Nikon D3X

N

nikonuser

Messages
2,537
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to upgrade from my D700 and considering the D800/E since I am in to landscapes, architecture and studio work.
Also considering the Nikon D3X so which camera is this on par with please......is it the D800 or does it stand alone as one of the greats
dave
 
nikonuser said:
I'm looking to upgrade from my D700 and considering the D800/E since I am in to landscapes, architecture and studio work.
Also considering the Nikon D3X so which camera is this on par with please......is it the D800 or does it stand alone as one of the greats
dave
Click to expand...

I've never heard a D3X called one of the greats. :thinking: Now the D700 was one of the greats. :clap: ;)

If I had the money and were into landscapes I'd definitely get a D800/E. Afaik, the D800 image wise, is better than the D3X in every way.

Unless you want the bigger body, longer lasting battery and extra frame a second, the D800 seems to be better in every other way.
 
I'm also in the exact same predicament however my decision is made worse as I shoot handheld street/action shots.

I was tempted by a D3x as I've seen a few with less than 7000 clicks for around £2500 from reputable shops however according to a lot of reviews its weak area is ISO performance even in comparison to D700.

If I were into landscapes/studio I'd unhesitantly get a D800/E as imo this is where that camera excels. It's also still cheaper than a second hand D3x so is a no brainer.
 
Thanks Guys, for some reason I'm still not convinced that the 800 series is as good as the D700 despite more Mp etc
 
nikonuser said:
Thanks Guys, for some reason I'm still not convinced that the 800 series is as good as the D700 despite more Mp etc
Click to expand...

That's because the D700 was so good. ;)

But the D800 has 3x as many pixels, I know, not always a good thing, but it is if you are doing large prints. And has seemed have increased the pixels while keeping the high ISO performance.

It is the dynamic range which D800 owners seem to talk about though, there is so much detail available in the shadows. And looking at the stats here seems to bare that out, 2.2 stops more dynamic range available in images. Surely that's what a landscape photographer wants. :shrug:

I think the D3X was more a studio camera, which is why the sacrificed high ISO performance for more pixels. The D800 is a better camera in every way that matters though, the image quality. :shrug:
 
nikonuser said:
Thanks Guys, for some reason I'm still not convinced that the 800 series is as good as the D700 despite more Mp etc
Click to expand...

In what way/area do you think the D700 is better?

The D800 has 100% viewfinder coverage, better DR, better colour depth, better performance at higher ISO levels, all-round better image quality, it's got a larger, and higher res LCD screen, 2 storage slots CF/SD, it has HD video ... and that's just what I can think of off top of my head.

Trust me, if the D700 was better, ignoring the mp count, I'd have 2 of them instead of the one D800 ;)

As for the D3X, I honestly think the only thing better about it is the build quality.
 
I dont think the D3X is that good, and see no reason to buy one. You can get a new D800 for less.

Agree with Keith that the D800 is better than the D700, with the exception of FPS. That said the D700 is a brilliant camera.
 
I have a D3X and a D800, the D3X is not great for low light, but the build quality is far better than my D800 and use for what it's good at landscape and studio work there is not a great deal of difference in output, IMO if you want low light get a D3s nothing better in the Nikon range including the D4, if working in the studio I think the D3x will last longer and uses less disk space than an 800 and if your a serious landscape shooter D3x or D800 but remember great landscape shots have been shot with cameras with a lot less pixels including a D3s, D700 or even D100.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top