blog/2008/11/official-nikon-d3x-specs-its-here-folks.html
     
  7. 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
     
  8. Price?

    I'm guessing $500 per mp.
     
  9. $500 per mb
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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...
     
  12. 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...
     
  13. 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
     
  14. 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. :)
     
  15. Looks great by the sounds of things. Perfect landscape camera.
     
  16. "Fact that they are limiting the iso to 100 - 1600 makes me think that" - Nikon traded high ISO for more pixels, and possibly also compromised some dynamic range of the camera technology as we know in D3. If this is the case?, predictions for D3 staying in production for much longer time are good.
     
  17. 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 ;-)
     
  18. 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
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. 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?
     
  21. 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.. :(
     
  22. Gabe-

    D3 is for event photography, pj and sport, and the D3x is for.........? Seems like a poor mans medium format camera to me. Kind of like a "jack of all trades, master of none" type camera.
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. 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.
     
  25. Kris - "I'll be pissed if there using the Sony sensor"

    Why? Nikon has proved more than once that they can get much better image quality out of a sensor than Sony can. Compare Nikon D300 to Sony A700.
     
  26. 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.
     
  27. 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.
     
  28. 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!
     
  29. 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 :)
     
  30. Troll fail
    yes, sony has 24MP, Nikon will have that as predicted. Now, do we still hear Nikon users saying higher MP don't matter ? haha
     
  31. 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.
     
  32. "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.
     
  33. 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! :)
     
  34. 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).
     
  35. Collateral damage troll fail.
    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.
    C'mon, Eric, you can do better than to cite Anson Ko as supporting evidence! -- LJ
     
  36. 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.
     
  37. hus

    hus

    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.
     
  38. 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.
     
  39. should be a flood of D700 on the market. yea baby.
     
  40. 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.
     
  41. It looks like Nikon is not planning on making another FX single-digit body.
    Typo. Should have said another DX single-digit body. But the D300 is already excellent so this should not be a big concern.
     
  42. You're right Ilkka we need an 80-400mm update.
     
  43. You're right Ilkka we need an 80-400mm update. Which I think is due now.
     
  44. D3X.......when we see it on the shelf, we're all going to buy one....!;)
     
  45. So are we to expect a D700...X in the not too distant thereafter also ?
     
  46. "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?
     
  47. 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.
     
  48. 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.
     
  49. 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.
     
  50. This is exciting news. I hope to see some reasonably priced, used D3 cameras enter the market.
     
  51. Hey LJ,

    I was just pointing out a fact. Do you know who many posts I have read on these forums when they compared the Canon 1Ds markIII or 5D markII to the Nikon. Go read one right now, it has been one of the number one forums for last three days or so. I just thought it was funny that I don't see anyone critizing the new Nikon now they have a 20+ MP camera coming out and how much that will affect the IQ. I personally think all of these forums when comparing Canon to Nikon, or this camera to that camera is useless. If you want to compare camera's then talk about the different features they provide and which will work best for their needs. To compare IQ is a waste of time, the IQ on all DSLR's has gotten so good now, I think people need to stop worrying about it. They are all fine cameras, everyone of them have exceptional IQ and I'm sure the new Nikon will be no exception. I feel to many people put to much into pixel peeping. Get the camera that works best for you, has the features you are looking for and feels good when shooting with it. Most professionals will tell you the same thing. I am one of the few people on this site when I see these posts that will always say, neither camera is better than the other. Everyone has different needs, so get the one that works best for your needs.

    I just wanted to point out a fact and thought it was funny that I didn't see anyone knocking Nikon now they have went same direction as Canon. That was purely my point on my first post, sorry if it was inaproppriate.
     
  52. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II has not yet been released and this Nikon "D3X" has not yet been officially announced. It
    simply makes no sense to compare their image quality and argue. The other useless debate takes place in another forum
    that Lex and I don't moderate. Most likely, any D3X will be far more expensive than the 5D II, thus making any comparison
    very unfair.

    Clearly Nikon Europe made a error and sent out the D3X information prematurely. Let's wait until the various cameras are
    actually available and for reviews.

    I am going to close this discussion since it has served its purpose. We'll have new threads when the official
    announcement comes, hopefully with more details. But of course this leak has stolen all the thunder.
     

Share This Page