D3x - Dec. 19th. on sale

[jose_angel]

Yes, I think so. I consider this one a "genuine" pro-camera in the way that it could be almost unattractive for non-pro

users... up to now I `d not know what to do with that 25Mb+ archives... other than resizing them to a more friendly

size, thought. This file sizes ask for updated good computers. Also, if price doesn`t help... in the opposite, the D3

looks to be interesting for pros and many amateurs as well.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>It's a real specialty camera, don't y'all think?</i>

<p>

Well, the price makes it out of reach for most people. That doesn't mean that it's not desirable or generally

applicable. Bjorn said that even HI-2 seemed "very useable" on his pre-production D3x.

<p>

In Nikon's sample images, corner sharpness appears surprisingly good. Whatever the current cost of the camera,

it is very promising from the point of view of the future useability of our

lenses. Particularly, the landscape pic_010.jpg taken with the 50mm lens is impressive. Many of the images are

shot at small apertures (around f/11) but one people shot is at f/2.8 with the 200/2 and that's also very nice.

Very good rendition

from the 24-70 also, though it appears slightly softer than the primes (this is not new; the 24-70 is not at its

best at small apertures IMO). I am particularly happy about the corner performance - it looks like

a hot landscape camera. I haven't been able to detect appreciable color artifacts either.

<p>

I think most people here would agree that unless you can get return for the investment in a very short

time (in months) it makes more sense to wait for the lightweight version carrying the same or a similar sensor,

which is likely based on past experience with Nikon and also considering that two competitor's have high res

full-frame already available in the semi-pro price class.

<p>

I am a bit astonished to see such nice quality in landscape photos from a small-format camera. I guess I should

be thankful that I can't afford it. ;-)

[dan_brown4]

I hope they delivery in 2008, this could be a good late-year deduction from taxable income for working professionals ;-) The tax

savings would be substantial.

[ralph_jensen]

Regarding the higher-than-hoped-for (or expected) price of the D3x, I like the comment of a poster in another forum:

 

"Sort of reminds me of a line from the movie 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles,' in which the attorney tells Steve

Martin 'Any man who'd pay $50 for a cab, would certainly pay $75.' "

 

In other words, if you're a pro (or a dentist?) who uses Nikon, the difference between $6K and $8K for a 24mp

body probably isn't a deal-breaker if the performance/IQ is there.

[tri-x1]

If you can't afford the price then you probably don't need the camera.

[marshall]

Wayne, I find that a little too simplistic. The measure is only partly "need" and it is also "could benefit from". Many people who do not need the camera could definitely benefit from it (based on the big *assumption* that it can perform as we hope it can). Many - probably most - of the people who could benefit from the camera likely cannot justify it's price.

 

Ok, that's splitting hairs/semantics/not the point, but still...

[frank_skomial]

Perhaps Landrum is right ?

 

When you have lens resolution, let say 1000 line pairs across the frame, to get double the resolution to get 2000 line pairs across, that that would be double the lens resolution, and not the file size measure.

 

How many more pixels the camera would need to render 2000 line pairs as opposed to 1000 line pairs of resolution ?

[ntv666]

Here are some links for D3X sample images!!!!

 

http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/2008/11/nikon-d3x-sample-images/

[dan_brown4]

Thanks for the link Thangavelu, very nice looking images, and the detail is amazing!

[hannahthiem]

<p>You can also take a look at the Photo.net <a href="/equipment/nikon/D3X/preview/">Preview of the Nikon D3X</a>. We'll be testing the D3X in the near future, as soon as a review model becomes available. It'll be interesting to compare image quality among the D3x, D3, and D700. I'm sure Shun will have fun!</p>

[bmm]

Eric (some posts back) - just to correct you, the ISO max of 1600 did not come from a rumour but from Nikon Australia's website and replicated in many other places. So I believe this to be true, which means that the D3X has a significantly smaller effective ISO range than other recent models (though I expect its quality to be superb throughout this range).

[bob_worrell]

http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/11/nikon_unveils_a_digital_master.php

Look at this.

[DB_Gallery]

So here it is nearly 2009 in one of the worst global economies in history and Nikon is charging 8K for this marvel?

No thanks, I am staying out of debt and keeping money in the bank in case this gets worse.

 

And besides, all my ad / stock clients are happy with what I give them, are not going to pay me more if I tell them I have a

D3X or not.

[johnw63]

Some of the shots look pretty good, but do they have the "Holy Cow! " factor that would make people go out an buy it ? I would love to see a D700 or D3 vs D3x side by side. Not that I will ever won one, unless I find one at KEH about 8 years from now.

