Nikon D3X - due december....

Diego Garcia said:
At the moment, the 5D II appeals more though Canons lack of update on the focusing is a shame. D3's for me for a while yet.
Click to expand...

I've got to say the 5D MKII is looking like its going to be a stunner.

I don't think the 5D focusing is *that* bad... when I've used one its pretty much done what I expected.
 
So if you are thinking of getting the D3x Gary, are you thinking of selling the D3? I'll take it off you for, say, £50? You know, mates rates and all that :D
 
As to who needs megapixels... well a lot depends on who you are submitting too.

As the megapixel baseline moves upwards then so do the demands of stock agencies and photo editors.

I must admit, I do fancy the resolution for large landscape prints - 12 megapixels is nice, but really its not actually a huge step up in linear resolution from 10,8 or even 6 megapixel cameras.

Remember from 6 megapixel to 24 megapixel its a only a doubling of print size after all.
 
I don't expect the D3X to be a replacement or upgrade to the D3, I assume it will be a slower frame rate, reduced ISO capability, higher res studio type body equivalent to 1Ds range. :thinking: and I would hazard a further stab in the dark to say it's price tag will be quite a hefty one, $5000, $6000 to $7000 regions.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
I don't expect the D3X to be a replacement or upgrade to the D3, I assume it will be a slower frame rate, reduced ISO capability, higher res studio type body equivalent to 1Ds range. :thinking: and I would hazard a further stab in the dark to say it's price tag will be quite a hefty one.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for the return of a decent ISO100 and settle for ISO800.

The high ISO game now is just a silly numbers game, you'd have to have the eyesight of Stevie Wonder to want to go much past ISO3200 on any of the current bodies.

The target market - studio and landscape will be at ISO100 / 200 on a tripod, and FPS isn't important.

The D3X will still do 5 or 6fps though I'm sure.
 
puddleduck said:
I'd settle for the return of a decent ISO100 and settle for ISO800.

The high ISO game now is just a silly numbers game, you'd have to have the eyesight of Stevie Wonder to want to go much past ISO3200 on any of the current bodies.

The target market - studio and landscape will be at ISO100 / 200 on a tripod, and FPS isn't important.

The D3X will still do 5 or 6fps though I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Although I embrace the D3's ISO capability for my requirements, I use the higher ranges regularly and have shots that are more than acceptable at ISO 6400.
I seriously don't expect another body to be released that will exceed the D3 in terms of my personal needs until the end of next year, maybe even later.
It does me just dandio and I think it will until it disintergrates.

Landscapers, studio dwellers and maybe even a percentage of commercial/advertising photographers will make good use of the D3X.
I look forward to seeing how it turns out.
 
puddleduck said:
I'd settle for the return of a decent ISO100 and settle for ISO800.

The high ISO game now is just a silly numbers game, you'd have to have the eyesight of Stevie Wonder to want to go much past ISO3200 on any of the current bodies.
Click to expand...

Im pretty happy shooting at 6400 i use it all the time. Moderate noise reduction in camera and unless its printing big they are perfectly usable

puddleduck said:
don't think the 5D focusing is *that* bad... when I've used one its pretty much done what I expected.
Click to expand...

!

I found it to be really poor, though i suppose it depends what your shooting
 
puddleduck said:
not really a surprise, a previous D3 firmware revision let this model slip several months ago.

Price is going to be a key factor, with the Canon 5D MKII and the Sony A900 being very interesting at under £2k.

Nikon likes to charge more..but I think anymore than £2999 will be a tough sell...
Click to expand...


From what I have seen on Nikons pricing strategy I think I can safely assume its going to be between 3.5k and 4k
 
4th October wedding - lights failed in the church so I was at ISO5000 and didn't worry

11th October - wanted a really natural feel so shot the last 2 hours in near darkness at 6400 and didn't worry. That's 1/100s and f1.8 darkness.

My remaining 6 this year are likely to be at least as dark - the D3 just removes it as a problem.

The 5D centre AF point is ok but it's a pure focus and recompose camera. That's a real shame when you have access to Canon's great primes but have the shoot 3-4 frames to ensure one is in focus using the outer points. The D3 absolutely destroys it for accuracy. Brett Harkness has been using a 5D II and a D3 side by side for a few weeks (he's a 1DsIII shooter) and they're about even to 3200, after that the D3 is a clear winner. Hardly a surprise considering the pixel counts. We've yet to see any 5D II raw files either - the JPG's so far are obviously using in-cam NR.



The D3x will be head to head with the 1Ds III, not the 5D II. Drawing a price parallel on MP alone is flawed.
 
The limit is going to be the size of the chip, not the pixels they can stuff onto it......

Want better quality? Have a look at the Hassle Bled.
 
Lensflare said:
The limit is going to be the size of the chip, not the pixels they can stuff onto it......

Want better quality? Have a look at the Hassle Bled.
Click to expand...

Actually I think the lens quality is going to be a limit too... the only lens I am sure will be good up to 24 megapixels is the 14-24 as thats on a different optical planet to anything else.

The D3 and D700 are very easy on lenses due to the low pixel density, the D3X will change this.

Those of us who moved from a D70 to a D200 a few years back will remember - you'll need GOOD glass, as what is good on low pixel density will be punished as pixel density ramps up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top