Nikon D3x worth buying in 2015 or not?

[john_loughead1]

I have the opportunity to buy a Nikon D3x to be used as a wildlife back up camera. I know that this is not an ideal camera for low light and

frames per second but there is some logic to this. I currently have a D800 with grip as my main camera but I need a backup to avoid

changing lenses in dusty african locations. The D3x has 23k actuations and been serviced by Nikon. The price is what makes this deal

attractive. The camera price is 25% less than a used D800 and about half of the price of a D750. The advantage to me seems to be pro

body, weather sealing and portrait grip. Or should I consider something else? Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>If I recall correctly what I've read about the D3X, then its shortcoming is in the higher ISO performance - which could make it an issue for wildlife shooting. At less than $1500 (?), it appears to be a steal.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

It's an excellent camera if you don't want a second D800 or D750, but what kind of wildlife are you photographing? If you can find a D3s in similar condition and price I would go for that instead.

[ShunCheung]

<p>If I were in your situation, I would get a D750 for its 6.5 fps, better AF, and interchangeable batteries with the D800.</p>

<p>If you get a D3X, you'll need to bring a different charger and those big EN-EL4(a) batteries. If you must get some variation of D3, I would get a used D3S as Ellis points out or a used D3. That frame rate is much better for wildlife.</p>

<p>BTW, how much are they selling to D3X for? The D750 sells for $2300, new with USA warranty. Half of that is $1150. A used D3X at that price doesn't seem to make sense. That price seems too good to be true ....</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Yes for the right price. For about $1500 if it looks good it's a deal. 24MP is good. Low light performance not so good but should be OK if I don't shoot low light. 5fps is fine by me no need for faster. AF performance should be fine. Now you say that's not as good as the D610 which could be bought new for the same $1500. But I would like the built quality of the D3 series. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, how much are they selling to D3X for? The D750 sells for $2300, new with USA warranty. Half of that is $1150. A used D3X at that price doesn't seem to make sense. That price seems too good to be true ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's irony that you say don't buy it but yet its price is kind of too good to be true. So if it's priced at higher price then how can you expect a sale?</p>

[john_loughead1]

I understand and agree with all comments above. The pricing is odd because I am based in Africa where a new D750 is

way out of my price range. A used D800 goes for about USD2000 but the D3x is USD1500 or equivalent. A would prefer a

D3s or D3 but these are not easily found, have high shutter counts and are over USD2500 if in ok condition. I know that

the x is not ideal for my intended use, but it is a backup or for low ISO use. I guess I will find it difficult to sell in the future

but at this price can I go wrong?

[User_6502147]

<p>If I were you, I'd go for D7200. Good frames, good buffer and nice high ISO's.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>... more reach for natural life with the DX sensor.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>DX for wildlife for the win, imho.</p>

<p>I think A DX camera with a long lens and an FX with a shorter lens would be a devastating combination.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I will find it difficult to sell in the future but at this price can I go wrong?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the camera is in good condition I would go for it.</p>

[daniel_johnson6]

<p>It's a great camera. Although most of my work is either studio or bright natural light, I do frequently run into situations where I need higher ISO and I've found that 800 is often excellent and 1600 still very good. It's a high quality machine in every respect.</p>

[john_gleason3]

<p>I agree with everything everyone has told you. That said, the bottom line is that if the D3x is in good condition I would go for it. The price is a steal. It runs like a watch and is built like a tank. It should stand up well to your regular use in hot, dusty conditions.</p>

<p>A couple of quirks to keep in mind: Outdoors, you may want to expose more for the shadows. The D3x sensor (at least mine) is very tolerant of overexposure before blowing-out the highlights, but underexposures tend to go black very easily. YMMV.</p>

<p>Also, while the D3x in high-speed mode can do a reasonable frame rate on JPG and 12-bit RAW files, at the maximum quality of 14-bit RAW (where I use mine) you might as well just set the camera for single exposures -- it takes over a second per frame (so bracketing may not be useful at that setting either).</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>Since you already have and use a D800 and are happy with it, another D800 makes the most sense.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I agree with BeBu on fps. 5 fps was as fast as it got back in the days of the F2 and never kept any of us from getting the shot. If you need more than that, IMHO it's called "spray and pray"</p>

[john_loughead1]

Thanks all for the good advice. Maybe to put this into context a D800 in South Africa is US2000, a D7200 is currently

US1600 and the D3x is US1500 although this price is stil under negotiation. I will use my D800 and 500mm for distant

and action shots and if I get a 3x then this would be for landscapes or near action with 24-70 or 70-200mm. I guess that I

am trying to talk myself into a D3x but the D7200 is a good option too. The D3x will give me an answer tomorrow so I will

make a decision soon.