[stephen_asprey2]

They will bring down the price to $6k when they see what Canon do with the 1D mk4 (or 2D). They have been losing a big piece of top end market share to the D3, so will probably pitch the mk4 lower than the $8k of the D3x, then Nikon will respond...probably in March. Anyone who buys a D3 now is mad...just wait.

[leif_goodwin8]

Either they can't make many of them, or someone in marketing saw the price of MF backs, and got greedy. The Canon 1Ds3 was able to maintain a high price as there was no competition. I guess we will find out how it sells.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Anyone who buys a D3 now is mad...just wait.</i>

<p>

Why? During the lifespan of the camera, the value of the camera gradually decreases relative to other products that become available and the price is reduced to reflect that and restore balance. When you buy a camera early, you get state of the art technology for a few months or even a year. If you buy it late in its cycle, you're paying less but getting an older product which will be current for a shorter time (and you will most likely replace it sooner), in other words you're getting what you're paying for, either way.

[photos of hans koot]

some first testshots, including high iso

 

http://digifotopro.nl/artikel/26065/nikon-d3x-testfoto%E2%80%99s-hoge-iso-

[gary van schaick]

ohmmmmmm...$8,000

 

Film costs $5.00 per roll (or so), Developing is about $5.00 per roll, North Coast Photo in CA will scan a roll of film as it's developed at 5035 x 3339 for $12.00 per roll for a total cost of about $30.00 including shipping. For $8000.00 that's 266 rolls of film.

 

I think I'll stick with film for my landscapes and nature shots.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>For $8000.00 that's 266 rolls of film.</i>

<p>

I heartily recommend you to make a large print of one of Nikon's D3X sample images. Then try to replicate that

with 35mm film. I think you'd need to stitch at least 4 frames of 35mm film to 1 D3X image to get the detail

there, and even then you'd have a grainy image instead of the nice smooth one from the digital camera. In any

case, let's say I've shot 25000 digital SLR images so far in 2008. This is 694 rolls of 135-36. I'd have to use

four frames per shot = 2778 rolls in 11 months. That's about 50000

euros with film cost, development and contact prints. Add the labour involved with scanning.

<p>

No, I won't buy a D3X, I haven't lost my sanity that badly. But I understand that some can buy it and it makes

sense for them to do it. In fact I imagine there are thousands of them.

[johnw63]

Why would you need FOUR shots to equal one from a sensor no bigger than a 35mm slide ? You could have the film scanned at higher res, for not that much more, if that is the issue. Is your opinion that the D3x will be 4 times sharper or 4 times better than any 35 mm shot ? I find that hard to believe.

[philippartridge]

Sony, with its new Zeiss optics and high end 'VR' body, must be very happy with Nikon's pricing strategy; which seems to have more in common with the stumble-bums that run the big US auto makers, those guys that flew private jets to the capital, then fronted Congress with no plan and an ask of 25 billion dollars...

 

They will get creamed in the new age, high Mp marketplace, outside of loyal pros. A lot of people want to get aboard this train, and it ain't so difficult to sell Nikkor lenses and accessories, given the popularity of the D700. They surely will refrain from releasing a high Mp D700 for some time, but market forces being what they are...all in the context of a rapidly shrinking world economy..

[ilkka_nissila]

John, with stitching you need a bit of overlap. Two 35mm frames scanned and stitched is definitely inferior in

quality to a D3X frame (based on Nikon's image samples and my experience with scanned modern transparency film).

Therefore, you need four to make a 2:3 rectangle. Even though an image stitched from four 35mm frames may contain

a bit more detail than a D3X frame, the graininess of film means the digitally captured images have a better

rendition of smooth areas and the detail is more consistent across the frame.

Digital also has better color accuracy than slide film and flexibility to shoot in diverse lighting conditions

with white balance control, whereas accurate color reproduction from slide film in uncontrolled light is very

difficult.

 

If you think you can make a scan of a 35mm frame at higher res than 24 MP and believe that the image quality is

even remotely comparable to a D3X or even a D700, it's clear that you've never done such a comparison. They're

from different worlds. The overall image quality of 35mm color film was superseded at some point between 6 and

10MP in DX format DSLRs. Technical pan is a bit better than that but I assume we're talking about color imaging here.

 

I heartily recommend that you download the D3X samples and print them with a current Epson inkjet without

resizing at A3+ or A2. It is easy enough to see that the closest film approximation is about 6x7, or maybe 4x5 if

you look at the smoothness of the sky.

[roypanos]

"ohmmmmmm...$8,000 "

 

Yeah, unless you live in the Uke, in which case it's $9000 at today's exchange rate (Park Cameras' price is £5499)

A bl**dy ripoff, even by the usual standards.