I think they only wanted something to compete with the 1Ds Mark III so that people don't have to go Canon if they want/need high-res pictures. I don't share the point of view that this is a `bad' camera or a `disappointing' upgrade. The specs have been anticipated (by leaked sample images or hidden in software updates, for example), so none of this is a big surprise. I think it's a good camera, although not nearly as appealing to me as a D700 (if I had the cash to pay even for the `cheap' D700, hehe).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
D3X announced (sort of) - professional-level 24 mp full frame camera
- Thread starter Hmac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Um, the 1DsIII came out at the same price point. This isn't a 5D competitor, that'd be a D700x if one is released. The camera competes directly with the 1DsIII, and it's priced and featured accordingly. The sensor base is the same, but it appears that the Sony's native performance didn't meet Nikon's standards, compare the noise characteristics once official samples are out and I doubt anyone would pick the Sony images as better... plus you don't have anywhere near the lens range with Sony at the moment. I'd not only lose 25% of my reach at the long end, I'd lose way more than the difference between an A900 and a D3x if I had to switch all my glass to Sony.
Of *course* the ISO range is lower, you get low noise or high resolution, it's the same physics for the same generation of sensor. The progress is in resolution, not everyone wants the uber-high ISO. Many folks need the resolution- this is not a general purpose camera, it's not aimed at the prosumer market- if you don't need it specifically then Nikon doesn't expect you to buy it.
As far as performance, the D3 is a sports shooter's camera, this isn't. Why anyone would expect it to outperform a sports camera is puzzling.
Are all of you such bad shooters that you can't time a shot and need to machine-gun through a zillion frames to get what you expect? I shot battling Eagles last weekend, and I got great shots without holding down the shutter button for 3-4 seconds- I can't imagine many situations that are as dynamic as two Eagles locked talon to talon spiraling through the air- what are you all shooting that needs maniacal frame rates?
The DX crop is a function of area against the overall resolution- you can't get the same megapixels and a higher DX crop. If you own Nikon glass and you need to compete where the D3x is placed, then it's a very welcome body.
Again, it depends on what you're shooting and for what reasons. Blanket statements on professional tools are idiotic- a D700 doesn't give the same resolution, and if your client needs a higher resolution image, then guess what? Nikon didn't stop making the D3 when they started making the D700, and the same argument applies there...
As for "hopping" between manufacturers, that's a sure way to lose your ROI numbers. Depending on the job, you can sometimes justify adding a system, but switching when you've got tens of thousands tied up in glass, brackets and other equipment is almost always a losing proposition, in fact it's normally stupid[1.]
For me, the ability to crop makes the D3x much, much more attractive than the D3- though I expect that with the global economy Nikon will start rebating sooner rather than later at this price point, and I'll wait and see.
I've got an advertising shoot tomorrow afternoon, and I can hands-down say a D3 or D700 wouldn't give me one iota of advantage over my D2x, but a D3x would.
If I did a lot more frequent advertising work, I'd be in line even at the current price- because the dual CF card and high-resolution combination make total sense from a business perspective (I've been waiting for a week for the client to set up for the shoot, losing a shot to a bad CF card costs, tying up people, products and space for a re-shoot costs.) Shooting on multiple cards without having to stop and switch cards and remember to switch back is a very good feature in terms of the time to shoot and the "flow" of the shoot.
A lot of people made the "Why would you pay $2500 more for a D2x when you could get a D200?" argument. I tried that argument and my D200 didn't last 30 days before it got traded in (with a pile o' money) for a D2x.
If you don't need the difference, you likely won't understand- because it's not a law of averages type issue, like with most tools you pay a hyper-premium for the last 5% performance difference. You can buy a $5 hammer every 5 years, or a $40 hammer once- but only the craftsman can say which path is right for them.
Canon hasn't stopped making the 1DsIII because the 5DII is out- and they're not likely to- because some photographers need the differences, and Canon is going to cater to that crowd (who'll pay a premium because they're looking for a niche product.) You can make the same argument about the 1DsIII vs 5DII- and the same people will tell you the same thing- if they need the more expensive tool, that's the one they'll get.
A pro body is good for ~5 years- a $600/year premium for one body is hardly worth switching systems for even if we assume the list price is going to hold for six months. Follow that by the fact that you have no idea what the next Sony or Canon body you'd get in 5 years is going to be priced like and all the hullabaloo over price is really silly.
Here's my prediction: The D3x will come down in price just like the 1DsIII did- but more quickly. Folks who need it to compete now will pay the extra new camera premium and be glad to have it. Folks who think it will give them a slight long-term advantage will wait for the price to come down some. Folks who think they (or worse-yet other people) should switch systems because of a price point for a single body will lose a lot of money if they do, but probably won't do anything because they're mostly not the doing type, or they're more interested in numbers than photographs so they'll just waste money going back and forth like the high-ISO folks keep doing[2.]