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think it is very clear to everybody that the D3X is not particularly suitable for the OP's intended purpose: wildlife photography. Apparently the OP is considering it mainly because it is available at $1500, in Africa where prices are generally much higher than those in the US.<br>

I just check KEH, and used D3X are around $2700 to $2900: https://www.keh.com/354122/nikon-d3x-digital-camera-body-24-5-m-p</p>

<p>I am aware that this is a private deal, but even in the US, $1500 for a D3X in good condition seems low, let alone in a market where prices should be much higher. That is why I said this seems too good to be true. If the OP is going for this deal, I would check thoroughly that it is merely an uniformed seller and there is no catch, e.g. stolen product, damaged camera, etc. Frequently, prices are too good to be true because they are simply not true.</p>

<p>Personally, I would rather use a D610 (or D600 without problems) than a D3X because of the newer sensors and electronics. To me, the huge size of a D3 or D4 is not necessarily a plus, although I would take the robustness for a sports/wildlife camera that does 10 fps. Additionally, the D7200 is also a good candidate for wildlife photography at an affordable price, but it is a very small DSLR without the grip; I am aware that not everybody likes it that way.</p>

<p>Speaking of 10 fps, I am sorry that people who use derogatory terms such as "spray and pray" because they haven't experienced demanding action photography. There are good reasons that the Canon 1DX, Nikon D4S, etc. give pros 11, 12 FPS. Check out this story from 1988 when the F4 was brand new: http://www.americanphotomag.com/masters-olympic-photography-rich-clarkson</p>

[john_loughead1]

Thanks Shun for the wise words of advice. The seller is a professional wildlife photographer who has a visible presence

here, a website and conducts regular workshops and safari's. The owner has a pair of D4's so the 3x has become unused

for some time, it gathers dust and although he has had the camera advertised for many months there have been no

takers, possibly due to its age, size, rarity or relative price compared to point and shoot cameras. I have every confidence

that the deal is real and that the seller is honest. As Explained earlier, I understand that this is not the ultimate camera for

my intended use but at this price the alternatives are not that great either.

 

Maybe I should save some cash until a D4 comes along but I am off to Botswana next month and really did not want to be

changing lenses every time a different opportunity comes along.

 

Thank you.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Looking back, similar to Canon's EOS 1DS series, Nikon introduced the D3X in late 2008 during the peak of the mega-pixel race. At the time 24MP was the highest among DSLRs and was considered a bit special. Canon and Nikon wanted a premium, US$8000, for those cameras, and in order to charge that price, they provided the highest-quality professional build and the best AF systems in those respective times. However, the frame rate is relatively low.</p>

<p>Those are mostly landscape and studio cameras such that the toughest construction was never necessary. Personally, for landscape photography, I would much rather carry a lighter body for the long hikes. As a result, as soon as Nikon introduced the 36MP D800 @ $3000 in 2012, it essentially killed the D3X, and the Canon 1DS Mark III also went away around that same time with no more entries in the 1DS series.</p>

<p>John, if you somehow prefer large DSLRs with an integrated grip at a lower cost, the D3X may make sense. Otherwise, at least to me, its features don't make sense any more (actually never did) and that is why neither Canon nor Nikon makes this type of cameras any more: pro built, high pixel but slow frame rate. If in the future you would like to sell it, you'll be the one who will have a hard time selling. However, if you have connections in Europe or North America, you may have an easier time unloading it. At such a high initial price, I would imagine that Nikon never sold a whole lot of D3X bodies.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>For the price you seem to be able to get it for I would certainly consider it. At that low a price the ability to re-sell it becomes mute. </p>

[5711]

<p>i made quite some prints with the d3x on 100x80 something.<br>

they are perfect, no pixels whatsoever without any size managment, straight from the raw to tif to print.</p>

<p>the d3x is a horrible performer in terms of high iso stuff, however nikon's grain does look quite cool.</p>

<p>for that prize i would take it, but that is just me, beeing in love with the body design.</p>

<p>..worth considering</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>As a stand-alone camera for use in good light, I might consider it. As a backup to a camera of the D800/D4 generation, I just wouldn't. Partly the battery issue, as Shun points out. Partly, cheese moved. A lot. I had a D700 alongside my D800 for a while, and never used it because the rearrangement of controls was hugely frustrating. The D3x is much more different than a D800 (even with grip). And, as a second camera, it's huge. If you do want to go with it, check the batteries are in good condition (because they're not that cheap) and check the shutter count. I would be astonished if you don't miss shots while you're hunting for controls, though.<br />

<br />

If you can't afford another D800 yet and you're going on a specific trip, could you hire instead? I know it's throwing money away that you don't get back, but that's what a D3x feels like to me - I really can't imagine it'll be easy to sell on, especially after the D810 torpedoed D800 prices. Allowing for shooting the D800 in 1.2x crop, the D3x can't really do much that the D800 can't. A D7100 or D7200 can (it has reach). A D750 can (speed, low light). Even a 1-series with an FT-1 can (reach, speed). A D3x is a back-up - without the same controls - and not a complement to what you have.<br />

<br />

But good luck, no matter what you decide to do!</p>

[john_loughead1]

Thank you to all that have contributed to this discussion. Your comments have been informative and wise. The D3x is not

the camera that I need, even at this price. I have decided to let this one go and save some cash for a D750 or D7200. For

my trip to Botswana next month I will take my daughter's D3200. Another compromise, but at no cost. Once again thank

you.