-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon D3X -- to buy, or not to buy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Robert / Seattle
- Start date
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
you mean that D3x thing IS available ??? :eek!:
I stand stunned by amazement,
El Paralytico
I don´t even know what a D3x is. I don´t speak German.
El Inocente.
"Deethrex" .... no idea either.
I don't speak Japanese (hey, it's a Nikon!)
El Ignorante
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Uh, why?
Last edited:
Gentoo
Guest
This is an 8000 US dollar camera with no real improvements over the D3. It gives you more megapixels but has a much worse ISO range. It naturally goes up to 1600 and can be pushed to 3200 and 6400 in it's high modes. That's the same as the 400 dollar D40! Except in this case you can pull it down to 50. If you take a lot of pictures of the sun then maybe this is useful. If you're going to get a full frame Nikon, IMO I'd go with a D3 or D700 which gives performance much more like what we would expect from a full frame camera. Seriously, 8000 dollars is not a good price for basically getting 24MP. There's nothing revolutionary about the D3x that makes it worth it.
I would wait, this is a Nikon "gotta release something now " release.
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Partly agree with Gentoo, the pro's have wanted a camera this size for ages, ideal for their studio work. It will sell and I can't really see much movement in the price.
It's a bit over the top for the rest of us mortals, but it makes the D700 very attactive. Price wise it does seem expensive as it is only a bigger version of a D3, so the extra cost must be attributed to the sensor.
This camera moves Nikon range up a notch, maybe there will be a mid-range version release in the pipeline.
Gentoo
Guest
If you mean a "pro-sumer" version, rumor has it, that it's in the works:
http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/10/nikon-d400-specs.aspx
pduxon
Quacked up Member
i am puzzled. for its target audience a 100-1600 iso range makes sense. its aimed at landscapers and studio folk. these guys don't need massive iso's. studio guys will probably shoot at very low isos. and hell folks from the film age regard iso 400 as fast!! there were complaints about the d300 starting at iso 200 on dpreview forums
that said the camera is incredibly costly. it will have to be faultless and perform superbly.
what will be interesting is what a d700x costs
Gentoo
Guest
The Nikon D3 and D3x are aimed at sports and newspaper photographers, it's the one they most prefer because of it's speed. However sports and photo journalists need high ISO's for their work which is why there has been such a backlash against the D3x. Digital SLR's are not marketed the same way film camera are, they're electronic devices where film cameras are not.
Dpreview should also be taken with a grain of salt at times. It's review of the 70-200mm 2.8 VR is a good example of that.
paul goode
Well-known member
Nikons own publicity clearly states the target market of the D3x http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2008/1201_d3x_01.htm
sports and journalism it isn't
And price wise you could look at it as a bargain compared to a Leaf afi-ii 6
Gentoo
Guest
I agree that may not have been their intention but that's who seems to like it best. Consumers have a funny way of deciding for themselves lol.Nikons own publicity clearly states the target market of the D3x http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2008/1201_d3x_01.htm
sports and journalism it isn't
And price wise you could look at it as a bargain compared to a Leaf afi-ii 6
pduxon
Quacked up Member
it was the forums of dpreview with users complaining who don't want/need high iso. they wanted a lower base ISO because for their requirements.....
and as someone else has said it isn't aimed at sport and newspapers. they may want it but that isn't the same thing.
there isn't a backlash against the d3x per se but at the price. there will be a real backlash if it doesn't perform though.
is it over priced? well to quote from your friend Mr Hogan
"No. The only way you could state such a conclusion would be after testing the camera, which I haven't done."
which I think is my point. Like anything until you can test it how do we know how good it is?
to me it seems that there are alot of gear heads who wanted a nice new toy and suddenly it's a bit more than they they anticipated. I suspect many of those bleating on dpreview et al don't need it.
pros will make the decision on whether the investment is a return on income. I suspect many of them will wait for the price to fall or for a d700x to appear, if you work in a studio for instance do you need a d3x build quality over a d300/d700??
ah for the days of film eh when the difference between an F5 and an F65/N65 was not really image quality (velvia in an f5 is velvia in an f65/n65) but build and features etc.
They will buy this camera, price wise, it isn't a lot of money for them. It will be interesting to see how those with the medium sized format cameras choose to operate. They have invested thousands into their system, only to see a (cheap!) imitation arrive on the scene.
I think all of us are looking for a camera that can actually have a sustained period of usage, without the temptation for an upgrade every 6 months.
If the price came down to a sensible retail cost, then the 3Dx would fit that bill for a lot of people, Nikon will never let this happen.
If Gentoo is correct about the mid-range 14Mb DX, maybe that could be the one?
We are knee deep in second hand digital cameras; at some point both Canon and Nikon have to realign their product range to suit the market resources.
As already stated the D700, is looking to be a bargain at £1523.00