[1] There are times when you need a feature set or need to get out of a manufacturer who's going in a direction that doesn't suit you, but for the price of a single body it's almost always about as dumb as you can get.
[2] There are folks who absolutely need high ISO performance, and there are folks who need to learn to expose properly- DPR is full of the latter as far as I can tell, the former can make an ROI case immediately for a switch that costs ~$5-10,000- the latter can just complain when the next manufacture leaps into the lead.
You guys are all comparing this Nikon to Canon. But many photographers concidering buying a new camera aren't just thinking Niokn v. Canon. Many of them are thinking of jumping to medium format now that it is reasonably affordable again. Seriously you can buy a 32 or 48 megapixel camera for the price of a Toyota. I think Nikon has targeted this at those who might jump ship to Mamiya or Hasselblad by offering a camera that is almost as good but at 1/3rd the price. Canon is not Nikon's only competitor.
10 or 15 years ago I was there in the same place but with film. I wanted more than Nikon could offer in terms of IQ. So I jumped ship for a while.
People who sell to high end clients need to compete with other photographers and for many of them shooting with a D700 just does not make them stand out, so they think if they had 48MP zero-noise files to toss at art directors they'd look good. But the $100K cost has untill now held them back so they stuck with Nikon. But now for $18K they can get back into medium format again. So Nikon offers them a 24MP FX body for $10K less and many of them stay with Nikon
Thi camera is not aimed at the sports photog. But if I were shooting plates of food for the menu-sign of the local Chinese restaurant I'd really want this new Nikon (or maybe a Sinar with digital back)
10 or 15 years ago I was there in the same place but with film. I wanted more than Nikon could offer in terms of IQ. So I jumped ship for a while.
People who sell to high end clients need to compete with other photographers and for many of them shooting with a D700 just does not make them stand out, so they think if they had 48MP zero-noise files to toss at art directors they'd look good. But the $100K cost has untill now held them back so they stuck with Nikon. But now for $18K they can get back into medium format again. So Nikon offers them a 24MP FX body for $10K less and many of them stay with Nikon
Thi camera is not aimed at the sports photog. But if I were shooting plates of food for the menu-sign of the local Chinese restaurant I'd really want this new Nikon (or maybe a Sinar with digital back)
Everything is well said and quoted for truth.
As a D2xs users I understand the advertising clients bit Comp. I myself have never had a client that needed a resolution that high, but the D3/D700 won't give you the res you need. The D3x will, and it's a body not made for the type of work most PJs do.
I agree ChrisA, it's been that way since Canon's 1Ds debuted. I still think the res and IQ of a MF body will top the D3x and 1DsIII, but as one very old article said, "Is it $10K better?"
Medium format is all but dead- I doubt Hassy will survive much longer- but if you need 40MP, then 25 isn't going to do it- and if you don't, then 25 is plenty good enough. This is as much about pushing the technology for a flagship product as anything. From a business standpoint, the more it has in common with the D3 the better the margins on a high-margin product.
A good scanning back on any 4x5 with some Schneider-Kreuznach glass will win every time movement isn't involved.
What we have in this release is a bunch of brand fans who have suddenly realized they can't even pretend to afford the latest toy. Most of them are the same sort of folks who swore up and down they were going to switch to Canon if Nikon didn't come out with a "full frame" camera, and most of them *still* don't own one. Even whiny poseurs like Ken "Happy to evaluate anything I haven't touched" Rockwell grudgingly admit this is the best Nikon camera body ever.
This is the first time I've had a major disagreement with Thom Hogan too- I don't think that Nikon missed the ball on pricing, I think they stuck to their time-proven formula, and I think it'll get them the early adopters they want and that once the pros have started working with the camera they'll be able to discount something seen as the best 35mm equivalent body- it may cost them some poseur volume, but frankly the world needs fewer poorly shot high-resolution images not more
Well said, I couldn't have put it better...
I think the D3x is a well specced camera for the job it is meant for (fashion, advertising, landscapes etc), I don't understand what all the bashing is about. If you want to shoot sport, use a D3 - the old mantra of using the right tool for the job.
The Canon 1DsIII came out at the same price. Anyhow, this is not meant as a home use, happy snapping camera - the fact of which is reflected in the price. People will buy it at this price as it fills what was a large gap in Nikon's line up of cameras. Once it drops by a few hundred quid then it will become more competitive price wise, and that will come with time. On the same front, the Canon 1DsIII is now over a year old, a veritable grandfather now